Titan acceleration times 0-60

[BigPete]

Anyone seeing 0-60 times close to this ?


.................................................. ....................0 - 60 Time
Nissan Titan LE Crew Cab 4wd - V8 5.6L (305 hp) 5A + ABS .....7.35
Nissan Titan SE King Cab 4wd - V8 5.6L (305 hp) 5A + ABS..... .7.45
Nissan Titan LE Crew Cab - V8 5.6L (305 hp) 5A + ABS ........7.91

Were these times recorded on a cool 65* day with 30% humidity with only 3 gallons of gas in the tank and the engine temp not completely warmed up ?? Even though my test run was done using a stopwatch I was seeing only 8.5 seconds. Big difference. Hmm, a .5 second difference from the King vs. Crew.

Curious to see acceleration times after mods.

[bwalkertitan]

Best I have seen is a 6.9 by some mag (don't remember which).

[juma]

Its all about weight. If someone did a 6.9, it was probably a XE KC 2WD. All the other models are heavier by 200 to 700 pounds. Every 100 pounds adds about a .1 of a second to 0-60 time. I think my XE feels just about as fast as my LT1 Caprice copcar up to 70-80 mph. I think a well broken in XE KC 2WD will ultimately hit a 6.5 or less. We have a pretty loose torque converter and a good low gear to start with and that plus a catback and K&N is going to make the Titan hard to beat in the quick sprint. I have already pretty much whipped *** on pickups, imports, larger sedans. I don't make eye contact with lightening drivers:>) Juma

[V8toilet]

My Tundra did 0-60 in 7 flat on the G-tech but I have headers that's why. My last tank of gas I got 19.1 mpg too.

Just bragging!

[Titanmaster]

crew cab SE 4X4 Big Tow: 7.6 was my best time
I have a flowmaster exhaust system and a K&N High-Flow Air Filter

[Big Platinum]

Hey v8 toilet, thats not bad for a tundra, but you came to the wrong place to brag about your toyota...............J/K they are nice, especially for small people.

[Optimist]

BigPete, I drive like a grandmother, but now with 6,000 miles accumulated I am convinced this thing gets faster day by day. How many miles does your Titan have?

[V8toilet]

Originally Posted by Big Platinum

Hey v8 toilet, thats not bad for a tundra, but you came to the wrong place to brag about your toyota...............J/K they are nice, especially for small people.

Yeah I know I'm a troll but I found this site because I wanted to see and read first hand from the owners of the Titan truck to get an impression on how the new Nissan is holding up. My truck is quicker than most because it's 2WD. Most 4WD Tundra trucks run 0-60 in about 7.6 seconds with headers. Stock a 4*4 runs about 8.2 seconds at sea level. They really shine though from about 45-75 mph because the mid range torque is awesome.

[bwalkertitan]

Originally Posted by V8toilet

My Tundra did 0-60 in 7 flat on the G-tech but I have headers that's why.

Well, considering that car and driver says the 2004 Tundra 0-60 in 9.2 (buwahhahahah) and the 2004 Titan does it in 6.9, I personally find your claim to be a bit full of it. Headers will not help that much.

Recently, a Toyota Racing Development employee told me that he was sad to see such a poor offering from Toyota in comparison to the Titan and that the Titan really puts the Tundra to shame. lol.

[PHOEBISIS]

V8Toilet,I remember you from Tundrasolutions,I think I was Charlie there.
The Tundra is a very good truck,mine was flawless.I sold it for $17,500(2001 LTD 2WD 29,000 miles),because I wanted some things it couldn't provide;
1)More excitement-the Titan is faster-(much faster according to CR and the other moto mags.They show a 2wd Accesscab at about 8.2 0-60 vs 7.3) than the Titan.It also has a lot less sway,and wallows less.It just feels a lot more sporty.The Tundra has a running motor,it isn't a dog,but it is down ~50 hp,and the weight advantage is worth only about 15 hp.
2)A backseat that is usable by adults.I have a KC.An adult can spend 30 minutes in it without a problem.The Accesscab....
3) I wanted Sidecurtain airbags,and side airbags on my next vehicle.I couldn't see spending $25000 for something and not getting a safety upgrade.Toyota is lagging here.It does very well on crash tests,but no curtains.Folks around here,New Orleans,run redlights by 3-5 seconds!!!
The mpg is a near wash with the Tundra having a slight advantage.My Tundra got ~13.5 city,and 17 at 73-75.The Titan gets 12-13 city,but 19.6 at 73.
The Tundra is a great truck,with a few additions(5 speed+ 50 hp,slightly wider,),it will be best in class.
I've had no problems with my Titan,and the posted problems are fairly minor(since I don't have them).
One of The Titan's biggest advantages is actual selling price .You can get a stripped KC for $2000-3000 less than a stripped AC Tundra.The price advantage holds all the way through the line up.You can get a w 4wd SE CC (with power seats-the P package) for maybe $28000.It would be roughly equivalent to a low optioned 4wd LTD Doublecab which would cost $30000+.
Luck,Charlie

