Over 0–100 km/h, XM 50e G09 wins (5,19 s vs 6,30 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 | EQS 450 V297 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s−1,11 s | 6,30 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s−1,12 s | 14,56 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s−2,08 s | 26,38 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 250 km/h+40 km/h | 210 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,50 kg/hpbetter ratio | 7,45 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 | EQS 450 V297 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,39 s | 1,62 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,33 s | 2,71 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,82 s | 4,57 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 5,19 s | 6,30 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 6,88 s | 8,51 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 11,59 s | 15,04 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 18,84 s | 25,02 s |
| 400 m standing start | 13,44 s | 14,56 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 24,30 s | 26,38 s |
| Top speed limited | 250 km/h | 210 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 | 333 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 568 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 480 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | - | |
| Gearbox | Single-speed fixed gear |
Off the line, the XM 50e hits 100 km/h in 5.19 s versus 6.30 s for the EQS 450. At this point, the XM 50e leads by 1.11 s and sits roughly 10 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the XM 50e is doing 139 km/h against 128 km/h for the EQS 450. The gap is 0.71 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the XM 50e crosses the line in 13.44 s versus 14.56 s. The 1.12 s gap represents roughly 48 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the XM 50e continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 193 km/h versus 177 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the XM 50e finishes in 24.30 s versus 26.37 s, with a 2.08 s lead.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the XM 50e is capped at 250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) km/h, the EQS 450 at 210 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 7.45 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 9.86 seconds. The 1.11 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, XM 50e G09 wins (5,19 s vs 6,30 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. EQS 450 V297: 333 hp, ratio 7,45 kg/hp.
XM 50e G09: 250 km/h. EQS 450 V297: 210 km/h.