0-60 times

[OUTRNNR]

My experience is following (I have V6 with K&N HPI):
1. FX35 of my boss (he is damm speed driver) - I got him for 1/2 vehicle.
2. BMW M3 (~2002) - he got me for 1/2 car length
3. Saab 9-5 Turbo (I think he had 3.0V6) - equal
4. Honda S2000 - he got me for 1 car length
RESULT - Very impressive for the truck with V6.
I'm happy, because no one of those opponents can get through 3' deep mud hole.

Now we got some players...

Nice work on the M3 and the Saab. Those are fast cars.

 

[BROOKLYN]

this is why i choose the runner v8
the main reason i brought this truck is that the truck sounded like an untammed animal off the line no other truck in its class did this i love massive off the line power
i was gonna get the sequoia and test drove the v6 runner and then the v8 runner and i knew then that the runner was coming home to me.
fast acceleration is a good thing

 

[Jeff Kleb]

4Runner Acceleration


I have an '05 4Runner with the V-6, and it certainly is no slouch regarding acceleration. I have never driven a V-8 4Runner, but it must really rock! My Toyota never has any trouble keeping up with or out-pacing the flow of traffic -- even on the Interstate.

Interesting to hear people compare the 4Runner to trucks such as Ford's Powerstroke (engine actually made by Navistar) and Dodge's Cummins diesels. Talk about apples and oranges! By keeping up with that kind of company, it is a testament to the mettle of the 4Runner.

Sure, a V8 4Runner could match wits at the dragstrip....but you can't beat one of those high-torque diesels for maximum pulling power at very low RPMs. The fuel economy advantage to a compression engine versus a spark engine is amazing! One of those 2-ton pickups might get 8 to 10 mpg with a big-block gasoline engine, but the diesel powerplant might get 14 to 16 with a similar-displacement block. (For those who do a lot of driving, the diesel engine will typically outlast a gas job -- and will need less maintenance.)

I drive an International diesel every day at work (with a huge DT466 engine - an inline six) and they are noisy and slow.......but very, very powerful. I think my truck has about 230 horsepower, although close to 600 lbs/ft of torque at about 1700 or 1800 RPMs. With a seven-speed manual tranny, it will really pull a heavy load with relative ease.

There is nothing like hitting your peak torque at about 1700 RPMs.
:awais:

 

[Hank]

C&D clocked the '05 VVTi V8 4wd SE 0-60 time & 1/4mi at 7.2s & 15.9s, respectively. I wonder how much time the 2wd VVTi V8 can shave off. The new '06 V6 RAV4 hits 60mph in just 6.9s!!! I don't recall what the 1/4mi time was, but I think it was under 15.8s. Now that is damn fast.

 

[RickyCRX]

My experience is following (I have V6 with K&N HPI):
1. FX35 of my boss (he is damm speed driver) - I got him for 1/2 vehicle.
2. BMW M3 (~2002) - he got me for 1/2 car length
3. Saab 9-5 Turbo (I think he had 3.0V6) - equal
4. Honda S2000 - he got me for 1 car length
RESULT - Very impressive for the truck with V6.
I'm happy, because no one of those opponents can get through 3' deep mud hole.

While the 4Runner is decently quick for what it is, there is NO way you were within 1 carlength of an S2000 or an M3. They probably weren't even racing you and didn't want to waste the fuel trying. Being the owner of an '03 V8 4Runner (2WD, so it's the lighter of the V8's) AND the owner of an '02 S2000, I can say that the S2000 will EASILY smoke the 4Runner. The 4Runner might get the S2k off the line from the torque, but as soon as the S2k hits 20+mph, it'd be all over.

The M3 is a much faster car than the S2000, so no need to reinforce that one.

Ricky

 

[Koz]

While the 4Runner is decently quick for what it is, there is NO way you were within 1 carlength of an S2000 or an M3. They probably weren't even racing you and didn't want to waste the fuel trying. Being the owner of an '03 V8 4Runner (2WD, so it's the lighter of the V8's) AND the owner of an '02 S2000, I can say that the S2000 will EASILY smoke the 4Runner. The 4Runner might get the S2k off the line from the torque, but as soon as the S2k hits 20+mph, it'd be all over.

