Over 0–100 km/h, ID.4 GTX wins (6,15 s vs 8,51 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.
| G9 | ID.4 GTX | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 8,51 s | 6,15 s+2,36 s |
| 400 m standing start | 16,32 s | 14,48 s+1,84 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 28,71 s | 26,84 s+1,87 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 200 km/h+20 km/h | 180 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 7,18 kg/hpbetter ratio | 7,33 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 | G9 | ID.4 GTX |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 2,41 s | 1,58 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 4,03 s | 2,63 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 6,49 s | 4,45 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 8,51 s | 6,15 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 11,09 s | 8,35 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 18,51 s | 15,21 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 31,05 s | - |
| 400 m standing start | 16,32 s | 14,48 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 28,71 s | 26,84 s |
| Top speed | 200 km/h | 180 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 308 hp | Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor |
| Torque | 430 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 210 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Propulsion | |
| Gearbox | Single-speed fixed gear |
| 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 |
Off the line, the ID.4 GTX hits 100 km/h in 6.15 s versus 8.51 s for the G9. At this point, the ID.4 GTX leads by 2.36 s and sits roughly 29 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the ID.4 GTX is doing 128 km/h against 120 km/h for the G9. The gap is 1.56 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 16.32 s. The 1.84 s gap represents roughly 74 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 169 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the ID.4 GTX finishes in 26.83 s versus 28.71 s, with a 1.88 s lead. Despite a higher top speed (200 km/h), the G9 never recovers its launch deficit.
The ID.4 GTX features all-wheel drive (AWD) against the G9’s RWD. At low speeds (0-30, 0-50, 0-80 km/h), AWD doubles the driven contact area: all four wheels transmit torque to the road, virtually eliminating wheelspin at launch. This traction advantage is decisive in the range where the motor delivers peak torque, before power and aerodynamics take over.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the G9 is capped at 200 km/h, the ID.4 GTX at 180 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 (7.18 kg/hp vs 7.33 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 12.63 seconds. The 2.36 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 8,51 s).
G9 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 8,51 seconds (calibrated simulation).
G9: 308 hp, ratio 7,18 kg/hp. ID.4 GTX: 299 hp, ratio 7,33 kg/hp.
G9: 200 km/h. ID.4 GTX: 180 km/h.