Over 0–100 km/h, Terramar and XC40 B4 are neck and neck (8,23 s vs 8,31 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.
| Terramar | XC40 B4 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 8,31 s | 8,23 s+0,08 s |
| 400 m standing start | 16,25 s | 16,11 s+0,14 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 29,41 s | 29,39 s+0,02 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 214 km/h+34 km/h | 180 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 9,00 kg/hp | 8,17 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 | XC40 B4 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 2,27 s | 1,98 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 3,44 s | 3,12 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 6,00 s | 5,74 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 8,31 s | 8,23 stight gap |
| 0–120 km/h | 11,46 s | 11,35 stight gap |
| 0–160 km/h | 20,91 s | 21,46 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 45,12 s | - |
| 400 m standing start | 16,25 s | 16,11 stight gap |
| 1,000 m standing start | 29,41 s | 29,39 stight gap |
| Top speed | 214 km/h | 180 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 | 197 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 300 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 610 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed Geartronic |
Off the line, the XC40 B4 hits 100 km/h in 8.23 s versus 8.31 s for the Terramar. Despite lacking instant torque, 197 hp of power compensates. The 0.08 s gap is negligible: both vehicles are neck and neck.
At 200 metres, the XC40 B4 is doing 115 km/h against 116 km/h for the Terramar. The gap is 0.19 s. The gap widens compared to the 0-100.
At 400 metres standing start, the XC40 B4 crosses the line in 16.10 s versus 16.25 s. The 0.15 s gap represents roughly 6 m of track - barely a car length.
Past 400 metres, the gap narrows. The XC40 B4 maxes out at 180 km/h while the Terramar keeps accelerating towards 214 km/h. At 600 metres, the gap has dropped to 0.10 s.
At 1,000 metres, the XC40 B4 finishes in 29.39 s versus 29.41 s, with just 0.02 s to spare. The Terramar fails to fully close the launch gap.
Electronically capped at 180 km/h, the XC40 B4 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 13.40 seconds. The 0.08 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, Terramar and XC40 B4 are neck and neck (8,23 s vs 8,31 s, no significant gap).
Terramar goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 8,31 seconds (calibrated simulation).
Terramar: 201 hp, ratio 9,00 kg/hp. XC40 B4: 197 hp, ratio 8,17 kg/hp.
Terramar: 214 km/h. XC40 B4: 180 km/h.