The M3 is a much faster car than the S2000, so no need to reinforce that one.

Ricky

:iagree:

Koz

 

[OUTRNNR]

Re: 4Runner Acceleration

I have an '05 4Runner with the V-6, and it certainly is no slouch regarding acceleration. I have never driven a V-8 4Runner, but it must really rock! My Toyota never has any trouble keeping up with or out-pacing the flow of traffic -- even on the Interstate.

Interesting to hear people compare the 4Runner to trucks such as Ford's Powerstroke (engine actually made by Navistar) and Dodge's Cummins diesels. Talk about apples and oranges! By keeping up with that kind of company, it is a testament to the mettle of the 4Runner.

Sure, a V8 4Runner could match wits at the dragstrip....but you can't beat one of those high-torque diesels for maximum pulling power at very low RPMs. The fuel economy advantage to a compression engine versus a spark engine is amazing! One of those 2-ton pickups might get 8 to 10 mpg with a big-block gasoline engine, but the diesel powerplant might get 14 to 16 with a similar-displacement block. (For those who do a lot of driving, the diesel engine will typically outlast a gas job -- and will need less maintenance.)

I drive an International diesel every day at work (with a huge DT466 engine - an inline six) and they are noisy and slow.......but very, very powerful. I think my truck has about 230 horsepower, although close to 600 lbs/ft of torque at about 1700 or 1800 RPMs. With a seven-speed manual tranny, it will really pull a heavy load with relative ease.

There is nothing like hitting your peak torque at about 1700 RPMs.
:awais:

I completely agree. Diesel engines are much more efficient and durable than a gasoline engine. They get 15-17 mpg in their rigs on the highway, and I'm not even going to compare to the towing advantages of a diesel. This is just flat out how fast can your car, truck, SUV, or flying saucer accelerate to 60 mph. Having the amount of power and torque that those diesels do makes them inherently fast. And I wholly agree that if you take that 6.0L Powerstroke and shoehorn it in the 4Runner engine bay it would be much faster, more efficient, and more powerful than the 4.7 V8 (See VW Touraeg V10 TD).

I wish they offered the 3.0L Turbo Diesel here in the US. I really would've taken a long look at it given all the advantages of a diesel. Once the US starts importing cleaner diesel (or more preferably start making some of our own), this up and coming diesel technology that exists abroad will make it to the US. We will start seeing more and more diesel engines in different types of cars because they burn cleaner and are more fuel efficient than gasoline engines with comparable power.

 

[AlexJet]

While the 4Runner is decently quick for what it is, there is NO way you were within 1 carlength of an S2000 or an M3. They probably weren't even racing you and didn't want to waste the fuel trying. Being the owner of an '03 V8 4Runner (2WD, so it's the lighter of the V8's) AND the owner of an '02 S2000, I can say that the S2000 will EASILY smoke the 4Runner. The 4Runner might get the S2k off the line from the torque, but as soon as the S2k hits 20+mph, it'd be all over.

The M3 is a much faster car than the S2000, so no need to reinforce that one.

Ricky

I did it in a Shanonville Race Track. The track is about 2 miles and we did ~20 laps. Both, M3 and S200 were finished when I had ~1 mile to go (1/2 track distance). I have '05 V6 with K&N HPI. So they were a little bit faster in straight lines, but they didn't have too much space to go ahead of me there (the longest straight line is 3/8 mile), but they were faster in corners so the only way to pass me was breaking before the turn from that long straight line. I need to break earlier to slow down; SUV on the corners is not as fast as sport sedan. The point is most guys there were very impressed of 4Runner performance, nobody was expecting it. The only point I didn't like of this challenge is that I did burn edges on my Dunlops (they were looked like slicks on the edges and blown out in the middle), so after few off-road trips I had to replaced them with new Revos.

 

[RickyCRX]

You failed to take one important variable out of that equation: the driver.

