Over 0–100 km/h, iX xDrive40 wins (6,04 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.
| iX xDrive40 | CR-V | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 6,04 s−2,31 s | 8,35 s |
| 400 m standing start | 14,37 s−1,89 s | 16,26 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 26,37 s−2,91 s | 29,28 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 200 km/h | 205 km/h−5 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 7,48 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 | iX xDrive40 | CR-V |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,42 s | 2,46 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,37 s | 3,62 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 4,25 s | 6,01 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 6,04 s | 8,35 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 8,34 s | 11,13 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 15,21 s | 20,41 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 26,44 s | 53,67 s |
| 400 m standing start | 14,37 s | 16,26 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 26,37 s | 29,28 s |
| Top speed | 200 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 | 326 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 630 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 440 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | Single-speed reduction gear |
| 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 iX xDrive40 hits 100 km/h in 6.04 s versus 8.35 s for the CR-V. The instant torque of 630 Nm from the electric motor makes the difference. At this point, the iX xDrive40 leads by 2.31 s and sits roughly 29 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the iX xDrive40 is doing 127 km/h against 118 km/h for the CR-V. The gap is 1.49 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the iX xDrive40 crosses the line in 14.36 s versus 16.25 s. The 1.89 s gap represents roughly 74 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the iX xDrive40 continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 175 km/h versus 162 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the iX xDrive40 finishes in 26.37 s versus 29.27 s, with a 2.91 s lead. Both vehicles have similar top speeds (200 vs 205 km/h), preventing any comeback.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the iX xDrive40 is capped at 200 km/h, the CR-V at 205 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 12.97 seconds. The 2.31 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, iX xDrive40 wins (6,04 s vs 8,35 s).
iX xDrive40 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 6,04 seconds (calibrated simulation).
iX xDrive40: 326 hp, ratio 7,48 kg/hp. CR-V: 193 hp, ratio 8,52 kg/hp.
iX xDrive40: 200 km/h. CR-V: 205 km/h.