G06 · GENERATION 2021 · LARGE SUV
BMWICE

X6 M50i

530 hp, 4,3 s 0-100 : among the 19 E-SUV 2019–2023, the X6 M50i ranks 7th of 19 in 0–100 km/h, 10th of 19 in Top speed, 5th of 19 in Power-to-weight, behind the only Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.

Energy cost · estimate3,27215,000 km · UK mix · home 0,21 £/kWhConsumption →

Power

530hp

750 Nm

0 → 100 km/h

4.3s

VMax 250 km/h

Cons.

10.8L

/100 km

Tank

83L

Technical identity card

Full specifications BMW X6 M50i

Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.

Powertrain

Architecture8 cyl.
Displacement4,395 cm³
Power530 hp
Couple750 Nm
GearboxConvertisseur de couple 8 rapports Automatique
TransmissionIntegrale (AWD)

Consumption

Cons. WLTP10.8 L/100km
Tank83 L

Performance

0 → 100 km/h4,3 s
VMax250 km/h

Dimensions and environment

Length4,935 mm
Wheelbase2,975 mm
Width2,004 mm
Height1,696 mm
Boot580 L
Kerb weight2,240 kg
Cd0.34
CO₂ WLTP249 g/km

Caralogy Methodology

Performance (0-100, top speed) simulated by the Caralogy physics engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves). Motorway consumption values estimated from the manufacturer WLTP cycle.

See full methodology →

Manufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance

Among the 19 E-SUV, the X6 M50i ranks (top 7 in segment) in acceleration. Caralogy simulates its real-world performance: motorway simulation, performance simulation and consumption simulation.

Caralogy Analysis

Tailored to this vehicle?

Caralogy Verdict
Suitable for

Demanding drivers: 7th of 19 in 0–100 km/h (4.3 s), 5th of 19 in Power-to-weight (237 hp/t). 7th of 19 in 0–100 km/h (4.3 s), 5th of 19 in Power-to-weight (237 hp/t).

Less suitable for

Frequent urban trips with stop-and-go. At 10,8 L/100 km on the combined cycle, consumption rises in the city without electric assistance. An HEV or PHEV would be more economical for this use profile.

Alternatives to consider

If the priority is 0–100 km/h, the Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT (1st with 3.2 s) takes the lead. If the priority is Top speed, the Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT (1st with 299 km/h) takes the lead.

Acceleration: 4.3 s 0-100 (7th of 19 in 0–100 km/h)

In pure acceleration, the X6 M50i ranks 7th of 19 in 0–100 km/h, 1.1 s off the reference Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT (3.2 s).

Top speed: 250 km/h (10th of 19 in Top speed)

Top speed of 250 km/h. The segment reference reaches 299 km/h.

Segment positioning

Where the X6 M50i stands against E-SUV

Comparison across 19 E-SUV marketed between 2019–2023.

0–100 km/h7e / 19
4,3 s
Min 6,8 s · Ford Explorer EcoBoost 300Max 3,2 s · Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT
Top speed10e / 19
250 km/h
Min 220 km/h · Ford Explorer EcoBoost 300Max 299 km/h · Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT
Power-to-weight5e / 19
237 hp/t
Min 149 hp/t · Ford Explorer EcoBoost 300Max 282 hp/t · Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT

Direct rivals (same segment, same energy)

Cross-energy alternatives

Same needs, different powertrain.

Model family

The full BMW X6 G06 range

Generation G06 launched in 2020. Available versions sorted by energy.

Other versions of the G06

Compare

Popular duels involving the X6 M50i

Frequently asked questions

BMW X6 M50i: what you need to know

Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.

Among the 19 E-SUV 2019–2023, the X6 M50i ranks 7th of 19 in 0–100 km/h (4.3 s, behind the Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT), 10th of 19 in Top speed (250 km/h, behind the Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT), 5th of 19 in Power-to-weight (237 hp/t, behind the Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT).

Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.

The Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT leads in 0–100 km/h (3.2 s vs 4.3 s). The choice depends on your priorities: check the X6 M50i vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo GT duel for a detailed comparison.

Caralogy does not reproduce manufacturer figures: we recalculate every number through physics simulation, starting from SCx, mass and the power curve. This is why our figures at 130 km/h differ from WLTP. Full methodology on the dedicated page.