Over 0–100 km/h, XM 50e G09 and X5 M50d F15 are neck and neck (5,15 s vs 5,19 s, no significant gap).
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 | X5 M50d F15 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 5,15 s+0,04 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s−0,03 s | 13,47 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s−0,31 s | 24,61 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h | 250 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,50 kg/hpbetter ratio | 5,69 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 | X5 M50d F15 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,39 s | 1,33 stight gap |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,33 s | 2,15 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,82 s | 3,71 stight gap |
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 5,15 stight gap |
| 0–120 km/h | 6,88 s | 6,95 stight gap |
| 0–160 km/h | 11,59 s | 12,03 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 18,84 s | 20,34 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 13,47 stight gap |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s | 24,61 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 | 400 hp | 6 cyl |
| Torque | 760 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 275 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | Eight-speed Steptronic transmission |
Off the line, the Bmw X5 M50d hits 100 km/h in 5.15 s versus 5.19 s for the Bmw XM 50e. Despite lacking instant torque, 400 hp of power compensates. The 0.04 s gap is negligible: both vehicles are neck and neck.
At 200 metres, the Bmw X5 M50d is doing 136 km/h against 139 km/h for the Bmw XM 50e. The gap is 0.05 s. The gap remains stable from the start.
At 400 metres standing start, the Bmw XM 50e crosses the line in 13.44 s versus 13.47 s. The 0.03 s gap represents roughly 2 m of track
Past 400 metres, the Bmw XM 50e continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 193 km/h versus 189 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Bmw XM 50e finishes in 24.30 s versus 24.60 s, with a 0.30 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 Bmw XM 50e and the Bmw X5 M50d 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 8.07 seconds. The 0.04 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, XM 50e G09 and X5 M50d F15 are neck and neck (5,15 s vs 5,19 s, no significant gap).
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. X5 M50d F15: 400 hp, ratio 5,69 kg/hp.
XM 50e G09: 250 km/h. X5 M50d F15: 250 km/h.