Over 0–100 km/h, X9 wins (3,88 s vs 4,67 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.
| X9 | M240i F44 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 3,88 s−0,79 s | 4,67 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,34 s−1,44 s | 12,78 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 22,14 s−0,90 s | 23,04 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 200 km/h | 250 km/h−50 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 4,84 kg/hp | 4,49 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 | X9 | M240i F44 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,15 s | 1,33 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 1,92 s | 2,21 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,09 s | 3,53 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 3,88 s | 4,67 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 4,68 s | 6,03 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 6,72 s | 9,80 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 9,78 s | 15,53 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,34 s | 12,78 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 22,14 s | 23,04 s |
| Top speed limited | 200 km/h | 250 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 543 hp | Dual Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor AWD MPV |
| Torque | 717 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 630 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | Single-speed fixed gear |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 340 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 500 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 525 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | - | |
| Gearbox | 8-speed Steptronic Sport transmission |
Off the line, the X9 hits 100 km/h in 3.88 s versus 4.67 s for the Bmw M240i. The instant torque of 717 Nm from the electric motor makes the difference. At this point, the X9 leads by 0.79 s and sits roughly 7 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the X9 is doing 173 km/h against 147 km/h for the Bmw M240i. The gap is 0.85 s. The gap remains stable from the start.
At 400 metres standing start, the X9 crosses the line in 11.34 s versus 12.78 s. The 1.44 s gap represents roughly 71 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the gap narrows. The X9 maxes out at 200 km/h while the Bmw M240i keeps accelerating towards 250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) km/h. At 600 metres, the gap is down to 1.54 s from 1.44 s at 400 metres.
At 1,000 metres, the X9 finishes in 22.13 s versus 23.03 s, with just 0.90 s to spare. The Bmw M240i fails to fully close the launch gap.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the X9 is capped at 200 km/h, the Bmw M240i at 250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) 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 6.84 seconds. The 0.79 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, X9 wins (3,88 s vs 4,67 s).
X9 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 3,88 seconds (calibrated simulation).
X9: 543 hp, ratio 4,84 kg/hp. M240i F44: 340 hp, ratio 4,49 kg/hp.
X9: 200 km/h. M240i F44: 250 km/h.