Over 0–100 km/h, ID.4 GTX wins (6,15 s vs 7,41 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.
| ID.4 GTX | Atto 3 Extended Range | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 6,15 s−1,26 s | 7,41 s |
| 400 m standing start | 14,48 s−1,09 s | 15,57 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 26,84 s−2,36 s | 29,20 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 180 km/h+20 km/h | 160 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 7,33 kg/hpbetter ratio | 8,58 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 | ID.4 GTX | Atto 3 Extended Range |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,58 s | 1,96 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,63 s | 3,27 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 4,45 s | 5,43 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 6,15 s | 7,41 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 8,35 s | 10,03 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 15,21 s | 19,03 s |
| 400 m standing start | 14,48 s | 15,57 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 26,84 s | 29,20 s |
| Top speed | 180 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 | 299 hp | Dual Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor |
| Torque | 460 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 193 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | Single-speed fixed gear |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 204 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 310 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 750 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | - | |
| Gearbox | single-speed reduction |
Off the line, the ID.4 GTX hits 100 km/h in 6.15 s versus 7.41 s for the Atto 3 Extended Range. At this point, the ID.4 GTX leads by 1.26 s and sits roughly 15 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the ID.4 GTX is doing 128 km/h against 121 km/h for the Atto 3 Extended Range. The gap is 0.80 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the ID.4 GTX crosses the line in 14.48 s versus 15.57 s. The 1.09 s gap represents roughly 44 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the ID.4 GTX continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 175 km/h versus 160 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the ID.4 GTX finishes in 26.83 s versus 29.19 s, with a 2.36 s lead.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the ID.4 GTX is capped at 180 km/h, the Atto 3 Extended Range at 160 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.
With two electric powertrains, the difference comes down to power-to-weight ratio (7.33 kg/hp vs 8.58 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 11.71 seconds. The 1.26 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, ID.4 GTX wins (6,15 s vs 7,41 s).
ID.4 GTX goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 6,15 seconds (calibrated simulation).
ID.4 GTX: 299 hp, ratio 7,33 kg/hp. Atto 3 Extended Range: 204 hp, ratio 8,58 kg/hp.
ID.4 GTX: 180 km/h. Atto 3 Extended Range: 160 km/h.