Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Topic Author
helloeveryone
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:16 pm

Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by helloeveryone » Tue May 19, 2020 11:21 am

If one was considering either a new or < 5-6 year used Ford F150 - would you get the V8 versus Turbo V6 for engine reliability purposes?

ncbill
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Western NC

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by ncbill » Tue May 19, 2020 12:41 pm

helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 11:21 am
If one was considering either a new or < 5-6 year used Ford F150 - would you get the V8 versus Turbo V6 for engine reliability purposes?
For reliability I'd always choose a naturally-aspirated engine over one with a turbo.

tibbitts
Posts: 10141
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by tibbitts » Tue May 19, 2020 12:48 pm

helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 11:21 am
If one was considering either a new or < 5-6 year used Ford F150 - would you get the V8 versus Turbo V6 for engine reliability purposes?
I would guess the v8, but would also consider the 6.2L in the Super Duty.

Jack FFR1846
Posts: 11740
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:05 am
Location: 26 miles, 385 yards west of Copley Square

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Jack FFR1846 » Tue May 19, 2020 12:50 pm

ncbill wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 12:41 pm
helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 11:21 am
If one was considering either a new or < 5-6 year used Ford F150 - would you get the V8 versus Turbo V6 for engine reliability purposes?
For reliability I'd always choose a naturally-aspirated engine over one with a turbo.
This....
Bogle: Smart Beta is stupid

tibbitts
Posts: 10141
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by tibbitts » Tue May 19, 2020 12:55 pm

helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 11:21 am
If one was considering either a new or < 5-6 year used Ford F150 - would you get the V8 versus Turbo V6 for engine reliability purposes?
I would think the v8.

AZAttorney11
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by AZAttorney11 » Tue May 19, 2020 1:00 pm

Is it really a full-sized truck if it doesn't have a V8? :sharebeer

P.S. Notwithstanding the Ford Raptor...

lazydavid
Posts: 2955
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by lazydavid » Tue May 19, 2020 1:05 pm

Both have been incredibly reliable. You literally cannot make a bad choice here.

The Ecoboost has been put through some crazy torture tests. To start, when they introduced it 10 years ago, an engine was picked off the line at random, and had this done to it:
A production EcoBoost V-6 engine, serial number 448AA, was randomly selected off the assembly line at Ford’s Cleveland engine plant. The dual-overhead-cam power plant was shipped to dynamometer cell 36B in the Ford Dearborn engine labs and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles, including repeated temperature-shock runs when the engine was cooled to minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and then heated to 235 degrees.

The engine was then shipped to Ford's Kansas City truck plant and installed in an F-150 4X4 crew-cab pickup. It was driven to Nygaard Timber in Astoria, Ore., and put to work as a log skidder, dragging a total of 110,000 pounds of logs across the ground to demonstrate its 420 pounds-feet of torque.

From there, the truck was driven across the country to Homestead Miami Speedway, where it was hooked up to a trailer carrying two of Richard Petty’s Ford Fusion racecars, a load of 11,300 pounds, and run continuously around the track for 24 hours, averaging 82 mph and covering 1,607 miles.

It was then taken to Davis Dam in Arizona, where it bested both the 5.3-liter Chevy Silverado V-8 and the Ram 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 in an uphill towing contest pulling 9,000 pounds up a 6 percent grade on Highway 68.

Finally, the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost engine was shipped to Mike McCarthy’s race shop in Wickenburg, Ariz., and installed in his 7,100-pound F-150 race truck. McCarthy practiced locally for 1,200 miles and raced the truck in the SCORE Baja 1000, the toughest off-road race in North America, finishing first overall in the new Stock Engine class after 1,062 race miles.

McCarthy said the engine’s fuel economy was so good compared with his previous V-8 engines that he was able to skip two planned fuel stops during the Baja event, which helped him win the class.

After Baja, the thoroughly thrashed and raced engine was shipped back to Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., and dyno-tested once again. It was found to produce 364 horsepower and 420 pounds-feet of torque, just one horsepower less than its rating and exactly the same output as its nominal torque rating, according to Ford.
They then tore it down in front of a live audience and found it was in remarkably good shape for an engine that had been abused far beyond what any owner would ever do, for 163,000 miles. You can read the full story here: https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/w ... -like.html

As for the Coyote V8, that thing is an indestructible beast as well. Mustang guys (and some F150 owners) have been running 700-1,000 horsepower on them with forced induction for years now, and the only weak point they've found at those power levels are the stock oil pump gears (and the rear half-shafts, but those don't count). Replace those and the engines run happily at 800+ hp for a very long time. At stock power levels, they're effectively immortal.

