Over 0–100 km/h, X5 M50i G05 wins (4,34 s vs 5,19 s).
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.
| X5 M50i G05 | XM 50e G09 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 4,34 s−0,85 s | 5,19 s |
| 400 m standing start | 12,43 s−1,01 s | 13,44 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 22,51 s−1,79 s | 24,30 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h | 250 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 4,25 kg/hpbetter ratio | 5,50 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 | X5 M50i G05 | XM 50e G09 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,23 s | 1,39 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,03 s | 2,33 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,29 s | 3,82 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 4,34 s | 5,19 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 5,63 s | 6,88 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 9,15 s | 11,59 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 14,54 s | 18,84 s |
| 400 m standing start | 12,43 s | 13,44 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 22,51 s | 24,30 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 | 530 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 750 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 250 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | - | |
| Gearbox | Eight-speed Steptronic transmission |
| 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 |
Off the line, the X5 M50i hits 100 km/h in 4.34 s versus 5.19 s for the XM 50e. Despite lacking instant torque, 530 hp of power compensates. At this point, the X5 M50i leads by 0.85 s and sits roughly 8 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the X5 M50i is doing 150 km/h against 139 km/h for the XM 50e. The gap is 0.64 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the X5 M50i crosses the line in 12.43 s versus 13.44 s. The 1.01 s gap represents roughly 47 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the X5 M50i continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 209 km/h versus 193 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the X5 M50i finishes in 22.50 s versus 24.30 s, with a 1.80 s lead. Both vehicles have similar top speeds (250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) vs 250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) km/h), preventing any comeback.
Both rivals share the same electronic speed cap: the X5 M50i and the XM 50e 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 0.85 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, X5 M50i G05 wins (4,34 s vs 5,19 s).
X5 M50i G05 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 4,34 seconds (calibrated simulation).
X5 M50i G05: 530 hp, ratio 4,25 kg/hp. XM 50e G09: 476 hp, ratio 5,50 kg/hp.
X5 M50i G05: 250 km/h. XM 50e G09: 250 km/h.