Over 0–100 km/h, XM 50e G09 wins (5,19 s vs 9,16 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.
| XM 50e G09 | Q3 SUV | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s−3,97 s | 9,16 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s−3,49 s | 16,93 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s−6,55 s | 30,85 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h+41 km/h | 209 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,50 kg/hpbetter ratio | 10,40 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 | XM 50e G09 | Q3 SUV |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,39 s | 2,19 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,33 s | 3,65 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,82 s | 6,48 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 9,16 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 6,88 s | 13,38 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 11,59 s | 25,21 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 18,84 s | 54,13 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 16,93 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s | 30,85 s |
| Top speed limited | 250 km/h | 209 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 476 hp | 4 cyl |
| Torque | 700 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 620 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | Eight-speed M Steptronic transmission |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 150 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 250 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 560 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | 7-speed S tronic |
Off the line, the Bmw XM 50e hits 100 km/h in 5.19 s versus 9.16 s for the Q3 SUV. The instant torque of 700 Nm from the electric motor makes the difference. At this point, the Bmw XM 50e leads by 3.97 s and sits roughly 27 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Bmw XM 50e is doing 139 km/h against 111 km/h for the Q3 SUV. The gap is 2.21 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the Bmw XM 50e crosses the line in 13.44 s versus 16.93 s. The 3.49 s gap represents roughly 123 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the Bmw XM 50e continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 193 km/h versus 151 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Bmw XM 50e finishes in 24.30 s versus 30.84 s, with a 6.55 s lead.
The Bmw XM 50e features all-wheel drive (AWD) against the Q3 SUV’s FWD. At low speeds (0-30, 0-50, 0-80 km/h), AWD doubles the driven contact area: all four wheels transmit torque to the road, virtually eliminating wheelspin at launch. This traction advantage is decisive in the range where the motor delivers peak torque, before power and aerodynamics take over.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the Bmw XM 50e is capped at 250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) km/h, the Q3 SUV at 209 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 16.01 seconds. The 3.97 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, XM 50e G09 wins (5,19 s vs 9,16 s).
XM 50e G09 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 5,19 seconds (calibrated simulation).
XM 50e G09: 476 hp, ratio 5,50 kg/hp. Q3 SUV: 150 hp, ratio 10,40 kg/hp.
XM 50e G09: 250 km/h. Q3 SUV: 209 km/h.