As I said at the top, you can't make the wrong choice here. For me personally, I would choose the 5.0 and a Whipple supercharger, because racecartruck. :mrgreen: If I was going to stay stock, I would choose the Ecoboost.

beernutz
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by beernutz » Tue May 19, 2020 1:40 pm

I have a 2015 F150 Platinum with the 3.5L Ecoboost twin turbo. I did a lot of research before buying and this engine is extremely reliable. Plus you will love the acceleration and torque when towing something. I believe mine has a 10,500 tow capacity with the weight distribution hitch.

I think it is one of the best and most reliable of the 20 or so vehicles I've owned including Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Jeep, GMC, and Lexus.

zimmer0
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:15 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by zimmer0 » Tue May 19, 2020 1:53 pm

~2018 5.0L have oil consumption issues due to, iirc, piston bore irregularities - something worth mentioning.
owner of a '13 5.0L f150 with 91k miles and not one problem out of it, plan to keep it for quite awhile.
i will be trying the ecoboost line of motors in my next truck when that time comes though. Plenty to gain in just a retune of the PCM :twisted:

crazygrow
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:56 am

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by crazygrow » Tue May 19, 2020 2:12 pm

beernutz wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 1:40 pm
I have a 2015 F150 Platinum with the 3.5L Ecoboost twin turbo. I did a lot of research before buying and this engine is extremely reliable. Plus you will love the acceleration and torque when towing something. I believe mine has a 10,500 tow capacity with the weight distribution hitch.

I think it is one of the best and most reliable of the 20 or so vehicles I've owned including Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Jeep, GMC, and Lexus.
I had a 2017 one that got totaled. Still my favorite vehicle. I can’t talk about reliability beyond the first 18 months, but the 3.5 turbo is a blast to drive.

smalliebigs
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by smalliebigs » Tue May 19, 2020 2:14 pm

If you don't need the V8, get the V6.

So often I see these posts regarding reliability. We always do our best to create the more reliable powertrains given the budget limitations. But just because it's a boosted engine does not inherently make it less reliable!

However, from the perspective of a consumer, the best answer for this is to just lease.

Helo80
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Helo80 » Tue May 19, 2020 2:16 pm

I was personally skeptical of the Ecoboost engines when they arrived on the market, but they've been solid from everything that I've seen. Ford is the only pickup I'll buy, and unless the v8 were offered at some fantastic price, I'd go with the ecoboost.

nolimits
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:45 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by nolimits » Tue May 19, 2020 2:29 pm

My v8 so far has 75000 miles with no issues. Maintainence has been very basic. Oil changes every 8k-10k miles. Gas Mileage is terrible but then it’s a truck. Just did brakes and rotors (although I didn’t notice any brake fade/issues. I like to stay ahead). That was stupid easy to do too. The dealerships are everywhere and most appear to be pretty honest/ easy to deal with.

Teague
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Teague » Tue May 19, 2020 2:33 pm

Back when we were still allowed to walk to school alone past the woolly mammoths and cave drawings, engine durability was pretty much the limiting factor in a car's service life. So the engineers tackled that problem (after a brief interruption to invent the wheel) and did they ever do a good job. It seems about 200K miles, or more, is the current expectation for a properly maintained engine, and by the time that's reached so many other things have fallen apart, or folks just get tired of the same thing, that they just get another car. The engine uncommonly seems to be the weak link nowadays.
Semper Augustus

barneycat
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:38 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by barneycat » Tue May 19, 2020 2:40 pm

It seems like the engine reliability question has been addressed, so can we expand this to overall reliability?

Consumer Reports rates most F-150s as 2/5 for reliability. But everyone I know with one raves about how reliable they are. Where's the disconnect? I know I'm talking anecdotes with a relatively small sample size. But to hear them talk and compare them to my maintenance/repair history, I'm the one with an unreliable car: a Toyota Highlander.

Similar experience with friends who own Jeeps.

palanzo
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:28 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by palanzo » Tue May 19, 2020 2:54 pm

lazydavid wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 1:05 pm
Both have been incredibly reliable. You literally cannot make a bad choice here.

The Ecoboost has been put through some crazy torture tests. To start, when they introduced it 10 years ago, an engine was picked off the line at random, and had this done to it:
A production EcoBoost V-6 engine, serial number 448AA, was randomly selected off the assembly line at Ford’s Cleveland engine plant. The dual-overhead-cam power plant was shipped to dynamometer cell 36B in the Ford Dearborn engine labs and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles, including repeated temperature-shock runs when the engine was cooled to minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and then heated to 235 degrees.

The engine was then shipped to Ford's Kansas City truck plant and installed in an F-150 4X4 crew-cab pickup. It was driven to Nygaard Timber in Astoria, Ore., and put to work as a log skidder, dragging a total of 110,000 pounds of logs across the ground to demonstrate its 420 pounds-feet of torque.

