Over 0–100 km/h, X2 xDrive20i F39 wins (7,84 s vs 8,67 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.
| X2 xDrive20i F39 | CR-V | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 7,84 s−0,83 s | 8,67 s |
| 400 m standing start | 15,73 s−0,77 s | 16,50 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 28,75 s−1,03 s | 29,78 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 221 km/h+21 km/h | 200 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 8,02 kg/hpbetter ratio | 8,74 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 | X2 xDrive20i F39 | CR-V |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,66 s | 2,53 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,90 s | 3,73 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 5,48 s | 6,22 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 7,84 s | 8,67 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 10,89 s | 11,62 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 19,94 s | 21,69 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 40,05 s | 84,74 s |
| 400 m standing start | 15,73 s | 16,50 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 28,75 s | 29,78 s |
| Top speed | 221 km/h | 200 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 192 hp | 4 cyl |
| Torque | 280 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 540 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed Steptronic |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 190 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 240 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 660 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | CVT |
Off the line, the X2 xDrive20i hits 100 km/h in 7.84 s versus 8.67 s for the CR-V. At this point, the X2 xDrive20i leads by 0.83 s and sits roughly 19 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the X2 xDrive20i is doing 116 km/h against 116 km/h for the CR-V. The gap is 0.73 s. The gap remains stable from the start.
At 400 metres standing start, the X2 xDrive20i crosses the line in 15.73 s versus 16.50 s. The 0.77 s gap represents roughly 30 m of track - two to three car lengths.
Past 400 metres, the X2 xDrive20i continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 162 km/h versus 159 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the X2 xDrive20i finishes in 28.74 s versus 29.77 s, with a 1.03 s lead.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the X2 xDrive20i is capped at 224 km/h, the CR-V at 200 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 (8.02 kg/hp vs 8.74 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 13.59 seconds. The 0.83 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.
Over 0–100 km/h, X2 xDrive20i F39 wins (7,84 s vs 8,67 s).
X2 xDrive20i F39 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 7,84 seconds (calibrated simulation).
X2 xDrive20i F39: 192 hp, ratio 8,02 kg/hp. CR-V: 190 hp, ratio 8,74 kg/hp.
X2 xDrive20i F39: 221 km/h. CR-V: 200 km/h.