I was trying to find the original 0-60 times for these years. I tried looking online, but I couldn't find anything. Anyone know them?

The reason is that my friend is pretty sure he's going to buy a 99 or 00 Land Rover Discovery Series II and as much as I think they're neat looking vehicles, they come in last in like all of the reviews and they get horrible gas mileage and they have a lot of problems as well as being very expensive to fix. I'm trying to covince him of another vehicle, but all he cares about is looks. :( Oh well. The Land Rovers pulls a 10.9 second 0-60 time which I'm pretty sure an Explorer could beat.

thanks you guys.

Land Rovers are tried and true offroad vehicles. You would be hard pressed to find a vehicle that could perform as well as a stock discovery. The reasons they do so bad in reviews is that the people that do reviews are soccer mommies and daddies.

With that said..........I'm pretty sure any explorer could beat a 10.9 0-60 time, that's pretty slow. But why are you worried about 0-60 times in a land rover? Their 4.0 V8 is designed for low end stump-pulling grunt, not racing.

For 2 18-19 year olds, V8s don't mean pulling. They mean street racing, no matter what the car is :)

I'm 18, and could care less about street racing :rolleyes:

But anyway, the Land Rover is definitely not for street racing. If you're looking for an SUV to street race in (not a smart idea in the first place), get one not designed with offroading in mind. For instance, the Mercedes ML thing, or the BMW X5.

I'm not saying that we go out in the middle of the night in downtown and block off streets and race for pink slips or something, but you've never screwed around with your friends in your cars? The main point of this was not discuss the Land Rover. I no doubt believe that it's a great vehicle for off roading, but I can guarantee that he will NEVER use it go off road in, nor will he pull tree stumps. I drive a '91 Explorer but I'm ditching it for a 96 or 97 that's why I asked about those times. I like the Explorer for the fact that it has off road capabilities and it's easy to tinker with and put on accessories. I do somewhat use mine to screw around with off road.

I was just interested in the times and I couldn't find it anywhere.

And the reviews were by the writers of Car And Driver. Not soccer mommies. Plus I've already tried to get him to think about other vehicles like the "ML thing" (hah) or the X5, but the look of the Discovery is what he wants.

dont quote me on these:

4.0 OHV 10.5
4.0 SOHC 8.1 :D
5.0 OHV 8.8

just a thought-

96 5.0 with a new cam and other mods in the thousands low 7s 0-60

grand cherokee 4.7 liter high 7s

grand cherokee 5.9 liter high 6s with a chip

if you want to go fast and have rugged (like the land crusher) styling get a j**p. i love my explorer, but i bought it for the way it looks not the way it moves. don't buy an explorer if all you care about is going fast, it will quickly become a money pit. hehe heh like mine. as for the land rhinocerous tell him that friends don't let friends drive discoveries unless they go offroad and have trust funds. that would just be a stupid vehicle for him to buy- make him test drive the x5, the mdx, the ml430, anything but one of those. the discovery is not a vehicle to buy just for looks

The stock 0-60 times are highly dependent on three things.

1.Gearing
2.2WD or 4WD
3.Trim level

Just keep that in mind when searching for 0-60's.

what do you mean by trim level?

Like XL, XLT, EB, Limited

An XL is faster than a limited model (assuming they have the same engine) because the limited models have more "stuff" inside. This is especially apparent with the late models with air suspension.

You don't buy a 4x4 for speed, I don't care what it is. when a vehicle has 4x4, it should be capable of taking on terrain that most people whouldn't dare to venture. I think that buying a Land Rover for speed is nuts. I saw a stock discovery at Paragon, take on obstacles like nothing, and the guy driving it was heavy with his right foot. You want speed, for the street, how about a car. Trucks will never handle like cars, and IMO, they shouldn't. I have a Ranger, and that is a close to a car ride that i would want. I miss my B2 that swayed when the wind blew. Just my .02

grand cherokee 4.7 liter high 7s

grand cherokee 5.9 liter high 6s with a chip


ok...times on the new 4.7 JGC are around 7.0-7.2
5.9 pulls times in the high 6's w/o any chip or any mods!

also...my brother and I also own a 95 JGC Limited with the 5.2 liter v8...compleately stock...we can get 7.2

wow, do you have a stick in the 5.2 those have always seemed sluggish to me. anyways, for the others i'm just going off some numbers i've seen in magazines and stuff. i've never had my explorer to the track or anything so that just means that my x iis a little faster than i thought it was since i was comparing it to friends jeeps thinking those were the numbers they were running. it took a lot of mods before i could run with a stock 5.9l jeep, they are very impressive vehicles. if only they were a little better looking... i wouldn't be a ford owner. anyways, i didn't mean to offend about the 0-60s i was just trying to say that the jeeps are fast and its hard to make an explorer as fast as they are stock. but i can say from experience that it is a heck of a lot of fun once you've done it or even more than done it (i do pull away pretty good once we get over 60 or 70 even from my buddies 5,9)

yeah, the jeeps may be a little quicker from the factory, but cherokee's are notorious for having even more problems than the explorer. my secretary has one and my cousin has one and it seems like they are always breaking down somewhere, along with minor things like power locks and windows never working, etc. Oh, and my girlfriends mom has a cherokee as well....and her tranny blew at like 70k miles and the power options don't work on it either.