From there, the truck was driven across the country to Homestead Miami Speedway, where it was hooked up to a trailer carrying two of Richard Petty’s Ford Fusion racecars, a load of 11,300 pounds, and run continuously around the track for 24 hours, averaging 82 mph and covering 1,607 miles.

It was then taken to Davis Dam in Arizona, where it bested both the 5.3-liter Chevy Silverado V-8 and the Ram 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 in an uphill towing contest pulling 9,000 pounds up a 6 percent grade on Highway 68.

Finally, the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost engine was shipped to Mike McCarthy’s race shop in Wickenburg, Ariz., and installed in his 7,100-pound F-150 race truck. McCarthy practiced locally for 1,200 miles and raced the truck in the SCORE Baja 1000, the toughest off-road race in North America, finishing first overall in the new Stock Engine class after 1,062 race miles.

McCarthy said the engine’s fuel economy was so good compared with his previous V-8 engines that he was able to skip two planned fuel stops during the Baja event, which helped him win the class.

After Baja, the thoroughly thrashed and raced engine was shipped back to Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., and dyno-tested once again. It was found to produce 364 horsepower and 420 pounds-feet of torque, just one horsepower less than its rating and exactly the same output as its nominal torque rating, according to Ford.
They then tore it down in front of a live audience and found it was in remarkably good shape for an engine that had been abused far beyond what any owner would ever do, for 163,000 miles. You can read the full story here: https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/w ... -like.html

As for the Coyote V8, that thing is an indestructible beast as well. Mustang guys (and some F150 owners) have been running 700-1,000 horsepower on them with forced induction for years now, and the only weak point they've found at those power levels are the stock oil pump gears (and the rear half-shafts, but those don't count). Replace those and the engines run happily at 800+ hp for a very long time. At stock power levels, they're effectively immortal.

As I said at the top, you can't make the wrong choice here. For me personally, I would choose the 5.0 and a Whipple supercharger, because racecartruck. :mrgreen: If I was going to stay stock, I would choose the Ecoboost.
Look at the carbon build up on those pistons. Not good.

User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 10576
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Sandtrap » Tue May 19, 2020 2:58 pm

V8
Non Turbo
Have had Ford trucks for 35+ years. Stopped after the 351 V8 got phased out.
Last one is a Toyota Tundra V8
j🌺
Last edited by Sandtrap on Tue May 19, 2020 8:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know

smalliebigs
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by smalliebigs » Tue May 19, 2020 3:00 pm

Firstly, I want to get something out of the way. Many people make fun of JD Power or Consumers Reports because they don't understand it. Chevy has those ads with JD Power so people make fun of it. However, in the industry, we rely heavily on their industry benchmarks and data to compare how we do compared to others. We have access to a LOT more data than what the general public thinks.

Regarding overall reliability, vehicle reliability is inherently better with each generation as there are better engineering methods, better manufacturing tolerances, etc. A LOT of what you read online is basically just that. Everyone will spread stories based on their own biases and what their uncle says. Many of the time, their references and impressions on brands/vehicles might have been formed 10 or 20 years ago. They don't know any better.

Many of the people that say these things are also just kids. They don't know any better, and will just parrot what a car journalist/reviewer says. This is understandable, even I was like that. This is simply because they have no other reference.

We don't consider a interior light failure in the same severity as a transmission failure. So many of these critical issues you hear online are unfounded. In addition, people have a natural tendency to complain about negative things than praise positive.
palanzo wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 2:54 pm
Look at the carbon build up on those pistons. Not good.
Carbon build-up is quite common in all engines, and is nothing really to be concerned about. However, in that quoted case, it might be due to enrichment to avoid engine knock when they try and increase the power output.

palanzo
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:28 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by palanzo » Tue May 19, 2020 3:09 pm

smalliebigs wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 3:00 pm
Firstly, I want to get something out of the way. Many people make fun of JD Power or Consumers Reports because they don't understand it. Chevy has those ads with JD Power so people make fun of it. However, in the industry, we rely heavily on their industry benchmarks and data to compare how we do compared to others. We have access to a LOT more data than what the general public thinks.

Regarding overall reliability, vehicle reliability is inherently better with each generation as there are better engineering methods, better manufacturing tolerances, etc. A LOT of what you read online is basically just that. Everyone will spread stories based on their own biases and what their uncle says. Many of the time, their references and impressions on brands/vehicles might have been formed 10 or 20 years ago. They don't know any better.

Many of the people that say these things are also just kids. They don't know any better, and will just parrot what a car journalist/reviewer says. This is understandable, even I was like that. This is simply because they have no other reference.

