Sur 0–100 km/h, X9 gagne (3,88 s vs 5,19 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 | XM 50e G09 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 3,88 s−1,31 s | 5,19 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,34 s−2,10 s | 13,44 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 22,14 s−2,16 s | 24,30 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 200 km/h | 250 km/h−50 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 4,84 kg/hpbetter ratio | 5,50 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 | X9 | XM 50e G09 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,15 s | 1,39 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 1,92 s | 2,33 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,09 s | 3,82 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 3,88 s | 5,19 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 4,68 s | 6,88 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 6,72 s | 11,59 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 9,78 s | 18,84 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,34 s | 13,44 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 22,14 s | 24,30 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 | 476 hp | 4 cyl |
| Torque | 700 Nm | |
| Weight | 2 620 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | Eight-speed M Steptronic transmission |
Off the line, the X9 hits 100 km/h in 3.88 s versus 5.19 s for the Bmw XM 50e. At this point, the X9 leads by 1.31 s and sits roughly 10 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the X9 is doing 173 km/h against 139 km/h for the Bmw XM 50e. The gap is 1.23 s. The gap remains stable from the start.
At 400 metres standing start, the X9 crosses the line in 11.34 s versus 13.44 s. The 2.10 s gap represents roughly 96 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the X9 continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 200 km/h versus 193 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the X9 finishes in 22.13 s versus 24.30 s, with a 2.16 s lead. Despite a higher top speed (250 (i.e. 155 mph - industry threshold) km/h), the Bmw XM 50e never recovers its launch deficit.
Both rivals are electronically governed, but not at the same level: the X9 is capped at 200 km/h, the Bmw XM 50e 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.
With two plug-in hybrid powertrains, the difference comes down to power-to-weight ratio (4.84 kg/hp vs 5.50 kg/hp) and transmission (Automatic vs Automatic).
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 7.89 seconds. The 1.31 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, X9 gagne (3,88 s vs 5,19 s).
X9 passe de 0 à 100 km/h en 3,88 secondes (simulation calibrée).
X9 : 543 hp, ratio 4,84 kg/hp. XM 50e G09 : 476 hp, ratio 5,50 kg/hp.
X9 : 200 km/h. XM 50e G09 : 250 km/h.