Over 0–100 km/h, XM 50e G09 wins (5,19 s vs 6,26 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 | 530e G60 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s−1,07 s | 6,26 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s−1,10 s | 14,54 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s−2,52 s | 26,82 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h+23 km/h | 227 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,50 kg/hpbetter ratio | 6,71 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 | 530e G60 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,39 s | 1,40 stight gap |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,33 s | 2,37 stight gap |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,82 s | 4,40 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 6,26 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 6,88 s | 8,69 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 11,59 s | 15,89 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 18,84 s | 30,66 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 14,54 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s | 26,82 s |
| Top speed limited | 250 km/h | 227 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 | 299 hp | 4 cyl |
| Torque | 450 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 005 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Propulsion | |
| Gearbox | Eight-speed Steptronic transmission |
Off the line, the Bmw XM 50e hits 100 km/h in 5.19 s versus 6.26 s for the Bmw 530e. At this point, the Bmw XM 50e leads by 1.07 s and sits roughly 5 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Bmw XM 50e is doing 139 km/h against 125 km/h for the Bmw 530e. The gap is 0.58 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 14.54 s. The 1.10 s gap represents roughly 46 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 172 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Bmw XM 50e finishes in 24.30 s versus 26.81 s, with a 2.52 s lead.
The Bmw XM 50e features all-wheel drive (AWD) against the Bmw 530e’s RWD. At low speeds (0-30, 0-50, 0-80 km/h), AWD doubles the driven contact area: all four wheels transmit torque to the road, virtually eliminating wheelspin at launch. This traction advantage is decisive in the range where the motor delivers peak torque, before power and aerodynamics take over.
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 530e at 230 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 6.71 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 10.14 seconds. The 1.07 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, XM 50e G09 wins (5,19 s vs 6,26 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. 530e G60: 299 hp, ratio 6,71 kg/hp.
XM 50e G09: 250 km/h. 530e G60: 227 km/h.