We don't consider a interior light failure in the same severity as a transmission failure. So many of these critical issues you hear online are unfounded. In addition, people have a natural tendency to complain about negative things than praise positive.
palanzo wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 2:54 pm
Look at the carbon build up on those pistons. Not good.
Carbon build-up is quite common in all engines, and is nothing really to be concerned about. However, in that quoted case, it might be due to enrichment to avoid engine knock when they try and increase the power output.
And as the article points out the valves are no where to be seen. It's GDI also. No thanks.

lazydavid
Posts: 2955
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by lazydavid » Tue May 19, 2020 3:17 pm

palanzo wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 2:54 pm
Look at the carbon build up on those pistons. Not good.
Actually pretty normal for a higher mileage engine. Here's a Mercedes V12 at 200k:

Image

And a Porsche flat-6:

Image

And a forum-favorite Toyota Corolla's I4 (Too large to inline):

http://i.imgur.com/PtzxsbZ.jpg

Pick your brand, open up a high-mileage motor and you'll likely find a similar story.

If anything, it appears as though the carbon buildup was just enough to counteract the natural loss of compression due to age/mileage, such that the engine dynoed exactly to spec when the whole test was over. :mrgreen:

beernutz
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by beernutz » Tue May 19, 2020 3:23 pm

barneycat wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 2:40 pm
It seems like the engine reliability question has been addressed, so can we expand this to overall reliability?

Consumer Reports rates most F-150s as 2/5 for reliability. But everyone I know with one raves about how reliable they are. Where's the disconnect? I know I'm talking anecdotes with a relatively small sample size. But to hear them talk and compare them to my maintenance/repair history, I'm the one with an unreliable car: a Toyota Highlander.

Similar experience with friends who own Jeeps.
CR also gave low reliability ratings to the Sierra, Silverado 1500, and Ram 1500. They love Tundras like mother's milk though.

I bought a 4runner for my daughter which has generally been a good vehicle except that the driver's window doesn't work and the stealership wanted over $1000 to fix it. The motor for it costs about $500. I've replaced numerous window motors in GMCs and Hondas and never spent more than $50 for new parts.

smalliebigs
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by smalliebigs » Tue May 19, 2020 3:28 pm

palanzo wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 3:09 pm
And as the article points out the valves are no where to be seen. It's GDI also. No thanks.
Your disdain for GDI is interesting. Why do you hold such an opinion?

MindBogler
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:05 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by MindBogler » Tue May 19, 2020 3:37 pm

palanzo wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 3:09 pm
And as the article points out the valves are no where to be seen. It's GDI also. No thanks.
The 2017 and up Ecoboost has both direct injectors and port injectors which wash the valves at idle and cruise. This is becoming more common on GDI vehicles due to the known issues with valve fouling.

User avatar
Matigas
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:34 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Matigas » Tue May 19, 2020 4:03 pm

lazydavid wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 1:05 pm
Both have been incredibly reliable. You literally cannot make a bad choice here.

The Ecoboost has been put through some crazy torture tests. To start, when they introduced it 10 years ago, an engine was picked off the line at random, and had this done to it:
A production EcoBoost V-6 engine, serial number 448AA, was randomly selected off the assembly line at Ford’s Cleveland engine plant. The dual-overhead-cam power plant was shipped to dynamometer cell 36B in the Ford Dearborn engine labs and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles, including repeated temperature-shock runs when the engine was cooled to minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and then heated to 235 degrees.

The engine was then shipped to Ford's Kansas City truck plant and installed in an F-150 4X4 crew-cab pickup. It was driven to Nygaard Timber in Astoria, Ore., and put to work as a log skidder, dragging a total of 110,000 pounds of logs across the ground to demonstrate its 420 pounds-feet of torque.

From there, the truck was driven across the country to Homestead Miami Speedway, where it was hooked up to a trailer carrying two of Richard Petty’s Ford Fusion racecars, a load of 11,300 pounds, and run continuously around the track for 24 hours, averaging 82 mph and covering 1,607 miles.

It was then taken to Davis Dam in Arizona, where it bested both the 5.3-liter Chevy Silverado V-8 and the Ram 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 in an uphill towing contest pulling 9,000 pounds up a 6 percent grade on Highway 68.

Finally, the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost engine was shipped to Mike McCarthy’s race shop in Wickenburg, Ariz., and installed in his 7,100-pound F-150 race truck. McCarthy practiced locally for 1,200 miles and raced the truck in the SCORE Baja 1000, the toughest off-road race in North America, finishing first overall in the new Stock Engine class after 1,062 race miles.

McCarthy said the engine’s fuel economy was so good compared with his previous V-8 engines that he was able to skip two planned fuel stops during the Baja event, which helped him win the class.