You don't know what level of experience those drivers had. If you take the same driver and put him in each vehicle, you'll find that the 4Runner will be a *lot* slower after 20 laps. There's ABSOLUTELY no way that you could have come close to keeping up with an E46M3 on any road course. The S2000 wouldn't have been far behind the M3 (or may have been ahead of it if it was a tighter course).

There's just certain physics involved that you can't get away from. ~240hp in a 4100-4400lb SUV vs. 240hp in a 2750lb car; you do the math.

Ricky

 

[olliebear]

While I don't think much about 0-60 times for an SUV,

I find it interesting as a reflection of how efficient the 4Runner is compared to other SUVs. I drive pretty conservatively and don't really mash the pedal much at all. However, I'm still surprised at the pick up and go the V8 has from 2700-3500 RPM. The Butt-Test shows that some moderate mashing drives the butt into the seat starting at 2600 RPMs as I whoosh by some surprised faces.

I have to drive up into the foothills to work and have to make some fast passes to get around big rigs. The 4Runner has not failed to clean some clocks whne I need to.

on those times, the test is not the 0-60, but a 30-90 mph test of how well it can rev up to generate passing times.

Remember also that hp is a dimishing return as you will need more and more power just to get smaller and smaller increases in 0-60 times.

It's just nice to have a 4,400 pound vehicle do 80 mph across Nevada without breathing hard or passing some bloated Caddy Escalada Pimpmobile with a friendly wave :flipoff:

 

[Jeff Kleb]

Re: While I don't think much about 0-60 times for an SUV,

It's just nice to have a 4,400 pound vehicle do 80 mph across Nevada without breathing hard or passing some bloated Caddy Escalada Pimpmobile with a friendly wave :flipoff:

Now that's a funny visual......Don't care who you are!
:awais:

 

[Bobby]

Too all the Speed Racers in this thread:

Go find yourself a race with a new Jeep Grand Cherokee Hemi and let me know the end result:bash: :arrow:

Koz has a buddy that has (had?) one. I test drove one too and it is quicker than the 4runner but ask how it does off-road...

 

[Jeff Kleb]

To all the Speed Racers in this thread:

Go find yourself a race with a new Jeep Grand Cherokee Hemi and let me know the end result:bash: :arrow:

Yeah, that Hemi SRT Grand Cherokee is one bad-assed ride. Zero to sixty in 4.9 seconds! Kind of reminds me of the brutish Cyclone that GMC sold (basically a very hi-po S-10 Blazer) almost fifteen years ago.

Anyway, were I inclined to buy a maximum-throttle vehicle, an SUV probably would not be on the list. I'd go for a Mustang GT, Corvette, GTO or maybe even one of those zippy Japanese or German asphalt-burners.

For my intent and purposes, my leased '05 4Runner is just fine - for now. I also would not want to take such a huge hit on depreciation/resale value......as it would have affected my lease payment in a negative manner.

 

[Bobby]

Are they really "Trail Rated"?

We were joking with him about his Jeep being "Trailer Rated"

 

[bulldog-yota]

In 2003 MT tested a bunch of SUVs.
0-60 1/4
GX470 8.3 16.2 @ 84.4
V8 4R 7.8 15.9 @ 85.6
Lincoin Aviator (300hp engine) 8.1 [email protected]

At that time few SUVs could touch the 4R or GX in their classes, the V8 was pretty good of the line, but as you can see against the 300HP (32V) Lincoln Aviator (fancy explorer) it lost some steam above 80 MPH. The V6 was never really tested, but it was handicapped with the 4 spd auto which holds it back of the line and on some passing situations however it wont be too far off on an apples to apples situation.


In 2005 C&D tested a bunch of SUVs again (our favorite comp test).

