Over 0–100 km/h, Stelvio Quadrifoglio wins (3,83 s vs 7,45 s).
Performance comparison
Simulated drag race 0 → 1,000 m in real time. Synchronised speed counters and stopwatch. Physics calibration on 7 manufacturer measurements.
Simulation
Calibration
Physics model calibrated on manufacturer splits. The limited top speed is not the real aerodynamic top speed of the vehicles.
| Stelvio Quadrifoglio | MONA M03 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 3,83 s−3,62 s | 7,45 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,86 s−3,62 s | 15,48 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 21,59 s−5,92 s | 27,51 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 283 km/h+83 km/h | 200 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 3,59 kg/hpbetter ratio | 7,60 kg/hp |
Standing-start drag race, calibrated on manufacturer splits. The gap shows at each stage.
Simulated performance at each stage. Winner in green.
| Palier | Stelvio Quadrifoglio | MONA M03 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,03 s | 2,16 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 1,72 s | 3,61 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 2,92 s | 5,80 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 3,83 s | 7,45 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 5,03 s | 9,58 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 8,13 s | 16,40 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 12,83 s | 27,72 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,86 s | 15,48 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 21,59 s | 27,51 s |
| Top speed | 283 km/h | 200 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 510 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 600 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 830 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | - | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed automatic |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 208 hp | Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor |
| Torque | 240 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 581 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Propulsion | |
| Gearbox | Single-speed fixed gear |
Off the line, the Stelvio Quadrifoglio hits 100 km/h in 3.83 s versus 7.45 s for the MONA M03. Despite lacking instant torque, 510 hp of power compensates. At this point, the Stelvio Quadrifoglio leads by 3.62 s and sits roughly 28 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Stelvio Quadrifoglio is doing 156 km/h against 126 km/h for the MONA M03. The gap is 2.64 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the Stelvio Quadrifoglio crosses the line in 11.86 s versus 15.48 s. The 3.62 s gap represents roughly 147 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the Stelvio Quadrifoglio continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 216 km/h versus 174 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Stelvio Quadrifoglio finishes in 21.59 s versus 27.51 s, with a 5.92 s lead.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the Stelvio Quadrifoglio is capped at 283 km/h, the MONA M03 at 200 km/h. This isn’t a physical engine limit - it’s a manufacturer choice, usually for tyre safety or homologation reasons. Neither car reaches its true aerodynamic top speed.
Instant electric torque gives an advantage off the line. The higher top speed of the combustion engine gives an advantage over longer distances. The distance at which one catches the other depends on the top speed differential.
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 10.92 seconds. The 3.62 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, Stelvio Quadrifoglio wins (3,83 s vs 7,45 s).
Stelvio Quadrifoglio goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 3,83 seconds (calibrated simulation).
Stelvio Quadrifoglio: 510 hp, ratio 3,59 kg/hp. MONA M03: 208 hp, ratio 7,60 kg/hp.
Stelvio Quadrifoglio: 283 km/h. MONA M03: 200 km/h.