Last year I was able to find out who was invited for many of the job interviews in my discipline at major research universities. From looking at their CVs or websites, the number of peer-reviewed journal articles ranged from 5 to 15 and the majority of the articles were first-authored and in mainstream journals. That might give you a sense of what makes a person competitive enough to get an interview. One other thing worth noting is that all of the aforementioned interviewees were postdocs. I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for grad students to get interviews, much less faculty jobs, unless they are absolutely stellar.
I have been told that once you have enough publications to make you competitive (e.g., 8), then having more than that doesn't make too much of a difference (unless it's a lot more, like 25). Having 8+ publications — most first-authored — is proof enough to most people that you can conduct and publish research. As for where they are published, I think it makes a difference mainly if the articles are at one of the extremes: If you have an article or two in the very-best journal in your discipline, then that's a plus, whereas if you have a bunch of articles in unheard-of journals, then that's a minus.
As for grants, having one would make you a lot more competitive, but most people don't have one (I am thinking of R01s here). I doubt that many search committees expect people who are finishing or fresh out of grad school to have grants already. The emphasis will be more on the potential to get grants.