BMW XM vs Mercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e Performance: real-world fuel use
In real life the BMW XM uses 2.6 L/100 km less fuel than the Mercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e Performance — about £546 a year at 15,000 km and £1.40/L.
2,846 cars in the data
BMW XM6.9×the official figure
Official
1.7
Real world
11.5
0715 L/100 km
1,010 cars in the data
Mercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e Performance3.2×the official figure
Official
4.4
Real world
14.1
0715 L/100 km
| BMW XM | Mercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| Real fuel use (L/100 km) | 11.5 | 14.1 |
| Official fuel use (L/100 km) | 1.7 | 4.4 |
| Gap vs official | 6.9× | 3.2× |
| Distance with engine off | 33% | 12% |
| Real CO2 from fuel (g/km) | 266 | 326 |
| Official electric range (km) | 81 | 32 |
| Average kerb weight (kg) | 2,785 | 2,605 |
| Cars in the data | 2,846 | 1,010 |
Bold = better. Source: EEA OBFCM real-world data, reporting year 2024, CC BY 4.0.
Which one is cheaper to run?
On fuel alone, the BMW XM comes out ahead for the average owner. Your own result depends mostly on how often you charge. Owners drive the BMW XM 33% of the time with the engine off, and the Mercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e Performance 12%. Run the calculator with your own driving.
More comparisons
BMW M5 vs Mercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e PerformanceBMW XM 50e vs Mercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e PerformanceBMW XM Label vs Mercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e PerformanceBMW XM vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-HybridBMW XM vs Porsche Panamera Turbo S E-HybridMercedes-Benz AMG S 63 e Performance vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S E-Hybrid