After Baja, the thoroughly thrashed and raced engine was shipped back to Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., and dyno-tested once again. It was found to produce 364 horsepower and 420 pounds-feet of torque, just one horsepower less than its rating and exactly the same output as its nominal torque rating, according to Ford.
They then tore it down in front of a live audience and found it was in remarkably good shape for an engine that had been abused far beyond what any owner would ever do, for 163,000 miles. You can read the full story here: https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/w ... -like.html

As for the Coyote V8, that thing is an indestructible beast as well. Mustang guys (and some F150 owners) have been running 700-1,000 horsepower on them with forced induction for years now, and the only weak point they've found at those power levels are the stock oil pump gears (and the rear half-shafts, but those don't count). Replace those and the engines run happily at 800+ hp for a very long time. At stock power levels, they're effectively immortal.

As I said at the top, you can't make the wrong choice here. For me personally, I would choose the 5.0 and a Whipple supercharger, because racecartruck. :mrgreen: If I was going to stay stock, I would choose the Ecoboost.
Ran it for 300 hours to replicate an equivalent of 150,000 customer miles?
Explain that please.

Teague
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Teague » Tue May 19, 2020 4:05 pm

smalliebigs wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 3:28 pm
palanzo wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 3:09 pm
And as the article points out the valves are no where to be seen. It's GDI also. No thanks.
Your disdain for GDI is interesting. Why do you hold such an opinion?
Ooh, ooh, pick me!

Anyway, the impression out there is, I think, that
1. Turbo GDI engines are susceptible to carbon buildup fouling intake valves, and
2. Turbo GDI engines are a less-proven technology, and
3. The valve carbon buildup requires expensive decarbonizing procedures every X number of miles, and
4. Turbo GDI engines are more susceptible to LSPI, which is scary and incompletely understood.

I'm not sure how much of this may actually apply these days.
Semper Augustus

User avatar
TexasPE
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:41 pm
Location: Southeast Texas

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by TexasPE » Tue May 19, 2020 4:22 pm

Data point - brother and his son (nephew) both have the EcoBoost in their trucks. Both had stuck variable cam drive sprockets. There are four cams and each one has a sprocket that advances and retards the cam timing and they are controlled with oil pressure. Mechanic said that the system has several very small orifices and they are easily clogged if the oil gets dirty and there is no way to clean the orifices without totally disassembling the engine. Repair was ~$4000 per engine.

Not sure whether the V8 uses these style sprockets...

YMMV
At 20: I cared what everyone thought about me | At 40: I didn't give a damn what anyone thought of me | Now that I'm 60: I realize that no one was really thinking about me at all | Winston Churchill (?)

phxjcc
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:47 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by phxjcc » Tue May 19, 2020 4:46 pm

If you are driving long trips at constant speed, the turbo will deliver better mileage.

However, around town and/or towing up/down grades it will get less than the EPA posted rating.

Reliability?
Probably the same.

Durability?
V8; less stressed, fewer moving parts.

sedonashine
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by sedonashine » Tue May 19, 2020 4:54 pm

get the V-8

GAAP
Posts: 1115
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:41 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by GAAP » Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 pm

How do you define long-term? Proper servicing should make most vehicles last longer than most people actually own them. I still have a 1994 Ford Ranger with 400K miles on it, used as a daily (pre-pandemic) driver by my daughter.
“Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.” ― Bruce Lee

smalliebigs
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by smalliebigs » Tue May 19, 2020 5:27 pm

Teague wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 4:05 pm
Ooh, ooh, pick me!

Anyway, the impression out there is, I think, that
1. Turbo GDI engines are susceptible to carbon buildup fouling intake valves, and
2. Turbo GDI engines are a less-proven technology, and
3. The valve carbon buildup requires expensive decarbonizing procedures every X number of miles, and
4. Turbo GDI engines are more susceptible to LSPI, which is scary and incompletely understood.

I'm not sure how much of this may actually apply these days.
Not addressing you in particular, but your post is a good starting point.

GDI = gasoline direct injection. This means that instead of injecting fuel into the carburetor (old ancient crap), or into the intake port (PFI), you are injecting the fuel directly into the cylinder.

So, I'll go through the points now.

1. Regardless of where you inject the fuel, there will some sort of fuel film build up. Ironically, GDI has the least fuel buildup on the intake valve. It is PFI engines that do so. That's because the fuel is sprayed directedly in the back of the intake valves in the intake port. GDI engines, by their intent, minimize fuel in the intake port. We want every gram of fuel to be combusted and used effectively.

2. Turbos have been around since the 80s for production vehicles, and GDI since the 90s. I guess 30 years is not proven enough? Sure, I guess it's only 'proven' when we're phasing it out because it's too old.

3. See 1. De-carbonization solutions are a complete waste of money.

4. You worry about the driving, let the engineers worry about LSPI. Most people that say this don't even know what it is or what causes it. It's just an excuse. They assume we'd actually sell an engine that comes with LSPI out of our factories, or we never noticed it.

