Sur 0–100 km/h, Clio 4 RS 200 gagne (6,63 s vs 6,80 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.
| Clio 4 RS 200 | Cooper S FWD | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 6,63 s−0,17 s | 6,80 s |
| 400 m standing start | 14,74 s−0,13 s | 14,87 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 26,79 s | 26,40 s+0,39 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 227 km/h | 240 km/h−13 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 6,22 kg/hp | 5,78 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 | Clio 4 RS 200 | Cooper S FWD |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,63 s | 2,00 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,74 s | 3,33 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 4,66 s | 5,35 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 6,63 s | 6,80 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 8,72 s | 8,78 stight gap |
| 0–160 km/h | 15,28 s | 14,27 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 28,70 s | 24,25 s |
| 400 m standing start | 14,74 s | 14,87 stight gap |
| 1,000 m standing start | 26,79 s | 26,40 s |
| Top speed | 227 km/h | 240 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 200 hp | I4 |
| Torque | 240 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 245 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | EDC 6-speed (dual clutch) |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 192 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 280 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 110 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed automatic |
Off the line, the Clio 4 RS 200 hits 100 km/h in 6.63 s versus 6.80 s for the Cooper S FWD. At this point, the Clio 4 RS 200 leads by 0.17 s and sits roughly 12 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Clio 4 RS 200 is doing 126 km/h against 131 km/h for the Cooper S FWD. The gap is 0.34 s. The gap widens compared to the 0-100.
At 400 metres standing start, the Clio 4 RS 200 crosses the line in 14.74 s versus 14.86 s. The 0.13 s gap represents roughly 6 m of track — barely a car length.
Past 400 metres, the situation changes. The Clio 4 RS 200 maxes out at 227 km/h while the Cooper S FWD keeps accelerating towards 240 km/h. At 600 metres, the gap has dropped to 0.06 s.
Around 538 metres, both vehicles are level. This is the inversion point: the Cooper S FWD overcomes its launch deficit thanks to a 13 km/h higher top speed.
At 1,000 metres, the Cooper S FWD finishes in 26.40 s versus 26.78 s. The 0.39 s delta shows an extremely tight race.
Electronically capped at 227 km/h, the Clio 4 RS 200 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.
With two combustion powertrains, the difference comes down to power-to-weight ratio (6.23 kg/hp vs 5.78 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 10.26 seconds. The 0.17 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, Clio 4 RS 200 gagne (6,63 s vs 6,80 s).
Clio 4 RS 200 passe de 0 à 100 km/h en 6,63 secondes (simulation calibrée).
Clio 4 RS 200 : 200 hp, ratio 6,22 kg/hp. Cooper S FWD : 192 hp, ratio 5,78 kg/hp.
Clio 4 RS 200 : 227 km/h. Cooper S FWD : 240 km/h.