Over 0–100 km/h, Spring Electric 65 wins (13,48 s vs 14,94 s).
Simulated drag race 0 → 1,000 m in real time. Synchronised speed counters and stopwatch. Physics calibration on 7 manufacturer measurements.
| Measure | 500 1.2 8v 69 | Spring Electric 65 | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 14.94 s | 13.48 s | 1.46 s · Spring Electric 65 |
| 400 m standing start | 20.44 s | 19.46 s | 0.98 s · Spring Electric 65 |
| 1,000 m standing start | 36.56 s | 36.80 s | 0.24 s · 500 1.2 8v 69 |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 169 km/h | 125 km/h | 44 km/h · 500 1.2 8v 69 |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 15.14 kg/hp | 15.14 kg/hp | better ratio · Spring Electric 65 |
Standing-start drag race, calibrated on manufacturer splits. The gap shows at each stage.
| Stage | 500 1.2 8v 69 | Spring Electric 65 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 3.94 s | 3.12 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 5.88 s | 5.23 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 10.52 s | 9.27 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 14.94 s | 13.48 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 21.46 s | 19.85 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 55.02 s | - |
| 400 m standing start | 20.44 s | 19.46 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 36.56 s | 36.80 s |
| Top speed | 169 km/h | 125 km/h |
Physics model calibrated on manufacturer splits. The limited top speed is not the real aerodynamic top speed of the vehicles.
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 69 hp | 4 cyl |
| Torque | 102 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 045 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | - | |
| Gearbox | 5-speed manual |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 65 hp | Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor 48 kW |
| Torque | 113 Nm | |
| Weight | 984 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | Single-speed fixed gear |
Off the line, the Spring Electric 65 hits 100 km/h in 13.48 s versus 14.94 s for the 500 1.2 8v 69. The instant torque of 113 Nm from the electric motor makes the difference. At this point, the Spring Electric 65 leads by 1.46 s and sits roughly 23 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Spring Electric 65 is doing 97 km/h against 95 km/h for the 500 1.2 8v 69. The gap is 0.84 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the Spring Electric 65 crosses the line in 19.46 s versus 20.44 s. The 0.98 s gap represents roughly 32 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the situation changes. The Spring Electric 65 maxes out at 125 km/h while the 500 1.2 8v 69 keeps accelerating towards 169 km/h. At 600 metres, the gap has dropped to 0.95 s.
Around 943 metres, both vehicles are level. This is the inversion point: the 500 1.2 8v 69 overcomes its launch deficit thanks to a 44 km/h higher top speed.
At 1,000 metres, the 500 1.2 8v 69 finishes in 36.56 s versus 36.79 s. The 0.24 s delta shows an extremely tight race.
Electronically capped at 125 km/h, the Spring Electric 65 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.
Over 0–100 km/h, Spring Electric 65 wins (13,48 s vs 14,94 s).
500 1.2 8v 69 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 14,94 seconds (calibrated simulation).
500 1.2 8v 69: 69 hp, ratio 15,14 kg/hp. Spring Electric 65: 65 hp, ratio 15,14 kg/hp.
500 1.2 8v 69: 169 km/h. Spring Electric 65: 125 km/h.