The facts are: Boosted GDI engines have higher power density, higher efficiency, and thus better fuel economy.

blastoff
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:04 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by blastoff » Tue May 19, 2020 6:27 pm

How are you going to use the truck?
Significant towing or other heavy use?

Teague
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Teague » Tue May 19, 2020 6:38 pm

smalliebigs wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 5:27 pm
Teague wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 4:05 pm
Ooh, ooh, pick me!

Anyway, the impression out there is, I think, that
1. Turbo GDI engines are susceptible to carbon buildup fouling intake valves, and
2. Turbo GDI engines are a less-proven technology, and
3. The valve carbon buildup requires expensive decarbonizing procedures every X number of miles, and
4. Turbo GDI engines are more susceptible to LSPI, which is scary and incompletely understood.

I'm not sure how much of this may actually apply these days.
Not addressing you in particular, but your post is a good starting point.

GDI = gasoline direct injection. This means that instead of injecting fuel into the carburetor (old ancient crap), or into the intake port (PFI), you are injecting the fuel directly into the cylinder.

So, I'll go through the points now.

Just for fun, I'll play, but I'm certainly no engineer. Devil's advocate in blue below.

1. Regardless of where you inject the fuel, there will some sort of fuel film build up. Ironically, GDI has the least fuel buildup on the intake valve. It is PFI engines that do so. That's because the fuel is sprayed directedly in the back of the intake valves in the intake port. GDI engines, by their intent, minimize fuel in the intake port. We want every gram of fuel to be combusted and used effectively.

But, where do the blow-by gases, PCV fumes go? Right past the intake valve, without the benefit of gasoline cleansing the oily deposits off?

2. Turbos have been around since the 80s for production vehicles, and GDI since the 90s. I guess 30 years is not proven enough? Sure, I guess it's only 'proven' when we're phasing it out because it's too old.

Unfortunately reliability of early passenger turbos in the US was pretty spotty. Some of us do like old proven tech. Personally, I marvel that my 75 year old tractor with a 6:1 compression flathead still runs great.

3. See 1. De-carbonization solutions are a complete waste of money.

Are the reports of drivability issues from carbon buildup a myth?

4. You worry about the driving, let the engineers worry about LSPI. Most people that say this don't even know what it is or what causes it. It's just an excuse. They assume we'd actually sell an engine that comes with LSPI out of our factories, or we never noticed it.

Some folks get nervous about an engine just one super-ping away from catastrophic failure. Hopefully every problematic use condition was covered when the software was written.

The facts are: Boosted GDI engines have higher power density, higher efficiency, and thus better fuel economy.

Granted, but reliability is not in that list.
Last edited by Teague on Tue May 19, 2020 6:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Semper Augustus

atikovi
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:20 pm
Location: Suburban Washington DC

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by atikovi » Tue May 19, 2020 6:39 pm

Did they still have the 4.6L 5-6 years ago? That would be my choice for reliability if power isn't your primary concern. The non-turbo 3.7L V6 with about 300 hp would be a close second. The EB I had in a '13 had the infamous cold start knocking with just 100,000 miles on it.

Topic Author
helloeveryone
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:16 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by helloeveryone » Tue May 19, 2020 7:39 pm

lazydavid wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 1:05 pm
Both have been incredibly reliable. You literally cannot make a bad choice here.

The Ecoboost has been put through some crazy torture tests. To start, when they introduced it 10 years ago, an engine was picked off the line at random, and had this done to it:
A production EcoBoost V-6 engine, serial number 448AA, was randomly selected off the assembly line at Ford’s Cleveland engine plant. The dual-overhead-cam power plant was shipped to dynamometer cell 36B in the Ford Dearborn engine labs and run for 300 hours to replicate the equivalent of 150,000 customer miles, including repeated temperature-shock runs when the engine was cooled to minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and then heated to 235 degrees.

The engine was then shipped to Ford's Kansas City truck plant and installed in an F-150 4X4 crew-cab pickup. It was driven to Nygaard Timber in Astoria, Ore., and put to work as a log skidder, dragging a total of 110,000 pounds of logs across the ground to demonstrate its 420 pounds-feet of torque.

From there, the truck was driven across the country to Homestead Miami Speedway, where it was hooked up to a trailer carrying two of Richard Petty’s Ford Fusion racecars, a load of 11,300 pounds, and run continuously around the track for 24 hours, averaging 82 mph and covering 1,607 miles.

It was then taken to Davis Dam in Arizona, where it bested both the 5.3-liter Chevy Silverado V-8 and the Ram 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 in an uphill towing contest pulling 9,000 pounds up a 6 percent grade on Highway 68.

