Sur 0–100 km/h, XM 50e G09 gagne (5,19 s vs 7,46 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 | 320e G20 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s−2,27 s | 7,46 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s−2,00 s | 15,44 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s−4,47 s | 28,77 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h+35 km/h | 215 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,50 kg/hpbetter ratio | 8,65 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 | 320e G20 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,39 s | 1,31 stight gap |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,33 s | 2,37 stight gap |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,82 s | 4,96 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 7,46 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 6,88 s | 10,74 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 11,59 s | 20,97 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 18,84 s | 46,63 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 15,44 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s | 28,77 s |
| Top speed limited | 250 km/h | 215 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 | 204 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 350 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 765 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | - | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed Steptronic |
Off the line, the Bmw XM 50e hits 100 km/h in 5.19 s versus 7.46 s for the Bmw 320e. At this point, the Bmw XM 50e leads by 2.27 s and sits roughly 8 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Bmw XM 50e is doing 139 km/h against 115 km/h for the Bmw 320e. The gap is 1.03 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the Bmw XM 50e crosses the line in 13.44 s versus 15.43 s. The 2.00 s gap represents roughly 76 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the Bmw XM 50e continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 193 km/h versus 158 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Bmw XM 50e finishes in 24.30 s versus 28.77 s, with a 4.47 s lead.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the Bmw XM 50e is capped at 250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) km/h, the Bmw 320e at 220 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 plug-in hybrid powertrains, the difference comes down to power-to-weight ratio (5.50 kg/hp vs 8.65 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 12.74 seconds. The 2.27 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, XM 50e G09 gagne (5,19 s vs 7,46 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. 320e G20 : 204 hp, ratio 8,65 kg/hp.
XM 50e G09 : 250 km/h. 320e G20 : 215 km/h.