Over 0–100 km/h, Clio 4 RS 200 wins (6,63 s vs 11,36 s).
Simulated drag race 0 → 1,000 m in real time. Synchronised speed counters and stopwatch. Physics calibration on 7 manufacturer measurements.
| Measure | Clio 4 RS 200 | Leaf 24kWh AZE0 | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 6.63 s | 11.36 s | 4.73 s · Clio 4 RS 200 |
| 400 m standing start | 14.74 s | 18.14 s | 3.40 s · Clio 4 RS 200 |
| 1,000 m standing start | 26.79 s | 33.56 s | 6.77 s · Clio 4 RS 200 |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 227 km/h | 145 km/h | 82 km/h · Clio 4 RS 200 |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 6.22 kg/hp | 13.95 kg/hp | better ratio · Clio 4 RS 200 |
Standing-start drag race, calibrated on manufacturer splits. The gap shows at each stage.
| Stage | Clio 4 RS 200 | Leaf 24kWh AZE0 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1.63 s | 2.49 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2.74 s | 4.16 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 4.66 s | 7.76 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 6.63 s | 11.36 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 8.72 s | 16.36 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 15.28 s | - |
| 0–200 km/h | 28.70 s | - |
| 400 m standing start | 14.74 s | 18.14 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 26.79 s | 33.56 s |
| Top speed | 227 km/h | 145 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 | 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 | 109 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 254 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 521 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | - | |
| Gearbox | single-speed reduction |
Off the line, the Clio 4 RS 200 hits 100 km/h in 6.63 s versus 11.36 s for the Leaf 24kWh AZE0. Despite lacking instant torque, 200 hp of power compensates. At this point, the Clio 4 RS 200 leads by 4.73 s and sits roughly 32 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Clio 4 RS 200 is doing 126 km/h against 102 km/h for the Leaf 24kWh AZE0. The gap is 2.19 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the Clio 4 RS 200 crosses the line in 14.74 s versus 18.13 s. The 3.39 s gap represents roughly 113 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the Clio 4 RS 200 continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 174 km/h versus 139 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Clio 4 RS 200 finishes in 26.78 s versus 33.56 s, with a 6.78 s lead.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the Clio 4 RS 200 is capped at 227 km/h, the Leaf 24kWh AZE0 at 145 km/h. This isn’t a physical engine limit - it’s a manufacturer choice, usually for tyre safety or homologation reasons. Neither car reaches its true aerodynamic top speed.
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 19.75 seconds. The 4.73 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, Clio 4 RS 200 wins (6,63 s vs 11,36 s).
Clio 4 RS 200 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 6,63 seconds (calibrated simulation).
Clio 4 RS 200: 200 hp, ratio 6,22 kg/hp. Leaf 24kWh AZE0: 109 hp, ratio 13,95 kg/hp.
Clio 4 RS 200: 227 km/h. Leaf 24kWh AZE0: 145 km/h.