Over 0–100 km/h, X9 wins (3,88 s vs 4,96 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 | Cayman S (Manual) 987 | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 3,88 s−1,08 s | 4,96 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,34 s−1,57 s | 12,91 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 22,14 s−0,81 s | 22,95 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 200 km/h | 286 km/h−86 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 4,84 kg/hp | 4,22 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 | Cayman S (Manual) 987 |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,15 s | 1,35 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 1,92 s | 2,25 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 3,09 s | 3,92 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 3,88 s | 4,96 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 4,68 s | 6,41 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 6,72 s | 9,69 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 9,78 s | 14,82 s |
| 400 m standing start | 11,34 s | 12,91 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 22,14 s | 22,95 s |
| Top speed | 200 km/h | 286 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 | 320 hp | 6 cyl |
| Torque | 370 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 350 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Propulsion | |
| Gearbox | MANUAL |
Off the line, the X9 hits 100 km/h in 3.88 s versus 4.97 s for the Cayman S (Manual). The instant torque of 717 Nm from the electric motor makes the difference. At this point, the X9 leads by 1.09 s and sits roughly 9 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the X9 is doing 173 km/h against 148 km/h for the Cayman S (Manual). The gap is 1.02 s. The gap remains stable from the start.
At 400 metres standing start, the X9 crosses the line in 11.34 s versus 12.90 s. The 1.57 s gap represents roughly 78 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 Cayman S (Manual) keeps accelerating towards 286 km/h. At 600 metres, the gap has dropped to 1.60 s.
At 1,000 metres, the X9 finishes in 22.13 s versus 22.95 s, with just 0.81 s to spare. The Cayman S (Manual) fails to fully close the launch gap.
The X9 features all-wheel drive (AWD) against the Cayman S (Manual)’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.
Electronically capped at 200 km/h, the X9 never reaches its natural aerodynamic ceiling in this duel. That’s not a physical limit of the motor - it’s a deliberate manufacturer decision, typically tied to standard-fit tyre ratings or model-range positioning.
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 7.17 seconds. The 1.09 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 4,96 s).
X9 goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 3,88 seconds (calibrated simulation).
X9: 543 hp, ratio 4,84 kg/hp. Cayman S (Manual) 987: 320 hp, ratio 4,22 kg/hp.
X9: 200 km/h. Cayman S (Manual) 987: 286 km/h.