Sur 0–100 km/h, X2 xDrive20i F39 gagne (7,84 s vs 8,31 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.
| Terramar | X2 xDrive20i F39 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 8,31 s | 7,84 s+0,47 s |
| 400 m standing start | 16,25 s | 15,73 s+0,52 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 29,41 s | 28,75 s+0,66 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 214 km/h | 221 km/h−7 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 9,00 kg/hp | 8,02 kg/hpbetter ratio |
Standing-start drag race, calibrated on manufacturer splits. The gap shows at each stage.
Simulated performance at each stage. Winner in green.
| Palier | Terramar | X2 xDrive20i F39 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 2,27 s | 1,66 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 3,44 s | 2,90 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 6,00 s | 5,48 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 8,31 s | 7,84 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 11,46 s | 10,89 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 20,91 s | 19,94 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 45,12 s | 40,05 s |
| 400 m standing start | 16,25 s | 15,73 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 29,41 s | 28,75 s |
| Top speed | 214 km/h | 221 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 201 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 300 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 810 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | 7-speed DSG |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 192 hp | 4 cyl |
| Torque | 280 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 540 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | X2 xDrive20i | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed Steptronic |
Off the line, the Bmw X2 xDrive20i hits 100 km/h in 7.84 s versus 8.31 s for the Terramar. Despite lacking instant torque, 192 hp of power compensates. At this point, the Bmw X2 xDrive20i leads by 0.47 s and sits roughly 13 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Bmw X2 xDrive20i is doing 116 km/h against 116 km/h for the Terramar. The gap is 0.50 s. The gap remains stable from the start.
At 400 metres standing start, the Bmw X2 xDrive20i crosses the line in 15.73 s versus 16.25 s. The 0.52 s gap represents roughly 21 m of track — two to three car lengths.
Past 400 metres, the Bmw X2 xDrive20i continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 162 km/h versus 160 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Bmw X2 xDrive20i finishes in 28.74 s versus 29.41 s, with a 0.67 s lead. Both vehicles have similar top speeds (214 vs 221 km/h), preventing any comeback.
Electronically capped at 224 km/h, the Bmw X2 xDrive20i 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.
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 13.30 seconds. The 0.47 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, X2 xDrive20i F39 gagne (7,84 s vs 8,31 s).
Terramar passe de 0 à 100 km/h en 8,31 secondes (simulation calibrée).
Terramar : 201 hp, ratio 9,00 kg/hp. X2 xDrive20i F39 : 192 hp, ratio 8,02 kg/hp.
Terramar : 214 km/h. X2 xDrive20i F39 : 221 km/h.