Sur 0–100 km/h, M5 CS F90 gagne (3,03 s vs 8,23 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.
| M5 CS F90 | XC40 B4 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 3,03 s−5,20 s | 8,23 s |
| 400 m standing start | 10,82 s−5,29 s | 16,11 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 19,94 s−9,45 s | 29,39 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 295 km/h+115 km/h | 180 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 2,87 kg/hpbetter ratio | 8,17 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 | M5 CS F90 | XC40 B4 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 0,91 s | 1,98 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 1,51 s | 3,12 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 2,37 s | 5,74 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 3,03 s | 8,23 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 3,74 s | 11,35 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 6,21 s | 21,46 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 9,97 s | — |
| 400 m standing start | 10,82 s | 16,11 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 19,94 s | 29,39 s |
| Top speed | 295 km/h | 180 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 635 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 750 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 825 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed M Steptronic transmission with Drivelogic, transmission oil cooling |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 197 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 300 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 610 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed Geartronic |
Off the line, the Bmw M5 CS hits 100 km/h in 3.03 s versus 8.23 s for the XC40 B4. At this point, the Bmw M5 CS leads by 5.20 s and sits roughly 23 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Bmw M5 CS is doing 170 km/h against 115 km/h for the XC40 B4. The gap is 3.50 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the Bmw M5 CS crosses the line in 10.81 s versus 16.10 s. The 5.29 s gap represents roughly 191 m of track — a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the Bmw M5 CS continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 231 km/h versus 158 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Bmw M5 CS finishes in 19.94 s versus 29.39 s, with a 9.45 s lead.
The Bmw M5 CS features all-wheel drive (AWD) against the XC40 B4’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 M5 CS is capped at 305 km/h, the XC40 B4 at 180 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.
With two combustion powertrains, the difference comes down to power-to-weight ratio (2.87 kg/hp vs 8.17 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 13.40 seconds. The 5.20 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, M5 CS F90 gagne (3,03 s vs 8,23 s).
M5 CS F90 passe de 0 à 100 km/h en 3,03 secondes (simulation calibrée).
M5 CS F90 : 635 hp, ratio 2,87 kg/hp. XC40 B4 : 197 hp, ratio 8,17 kg/hp.
M5 CS F90 : 295 km/h. XC40 B4 : 180 km/h.