Sur 0–100 km/h, iX M60 I20 gagne (3,71 s vs 6,71 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.
| iX M60 I20 | Explorer EcoBoost 300 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 3,71 s−3,00 s | 6,71 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,94 s−2,99 s | 14,93 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 21,85 s−5,25 s | 27,10 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h+30 km/h | 220 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 4,26 kg/hpbetter ratio | 6,70 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 | iX M60 I20 | Explorer EcoBoost 300 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 0,93 s | 1,82 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 1,54 s | 3,04 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 2,67 s | 4,96 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 3,71 s | 6,71 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 5,03 s | 8,99 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 8,60 s | 15,83 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 13,69 s | 30,71 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,94 s | 14,93 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 21,85 s | 27,10 s |
| Top speed limited | 250 km/h | 220 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 619 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 1100 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 640 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | Single-speed reduction gear |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 305 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 420 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 043 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | 10-speed torque-converter automatic |
Off the line, the iX M60 hits 100 km/h in 3.72 s versus 6.71 s for the Explorer EcoBoost 300. The instant torque of 1,100 Nm from the electric motor makes the difference. At this point, the iX M60 leads by 3.00 s and sits roughly 26 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the iX M60 is doing 151 km/h against 127 km/h for the Explorer EcoBoost 300. The gap is 2.14 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the iX M60 crosses the line in 11.94 s versus 14.92 s. The 2.98 s gap represents roughly 123 m of track — a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the iX M60 continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 212 km/h versus 173 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the iX M60 finishes in 21.84 s versus 27.09 s, with a 5.25 s lead.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the iX M60 is capped at 250 (i.e. 155 mph — industry threshold) km/h, the Explorer EcoBoost 300 at 220 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 10.35 seconds. The 3.00 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, iX M60 I20 gagne (3,71 s vs 6,71 s).
iX M60 I20 passe de 0 à 100 km/h en 3,71 secondes (simulation calibrée).
iX M60 I20 : 619 hp, ratio 4,26 kg/hp. Explorer EcoBoost 300 : 305 hp, ratio 6,70 kg/hp.
iX M60 I20 : 250 km/h. Explorer EcoBoost 300 : 220 km/h.