Sur 0–100 km/h, SQ2 gagne (4,94 s vs 8,35 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.
| SQ2 | CR-V | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 4,94 s−3,41 s | 8,35 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,47 s−2,79 s | 16,26 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,55 s−4,73 s | 29,28 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 257 km/h+52 km/h | 205 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,12 kg/hpbetter ratio | 8,52 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 | SQ2 | CR-V |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,24 s | 2,46 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,07 s | 3,62 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,54 s | 6,01 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 4,94 s | 8,35 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 7,19 s | 11,13 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 12,14 s | 20,41 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 19,93 s | 53,67 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,47 s | 16,26 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,55 s | 29,28 s |
| Top speed | 257 km/h | 205 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 300 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 400 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 535 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | 7-speed S tronic |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 193 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 240 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 645 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | CVT |
Off the line, the SQ2 hits 100 km/h in 4.94 s versus 8.35 s for the CR-V. At this point, the SQ2 leads by 3.41 s and sits roughly 32 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the SQ2 is doing 133 km/h against 118 km/h for the CR-V. The gap is 2.07 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the SQ2 crosses the line in 13.47 s versus 16.25 s. The 2.78 s gap represents roughly 107 m of track — a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the SQ2 continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 190 km/h versus 162 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the SQ2 finishes in 24.55 s versus 29.27 s, with a 4.73 s lead.
Electronically capped at 205 km/h, the CR-V never reaches its natural aerodynamic ceiling in this duel. That’s not a physical limit of the motor — it’s a deliberate manufacturer decision, typically tied to standard-fit tyre ratings or model-range positioning.
With two combustion powertrains, the difference comes down to power-to-weight ratio (5.12 kg/hp vs 8.52 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 12.97 seconds. The 3.41 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Swap one of the two models to explore an equivalent duel in the same segment.
Sur 0–100 km/h, SQ2 gagne (4,94 s vs 8,35 s).
SQ2 passe de 0 à 100 km/h en 4,94 secondes (simulation calibrée).
SQ2 : 300 hp, ratio 5,12 kg/hp. CR-V : 193 hp, ratio 8,52 kg/hp.
SQ2 : 257 km/h. CR-V : 205 km/h.