Over 0–100 km/h, X4 M40d G02 wins (4,81 s vs 5,19 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.
| XM 50e G09 | X4 M40d G02 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 4,81 s+0,38 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 13,15 s+0,29 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s | 24,10 s+0,20 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h | 250 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,50 kg/hpbetter ratio | 5,94 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 | XM 50e G09 | X4 M40d G02 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,39 s | 1,19 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,33 s | 1,93 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,82 s | 3,42 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 4,81 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 6,88 s | 6,55 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 11,59 s | 11,38 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 18,84 s | 18,97 stight gap |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 13,15 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s | 24,10 s |
| Top speed limited | 250 km/h | 250 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 476 hp | 4 cyl |
| Torque | 700 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 620 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | Eight-speed M Steptronic transmission |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 340 hp | 6 cyl |
| Torque | 700 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 020 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed Steptronic |
Off the line, the X4 M40d hits 100 km/h in 4.81 s versus 5.19 s for the XM 50e. Despite lacking instant torque, 340 hp of power compensates. At this point, the X4 M40d leads by 0.38 s and sits roughly 8 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the X4 M40d is doing 138 km/h against 139 km/h for the XM 50e. The gap is 0.31 s. The gap remains stable from the start.
At 400 metres standing start, the X4 M40d crosses the line in 13.14 s versus 13.44 s. The 0.29 s gap represents roughly 14 m of track - two to three car lengths.
Past 400 metres, the gap narrows.
At 1,000 metres, the X4 M40d finishes in 24.09 s versus 24.30 s, with just 0.20 s to spare. The XM 50e fails to fully close the launch gap.
Both rivals share the same electronic speed cap: the XM 50e and the X4 M40d are governed to 250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) km/h. At that speed, standard-fit tyres approach their safety threshold - an industrial ceiling common to most electric vehicles in this segment. Neither car shows its true aerodynamic potential in this duel.
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 7.89 seconds. The 0.38 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, X4 M40d G02 wins (4,81 s vs 5,19 s).
XM 50e G09 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 5,19 seconds (calibrated simulation).
XM 50e G09: 476 hp, ratio 5,50 kg/hp. X4 M40d G02: 340 hp, ratio 5,94 kg/hp.
XM 50e G09: 250 km/h. X4 M40d G02: 250 km/h.