Over 0–100 km/h, XM 50e G09 wins (5,19 s vs 8,36 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 | DS9 E-Tense 250 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s−3,17 s | 8,36 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s−2,78 s | 16,22 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s−4,27 s | 28,57 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h+15 km/h | 235 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,50 kg/hpbetter ratio | 7,51 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 | DS9 E-Tense 250 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,39 s | 2,40 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,33 s | 4,01 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,82 s | 6,47 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 8,36 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 6,88 s | 10,88 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 11,59 s | 18,12 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 18,84 s | 31,70 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 16,22 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s | 28,57 s |
| Top speed limited | 250 km/h | 235 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 | 253 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 520 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 900 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | - | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed automatic |
Off the line, the Bmw XM 50e hits 100 km/h in 5.19 s versus 8.36 s for the DS9 E-Tense 250. At this point, the Bmw XM 50e leads by 3.17 s and sits roughly 31 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Bmw XM 50e is doing 139 km/h against 121 km/h for the DS9 E-Tense 250. The gap is 2.14 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 16.22 s. The 2.78 s gap represents roughly 112 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 170 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Bmw XM 50e finishes in 24.30 s versus 28.57 s, with a 4.27 s lead.
Electronically capped at 250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) km/h, the Bmw XM 50e never reaches its natural aerodynamic ceiling in this duel. That’s not a physical limit of the motor - it’s a deliberate manufacturer decision, typically tied to standard-fit tyre ratings or model-range positioning.
With two plug-in hybrid powertrains, the difference comes down to power-to-weight ratio (5.50 kg/hp vs 7.51 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 12.32 seconds. The 3.17 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 8,36 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. DS9 E-Tense 250: 253 hp, ratio 7,51 kg/hp.
XM 50e G09: 250 km/h. DS9 E-Tense 250: 235 km/h.