V8 4R 7.2 15.7@88
Jeep Hemi 6.8 15.3@90
Pathy (V6) 7.5 15.9@87
Explorer (old V8) 8.2 16.4@83

The 4R 1/4 is disappointing iven the 60 time and you would expect a better 1/4 fromt the VVTi V8. The Jeep bets it but not as much as you would think from the spec sheet, the pathfinder is pretty close to the 4R so the 270 HP claim is not far off. The old explorer can't keep up, but I expect the new one with 300HP will be in the same ballpark. So it looks that the comp has caught on and the 4R is midpack in perf and no longer the leader in its category. I am still wondering about the health of the V8 they tested as the 05 GX I have is a lot more lively than my 03 4R.

To be honest though any SUV that beat 8 sec in 60 and 16 sec on a 1/4 is damn fast. I never really feel the need for more power, apart from when the 4R is heavily loaded and climbing steep long dunes or when it is loaded and doing high speed passing on steep mountain roads.

 

[Northof49]

I am still wondering about the health of the V8 they tested as the 05 GX I have is a lot more lively than my 03 4R.

Another consideration; it seems to me that the GX *feels* faster in normal driving, as the throttle seems to be calibrated differently.....i.e 1/4 of the pedal travel in the GX gets you more throttle opening than 1/4 pedal travel in a 4R.

Put it right to the floor and it feels the same. This is comparing an 05 4R V8 to an 05 GX, so obviously an 03 would be a little different.

 

[RickyCRX]

Another consideration; it seems to me that the GX *feels* faster in normal driving, as the throttle seems to be calibrated differently.....i.e 1/4 of the pedal travel in the GX gets you more throttle opening than 1/4 pedal travel in a 4R.

Put it right to the floor and it feels the same. This is comparing an 05 4R V8 to an 05 GX, so obviously an 03 would be a little different.

I recently went to a "Taste of Lexus - Performance Edition" event where you actually get to drive all of the Lexus automobiles and actually get to 'flog' them a little bit. When I drove the GX470, I could immediately feel the difference in weight (and consequently the lack of acceleration) compared to my '03 V8. My '03 2WD V8 felt MUCH more lively and had noticeably better acceleration. The numbers posted in this thread showing the GX as being a few tenths slower 0-60 confirmed this. I don't see how you can say the GX and T4R feel the same in acceleration. The extra 'fluff' that the GX has that makes it so much heavier really hurts it in acceleration.

Ricky

 

[bulldog-yota]

I remember someone posting time slips from a V6 4Runner at a drag strip that ran 15.8 @ 88 mph.

He was actually racing a buddy of his with a V8 4Runner and they ran virtually identicle times.

If I remember correctly, both 4Runners were '03 models.

Dose anyone remember that thread?

Both of these 4Rs were run with low gas and without spare, yada yada. So they were a lot lighter than the 4Rs tested. Also the V8 ran with larger tires and the V6 with stock tires, which will make a good difference on the clock.

The GX is about 250lbs heavier than the 4WD V8. I think about 400lbs heavier than the 2WD V8.

Well from what I sampled the 05 GX feels more lively than the 4wd V8 4R 03-04. I have driven a few of each. I have yet to rive the 05 4R V8, but it should be faster than GX. The numbers listed was for the 03 GX not the 05 GX.

The point I was trying to make was that the 4R led its class in 03, but the comp has caught on. Also Toyota has marketed it more as a "softroader" and hence it competes in a lot of cases with car based SUVs now for the same buyer. The Tacoma was more marketed as the hardcore truck. My prediction is that this was hte last 4R with axle in the back and frame. Hope I'm wrong, but lets see.

 

[OUTRNNR]

I browse the Jeep forums every now and then.... it seems that the new Grand Cherokee has MORE than it's share of problems....

And people complain about the Quadradrive II system all the time.

A lot of those guys are trying to "upgrade" to 265/65/17 tires, but are having problems. They have to cut some bolts hanging down in the front wheel well for those tires to fit. And they don't seem to fit in the spare tire well either.... hahaha.

I like the Grand Cherokee, but I think Jeep went the wrong direction with the new model. It sits relatively low, has small stock tires and has too many quality problems.

Are they really "Trail Rated"?

I browse the major car magazine websites every once in a while to get their *biased* input on all the different autos we have available to us. BTW, most of the major mag companies post the same stories that they run in the magazine on their website for FREE!!