Finally, the 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost engine was shipped to Mike McCarthy’s race shop in Wickenburg, Ariz., and installed in his 7,100-pound F-150 race truck. McCarthy practiced locally for 1,200 miles and raced the truck in the SCORE Baja 1000, the toughest off-road race in North America, finishing first overall in the new Stock Engine class after 1,062 race miles.

McCarthy said the engine’s fuel economy was so good compared with his previous V-8 engines that he was able to skip two planned fuel stops during the Baja event, which helped him win the class.

After Baja, the thoroughly thrashed and raced engine was shipped back to Ford headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., and dyno-tested once again. It was found to produce 364 horsepower and 420 pounds-feet of torque, just one horsepower less than its rating and exactly the same output as its nominal torque rating, according to Ford.
They then tore it down in front of a live audience and found it was in remarkably good shape for an engine that had been abused far beyond what any owner would ever do, for 163,000 miles. You can read the full story here: https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/w ... -like.html

As for the Coyote V8, that thing is an indestructible beast as well. Mustang guys (and some F150 owners) have been running 700-1,000 horsepower on them with forced induction for years now, and the only weak point they've found at those power levels are the stock oil pump gears (and the rear half-shafts, but those don't count). Replace those and the engines run happily at 800+ hp for a very long time. At stock power levels, they're effectively immortal.

As I said at the top, you can't make the wrong choice here. For me personally, I would choose the 5.0 and a Whipple supercharger, because racecartruck. :mrgreen: If I was going to stay stock, I would choose the Ecoboost.
Great feedback! thks for sharing

Topic Author
helloeveryone
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 5:16 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by helloeveryone » Tue May 19, 2020 8:00 pm

blastoff wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:27 pm
How are you going to use the truck?
Significant towing or other heavy use?
It’s a want not a need. It would rarely be for truck purposes - ie - buy stuff from home depot for diy projects. Toss bikes in bed to go ride w kids (already have a hitch bike carrier for the subaru). No towing (unless one day decide to get trailer or smal camper). Even the V6 turbo would be more engine that I would need. From the posts sounds like a toss up so best to go w gas efficient engine.

Or even buy a tacoma 4 cylinder extended cab

bubbadog
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:17 pm
Location: Cincinnati,Ohio

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by bubbadog » Tue May 19, 2020 8:05 pm

helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 8:00 pm
blastoff wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:27 pm
How are you going to use the truck?
Significant towing or other heavy use?
It’s a want not a need. It would rarely be for truck purposes - ie - buy stuff from home depot for diy projects. Toss bikes in bed to go ride w kids (already have a hitch bike carrier for the subaru). No towing (unless one day decide to get trailer or smal camper). Even the V6 turbo would be more engine that I would need. From the posts sounds like a toss up so best to go w gas efficient engine.

Or even buy a tacoma 4 cylinder extended cab
Or even a Honda Ridgeline???

It probably matches your proposed use best.

Just a thought

atikovi
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:20 pm
Location: Suburban Washington DC

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by atikovi » Tue May 19, 2020 8:12 pm

helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 11:21 am
If one was considering either a new or < 5-6 year used Ford F150
Here we go.
helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 8:00 pm
Or even buy a tacoma 4 cylinder extended cab
bubbadog wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 8:05 pm
Or even a Honda Ridgeline???

It probably matches your proposed use best.

blastoff
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:04 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by blastoff » Tue May 19, 2020 8:49 pm

helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 8:00 pm
blastoff wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:27 pm
How are you going to use the truck?
Significant towing or other heavy use?
It’s a want not a need. It would rarely be for truck purposes - ie - buy stuff from home depot for diy projects. Toss bikes in bed to go ride w kids (already have a hitch bike carrier for the subaru). No towing (unless one day decide to get trailer or smal camper). Even the V6 turbo would be more engine that I would need. From the posts sounds like a toss up so best to go w gas efficient engine.

Or even buy a tacoma 4 cylinder extended cab
Was asking because what may be more fuel efficient unloaded at 62mph, might not be more fuel efficient towing heavy loads.

I've driven a mustang GT with the 5.0 and it sounds cool. Mpg wasn't that bad with a light foot and 10speed.

If both engines are reliable enough, maybe just get whatever you want more. I think it would be a mistake to at least not test drive the V8.

iamlucky13
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by iamlucky13 » Tue May 19, 2020 9:31 pm

Some general obsevations, although they unfortunately do not provide clear answers.

Con: Turbochargers mean extra moving parts, in particular parts that operate intermittently, at high temperatures, in a slightly corrosive environment, and high cylinder pressures. These make achieving the same level of reliability as naturally aspirated engines fundamentally more challenging.

