Infiniti Q50
Car comparison
Infiniti Q50 2.0vsMercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonMercedes-Benz C-class (W205)
C 250d
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.9 s
- Highest torque500 Nm369 lb-ft
- Lightest1,585 kg3,494 lb
- Lowest combined fuel consumption5.0 L/100 km47.0 mpg US56.5 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption6.1 L/100 km38.6 mpg US46.3 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption4.4 L/100 km53.5 mpg US64.2 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions134 g/km
- Best estimated range1,320 km820 mi
- Best overall score63/100
- Best performance score58/100
- Best economy score93/100
Infiniti Q50 2.0
- Fastest top speed245 km/h152 mph
- Most powerful211 hp157 kW
- Best power-to-weight130 hp/t97 kW/t7.7 kg/hp
- Largest trunk500 L
- Best practicality score75/100
Specification comparison
| Model | InfinitiQ502.0 | Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 211hp157kW | 204hp152kW |
| Torque | 350Nm258lb-ft | 500Nm369lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,617kg3,565lb | 1,585kg3,494lb |
| Gross weight | - | 2,225kg4,905lb |
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 240 km/h 149 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 68.5s99% target: 243 km/h / 151 mph Calculated | 65.5s99% target: 238 km/h / 148 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.2s | 6.9s |
| 0-200 km/h | 24.3s Calculated | 24.3s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.9s Calculated | 6.6s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.5L/100 km36.2mpg US43.5mpg UK | 5L/100 km47mpg US56.5mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 8.8L/100 km26.7mpg US32.1mpg UK | 6.1L/100 km38.6mpg US46.3mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.2L/100 km45.2mpg US54.3mpg UK | 4.4L/100 km53.5mpg US64.2mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.1s Calculated | 14.8s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 130hp/t97kW/t59hp/1000 lb Calculated | 129hp/t96kW/t58hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 216Nm/t145lb-ft/ton Calculated | 315Nm/t211lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 1,231km765mi Calculated | 1,320km820mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,991cc121cu in | 2,143cc131cu in |
| Length | 4,790mm189in | 4,686mm184in |
| Width | 1,820mm72in | 1,810mm71in |
| Height | 1,445mm57in | 1,442mm57in |
| Wheelbase | 2,850mm112in | 2,840mm112in |
| Front track | 1,545mm61in | 1,588mm63in |
| Rear track | 1,565mm62in | 1,570mm62in |
| Ground clearance | - | 92mm4in |
| Trunk volume | 500L | 480L |
| Doors | 4 | 4 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 80L | 66L |
| CO2 emissions | 151g/km | 134g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Infiniti Q50 2.0: Power / Torque
- Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 5,500 rpm | 1,250-3,500 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 3,800 rpm | 1,600-1,800 rpm | 4,050 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | InfinitiQ502.0 | Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.9 s | 6.6 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.2 s | 6.9 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 24.3 s | 24.3 s |
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 240 km/h 149 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.7 s | 2.6 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.8 s | 6.7 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.1 s | 9.9 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.8 s | 12.6 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.1 s | 14.8 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 161 km/h 100 mph | 162 km/h 100 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 211 hp 157 kW |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 204 hp 152 kW |
Infiniti Q50 2.0 has 7 hp more than Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d.
The biggest power difference is between Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d and Infiniti Q50 2.0: 7 hp (5 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 1,617 kg 3,565 lb |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 1,585 kg 3,494 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 245 km/h 152 mph |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 240 km/h 149 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 7.2 s |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 6.9 s |
Although Infiniti Q50 2.0 has more power, Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d and Infiniti Q50 2.0: 0.3 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 5.0 L/100 km 47.0 mpg US 56.5 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d and Infiniti Q50 2.0: 1.5 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 130 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 129 hp/t 96 kW/t 7.8 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 1,231 km 765 mi |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 1,320 km 820 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 211 hp 157 kW | 7.2 s | 245 km/h 152 mph |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 204 hp 152 kW | 6.9 s | 240 km/h 149 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 |
| 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK | ||||||
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d |
| 5.0 L/100 km 47.0 mpg US 56.5 mpg UK | ||||||
Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK | 7.2 s |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 5.0 L/100 km 47.0 mpg US 56.5 mpg UK | 6.9 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| InfinitiQ502.0 | 130 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp | 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK |
| Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | 129 hp/t 96 kW/t 7.8 kg/hp | 5.0 L/100 km 47.0 mpg US 56.5 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | InfinitiQ502.0 | Mercedes-BenzC-class (W205)C 250d | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 211 hp 157 kW | 204 hp 152 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 350 Nm 258 lb-ft | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.2 s | 6.9 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 240 km/h 149 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,617 kg 3,565 lb | 1,585 kg 3,494 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.5 L/100 km 36.2 mpg US 43.5 mpg UK | 5.0 L/100 km 47.0 mpg US 56.5 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 1,231 km 765 mi | 1,320 km 820 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 151 g/km | 134 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 500 L 17.7 cu ft | 480 L 17.0 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 130 hp/t 97 kW/t 7.7 kg/hp | 129 hp/t 96 kW/t 7.8 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Infiniti Q50 2.0 | Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.5 L/100 km36.2 mpg US43.5 mpg UK | 5 L/100 km47 mpg US56.5 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 11.38 LC100 km | 8.75 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 18.31 LC100 mi | 14.08 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 975 L258 US gal214 UK gal | 750 L198 US gal165 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,706 LC/year | 1,313 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Infiniti Q50 2.0
- Has 7 hp more
- Has 5 km/h (3 mph) higher top speed
- Has 2 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 20 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Highest CO2 emissions
Mercedes-Benz C-class (W205) C 250d
- Has 150 Nm more
- Is 32 kg lighter
- Is 0.3 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Uses 1.5 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 89 km (55 mi) more estimated range
- Emits 17 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























