Sur 0–100 km/h, Q5 SUV gagne (5,00 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 | Q5 SUV | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 5,00 s+0,19 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 13,38 s+0,06 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s−0,25 s | 24,55 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h | 250 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,50 kg/hpbetter ratio | 5,91 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 | Q5 SUV |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,39 s | 1,19 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,33 s | 2,00 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,82 s | 3,57 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 5,00 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 6,88 s | 6,88 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 11,59 s | 12,14 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 18,84 s | 20,28 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 13,38 stight gap |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s | 24,55 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 | 367 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 500 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 170 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | 7-speed S tronic |
Off the line, the Q5 SUV hits 100 km/h in 5.00 s versus 5.19 s for the Bmw XM 50e. At this point, the Q5 SUV leads by 0.19 s and sits roughly 6 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Q5 SUV is doing 136 km/h against 139 km/h for the Bmw XM 50e. The gap is 0.17 s. The gap remains stable from the start.
At 400 metres standing start, the Q5 SUV crosses the line in 13.38 s versus 13.44 s. The 0.06 s gap represents roughly 3 m of track — barely a car length.
Past 400 metres, the situation changes. Past 400 metres, both rivals hit the same electronic ceiling at 250 (i.e. 155 mph — industry threshold) km/h. Neither can claw back ground through top speed — the outcome hinges on the acceleration curve between 100 and 250 (i.e. 155 mph — industry threshold) km/h.
At 1,000 metres, the Bmw XM 50e finishes in 24.30 s versus 24.54 s. The 0.25 s delta shows an extremely tight race.
Both rivals share the same electronic speed cap: the Bmw XM 50e and the Q5 SUV 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.
With two plug-in hybrid powertrains, the difference comes down to power-to-weight ratio (5.50 kg/hp vs 5.91 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 7.94 seconds. The 0.19 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, Q5 SUV gagne (5,00 s vs 5,19 s).
XM 50e G09 passe de 0 à 100 km/h en 5,19 secondes (simulation calibrée).
XM 50e G09 : 476 hp, ratio 5,50 kg/hp. Q5 SUV : 367 hp, ratio 5,91 kg/hp.
XM 50e G09 : 250 km/h. Q5 SUV : 250 km/h.