Motor Trend's "Truck Trend" page had a full-on nuts-to-the-wall off-road comparo called the "Ultimate 4x4 Challenge" Check it out:

http://trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0510_4x4challenge/

In this challenge they slated five what are considered to be "ultimate 4x4's" together and took them offroad and thrashed them thoroughly. The test included the Dodge Ram 2500 Powerwagon, Toyota Landcruiser, VW Touraeg, Jeep GC Hemi, Land Rover LR3, and Hummer H3. IMO, this is kind of a wierd combination of vehicles; you have 3 luxo utes, a big ass truck (probably because it had a winch), The Jeep, and the retarded 5 cylinder Hummer H3 (but awesome 4x4).

The best part about this story is not only does the Jeep Hemi get stuck and have to be winched out by the Powerwagon, it ends up snapping a CV Joint while trying to do the hill climb (See bottom of page 7). HAHAHAHA :awais: Ok, Ok it wasn't a "Trail Rated" edition but its still a Jeep, right?

Yeah, the hemi is faster than the 4Runner, but what do you expect with a 60 HP advantage over the most powerful engine Toyota offers?? The way I drive I'd get 12 mpg in the jeep; I'll take a few tenths slower 0-60 time for a 5 mpg fuel economy advantage any day. BTW, the 0-60 time for this hemi was 7.18s. Jeep must have given them the lemon for this test...It placed 5th out of 6, where it should be.

 

[Koz]

In 2003 MT tested a bunch of SUVs.
0-60 1/4
GX470 8.3 16.2 @ 84.4
V8 4R 7.8 15.9 @ 85.6
Lincoin Aviator (300hp engine) 8.1 [email protected]

At that time few SUVs could touch the 4R or GX in their classes, the V8 was pretty good of the line, but as you can see against the 300HP (32V) Lincoln Aviator (fancy explorer) it lost some steam above 80 MPH. The V6 was never really tested, but it was handicapped with the 4 spd auto which holds it back of the line and on some passing situations however it wont be too far off on an apples to apples situation.


In 2005 C&D tested a bunch of SUVs again (our favorite comp test).

V8 4R 7.2 15.7@88
Jeep Hemi 6.8 15.3@90
Pathy (V6) 7.5 15.9@87
Explorer (old V8) 8.2 16.4@83

The 4R 1/4 is disappointing iven the 60 time and you would expect a better 1/4 fromt the VVTi V8. The Jeep bets it but not as much as you would think from the spec sheet, the pathfinder is pretty close to the 4R so the 270 HP claim is not far off. The old explorer can't keep up, but I expect the new one with 300HP will be in the same ballpark. So it looks that the comp has caught on and the 4R is midpack in perf and no longer the leader in its category. I am still wondering about the health of the V8 they tested as the 05 GX I have is a lot more lively than my 03 4R.

To be honest though any SUV that beat 8 sec in 60 and 16 sec on a 1/4 is damn fast. I never really feel the need for more power, apart from when the 4R is heavily loaded and climbing steep long dunes or when it is loaded and doing high speed passing on steep mountain roads.

I don't know where you got your numbers from but these numbers came from C & D. By the way I have found many discrepancies in their testing in the past so I would not believe anything they write.

I don't find the performance of the 5.7 Hemi Heep to be very impressive, especially off road. As soon I can I will personally put the performance difference between the Heep and 4Runner to bed. My buddy is on vacation and will be back in 06 and we will line up. A 15.5 sec quarter mile may not cut it!

C/D TEST RESULTS
ACCELERATION Seconds
Zero to 30 mph 2.6
40 mph: 3.7
50 mph: 5.2
60 mph: 7.0
70 mph: 9.0
80 mph: 11.9
90 mph: 15.5
100 mph: 19.9
110 mph: 25.4
Street start, 5-60 mph: 7.4
Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 3.5
50-70 mph: 4.8
Standing 1/4-mile: 15.5 sec @ 90 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 112 mph

Koz