[MattD]

Nissan 1
Toyota 0

[V8toilet]

Originally Posted by bwalkertitan

Well, considering that car and driver says the 2004 Tundra 0-60 in 9.2 (buwahhahahah) and the 2004 Titan does it in 6.9, I personally find your claim to be a bit full of it. Headers will not help that much.

Recently, a Toyota Racing Development employee told me that he was sad to see such a poor offering from Toyota in comparison to the Titan and that the Titan really puts the Tundra to shame. lol.

Nice try but I find consumer reports a more reputable magazine to compare acceleration numbers especially when they did them in the same place on the same day. I also drive a 2001 access cab not a 2004 double cab.

Titan 0-60 in 7.3 seconds and Tundra in 8.8 but 45-65 mph where I said the Tundra engine has great mid range. Titan 4.9 and Tundra 5.2, much closer! The quarter miles times where 16 seconds for the Titan and 16.9 seconds for the Tundra.

If the Tiny 4.7-liter I-force with just 240 horsepower can move this four door behemoth this well in this test imagine what 800 lbs. less does with about 25 more horsepower (see signature for rwhp)?

Here is the article.

[bwalkertitan]

Well you certainly have a point if it in fact is 800 pounds less. One thing though, I don't really trust consumer reports on anything about vehicles other than long-term reliability (which they weight extremely heavily in their evaluations). Take the pickup comparo - they placed the tundra too high on the list comapared to all the other truck and car magazines (when there is one oddball in the group, usually something is wrong). I mean give me a break, the avalanche and the silverado as recommended? The Silverado was on the bottom of the list in every comparo other mags did. They are placing too much emphasis on car qualities. If I wanted a car I would have bought one. I bought a truck - the Titan.

I think the thing that set me off a little is the fact that a stock Titan can beat your 0-60 and your gas mileage (people have reported higher here) - so why brag?

I personally don't troll other brand truck forums looking for **** - why do you feel the need to?

[Titan Power]

I hate to break it to you, but the numbers you get from a G-tech are far from credible. It's pretty good for doing back to back comparisons on the same road, but it produces times that are quite a bit quicker then reality, to the tune of about a full second zero to sixty and about a second and a half in the 1/4. If you doubt me, go to any credible car enthusiest board and see how quickley you get

In other words, the G-tech is okay to see if the headers made an improvement on your truck Vs. before. But you can't compare the times reported as actual Vs. real timing.

Jason K.

[V8toilet]

Originally Posted by Titan Power

I hate to break it to you, but the numbers you get from a G-tech are far from credible. It's pretty good for doing back to back comparisons on the same road, but it produces times that are quite a bit quicker then reality, to the tune of about a full second zero to sixty and about a second and a half in the 1/4. If you doubt me, go to any credible car enthusiest board and see how quickley you get

In other words, the G-tech is okay to see if the headers made an improvement on your truck Vs. before. But you can't compare the times reported as actual Vs. real timing.

Jason K.

My G-tech reads within 1/10 at the track when I compare it to my track times and Consumer Reports recommends those vehicles not because they are exceptional in any way but because they are at least average in reliability or better (read the fine print). The Nissan and Ford are too new for them to recommend yet. With all the OC issues Nissan has been having though I doubt Nissan will make that list. They are like the Chrysler of Japan rushing there product to market at the expense of quality and reliability. It’s too bad because they have a great engine and transmission otherwise.

I posted the consumer reports issue for the acceleration data they got with those trucks not to ague over why they rate the Tundra tops. Nice try though beating around the bush and change the subject (0-60 times and 45-65 times).

If I run 8 seconds to 60 because my G-tech is 1 second too fast as you say than how did I run a 15.38 @ 89+ mph at New England dragway? Must be that mid range torque, LOL, O- the excuses people try to make! I see time ranging from low to high fifteens posted here. You guys must be rocketing to 60 and then slowing down, LOL.

I “troll” here to learn as much about this new truck as I can. I don’t think I posted anything here that wasn’t a fact (supported by readily available data). I haven’t written anything either that doesn’t warrant an intelligent argument. Flame wars, LOL!