I'll stick with the explorers. 276,000 out of my '92 makes me a believer.

98ford 0-60 in 8.8 for the 5.0? wow, they musta given me a lemon. Mine takes 14

I have a SOHC and mine takes around 9 or 10. Thats fast enough for what I need.

i meausred mine with a g-tech a while back and its 0-60 was 8.7 i believe with my exhaust and cut airbox with the K&N. In the explorer express catolog they rated a stock v-8 at 10.7 i think. Major

I also read that 10.7 in explorer express and have no friggen idea how the hell they got that number? Hell my 94' does it in 10 - 10.5 seconds with that wimpy v6, so how is it that they could only get 10.7 with a helluva V8? Even the weather wouldn't have that big of an effect on acceleration. Using my neighbors g-tec (in hot florida) My moms mountaineer cranked off 8 - 8.4 seconds. Now the new Explorers/Mountaineers haul a** w/ the 4.6 V8, we had a 2002 Mounty for a week and using my neighbors g-tec I cranked off consistent 7.8 - 7.9. times.

Add about .2 to .4 seconds to the Gtech times. They're consistently an average of .3 seconds off on 0-60 times, they read too fast.

Man whats up with the mountineers. that sucks they are faster ha. and thats no good if i get say a 9 sec 0-60 with a 2wd that has a couple parts on it and some of you are pulling off low 8's. Do yall have the extra traction of the awds. I figured the less weight of the 2wd would offset that since i cant hardly catch a wheel unless i powerbrake. Major

wow, do you have a stick in the 5.2 those have always seemed sluggish to me



the JGC Limiteds didnt come with a stick...only older (93 and 94) Laredos came with the manual

ok what am I missing? how in gods name did a mountaineer get less than 9? I'm pulling a 14 when I ease it up, and an 11 or 12 when I punch it! whats the deal?

I guess my tranny really is screwed... again

dang it you got that Vanilla Ice song in my head now! "Rollin' in my 4.0" :D


Gosh my '95 with 108,000 on the clock will pull in 10 second dashes to 60. And that's with absolutely no mods to it's OHV 4.

My Dad's '87 Dakota 4x4 (120hp 3.9 V-6, 3.55 axle ratio) couldn't win a race against a stationary grocery cart. that thing is SLLOOOOOWW. it doesn't help that it has 190,000 on it, but sheesh it tops out at 85mph, takes 5 minutes to get to 60 it seems.

Explorer Express's time is a typo. The time is from the OHV 4.0L. I couldn't even find a current referrence to the 10.7 on their web-page so I think they might have removed it. It was discussed a year or so ago. I think they left it up their as long as they did since it made their SuperCharger look like it produced more than it did. I have a printout of the Explorer Express supercharger ad from a couple of years ago and it lists the stock 0-60 time of the V8 at 8.8, the OHV at 10.7.

Originally posted by major
Man whats up with the mountineers. that sucks they are faster ha. and thats no good if i get say a 9 sec 0-60 with a 2wd that has a couple parts on it and some of you are pulling off low 8's. Do yall have the extra traction of the awds. I figured the less weight of the 2wd would offset that since i cant hardly catch a wheel unless i powerbrake. Major

If your tires aren't spinning off the line then AWD isn't going to make you take off any quicker, only slower. The added weight plus the lower torque to a single axle will slow it the AWD down. I messed around with my Control Trac in the rain several months ago. I found that I could take off a lot quicker if I left it in Auto and hit the throttle just shy of spinning the tires and activating the front wheels. When I put it in High I didn't get any wheel spin but it also took off quite a bit slower. I think this was due to the fact that each axle was only getting 50% of the engine torqu as opposed to the 96% that the rear gets in Auto. I'm not positive if traction works that way or not though. It seems logical that a vehicle putting out 200 ft/lbs of torque to the rear wheels will take off quicker than a vehicle putting out 100 ft/lbs of torque to the front and 100 ft/lbs of torque to the rear if the tires have enough traction in both situations to not spin. Now if you could put 200 ft/lbs to the front and 200 ft/lbs to the rear it would take off very fast.