Over 0–100 km/h, John Cooper Works FWD wins (6,21 s vs 7,20 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.
| John Cooper Works FWD | Cooper E FWD | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 6,21 s−0,99 s | 7,20 s |
| 400 m standing start | 14,26 s−1,11 s | 15,37 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 25,30 s−3,63 s | 28,93 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 251 km/h+91 km/h | 160 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 5,09 kg/hpbetter ratio | 7,58 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 | John Cooper Works FWD | Cooper E FWD |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,85 s | 1,96 stight gap |
| 0–50 km/h | 3,09 s | 3,28 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 4,95 s | 5,36 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 6,21 s | 7,20 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 7,93 s | 9,63 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 12,59 s | 17,59 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 20,51 s | - |
| 400 m standing start | 14,26 s | 15,37 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 25,30 s | 28,93 s |
| Top speed | 251 km/h | 160 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 231 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 320 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 175 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed automatic |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 184 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 290 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 395 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | Single-speed fixed gear |
Off the line, the John Cooper Works FWD hits 100 km/h in 6.21 s versus 7.20 s for the Cooper E FWD. Despite lacking instant torque, 231 hp of power compensates. At this point, the John Cooper Works FWD leads by 0.99 s and sits roughly 6 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the John Cooper Works FWD is doing 137 km/h against 124 km/h for the Cooper E FWD. The gap is 0.56 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the John Cooper Works FWD crosses the line in 14.26 s versus 15.37 s. The 1.11 s gap represents roughly 46 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the John Cooper Works FWD continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 191 km/h versus 160 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the John Cooper Works FWD finishes in 25.29 s versus 28.93 s, with a 3.64 s lead.
Electronically capped at 160 km/h, the Cooper E FWD 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 11.15 seconds. The 0.99 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, John Cooper Works FWD wins (6,21 s vs 7,20 s).
John Cooper Works FWD goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 6,21 seconds (calibrated simulation).
John Cooper Works FWD: 231 hp, ratio 5,09 kg/hp. Cooper E FWD: 184 hp, ratio 7,58 kg/hp.
John Cooper Works FWD: 251 km/h. Cooper E FWD: 160 km/h.