Neutral: A lot of distrust of turbochargers is historical based on turbos added to engines not originally designed for elevated pressures, then driven hard, because that's what most sports car owners do with sports cars. This history does not tell us whether or not the current generation of engines designed from the ground up to be turbocharged provide the same design margins for fatigue, wear, temperature effects, etc as their naturally aspirated relatives, especially for general use.

Pro: The fundamental challenges aside, the long history of turbocharged diesel engines proves it is possible to make them last well beyond normal consumer expectations (150-200,000 miles). For example, a relative replaced their F-350 at over 300,000 miles, probably over half of them towing the 10,000+ pound trailer that housed their business, due to transmission issues, not engine issues.
Matigas wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 4:03 pm
Ran it for 300 hours to replicate an equivalent of 150,000 customer miles?
Explain that please.
Accelerated testing.

I've been involved in this kind of work in non-road vehicle engineering at the component level, and also have some exposure to system-level accelerated testing. Our goal was a 20,000 hour vehicle life (assumes mid-life transmission and engine overhauls), which is roughly equivalent to 1 million miles for passenger vehicles. That's over 2 years of continuous runtime, but real test programs can't achieve continuous runtime, and a 5 year long development program might have less than a year between when a B-prototype (nearly final design; critical components are typically intended to be final) begins full scale testing, and when serial production begins.

So you have to have use accelerated testing techniques.

There's a huge amount of effort that goes into characterizing (1) Typical use and wear. (2) How deviations from the typical use conditions correlate to real use cases. Comparing those datasets or analyses lets you plan tests that accelerate the testing, using faster cycles, more severe cycles, or a combination of both.

Testing is imperfect though. In customer use, problems will still occur due to things we miss in testing, or due to quality variation and also because despite all our efforts on the engineering side, nobody is as skilled at breaking something as the end user.

With the number of Ecoboost engines Ford was planning on producing, combined with the general upward trend over time towards more engineering design and test hours, I guarantee the 3.5L Ecoboost in the F-150 has received radically more refinement and testing than, for example, the notorious early 80's Mustangs' 2.3L turbo option.

That doesn't absolutely guarantee it will have the same reliability as the naturally aspirated engine options, but I'd say it significantly lowers the level of concern I'd have.

In short, if features you care about are close (eg - if you care about performance, but not mileage), I'd lean slightly more towards naturally aspirated. If turbo gives a significant advantage you care about, on the other hand (as it probably will for fuel mileage), I would not be afraid of selecting the turbo option.

User avatar
whodidntante
Posts: 7999
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:11 pm
Location: outside the echo chamber

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by whodidntante » Tue May 19, 2020 9:57 pm

A truck requires more power to achieve a certain speed, and to keep it moving at that speed. This is because it's heavier, has worse aerodynamics, increased drivetrain losses, and increased rolling resistance compared to a car. So if you were to put exactly the same engine in both a truck and a car, I would expect that engine to live longer in the car, assuming you drive it similarly. You can see it requires more power for the same driving just by comparing the fuel economy to a similar car. So that's a testament to just how good these truck engines are.

I would go with the 5.0. I've tested the Coyote engine for you in my Mustang. It's a solid engine. You're welcome.

I think the Ecoboost is good if you aren't going to drive the truck until it's worthless. Most people get new truckitis around 100k or so. Pretty sure it's going to live that long, most of the time.

Ferdinand2014
Posts: 1408
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Ferdinand2014 » Tue May 19, 2020 10:01 pm

Teague wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 4:05 pm
smalliebigs wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 3:28 pm
palanzo wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 3:09 pm
And as the article points out the valves are no where to be seen. It's GDI also. No thanks.
Your disdain for GDI is interesting. Why do you hold such an opinion?
Ooh, ooh, pick me!

Anyway, the impression out there is, I think, that
1. Turbo GDI engines are susceptible to carbon buildup fouling intake valves, and
2. Turbo GDI engines are a less-proven technology, and
3. The valve carbon buildup requires expensive decarbonizing procedures every X number of miles, and
4. Turbo GDI engines are more susceptible to LSPI, which is scary and incompletely understood.

I'm not sure how much of this may actually apply these days.
All new F150 eco boost engines are both port and direct injected. They stopped making GDI several years ago. The eco boost 2.7 liter with the new 10 speed automatic revs at much lower RPM than the 5.0 at towing and highway speeds, has 2 less cylinders of wear points, develops its torque at much lower RPM than the 5.0 and I have complete confidence my 2.7 will stand the test of time. Not to mention both better gas mileage and much better acceleration. I ought to know. I have owned both. I much prefer the 2.7.
“You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.“ — Warren Buffett

Ferdinand2014
Posts: 1408
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Ferdinand2014 » Tue May 19, 2020 10:18 pm

helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 8:00 pm
blastoff wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:27 pm
How are you going to use the truck?
Significant towing or other heavy use?
It’s a want not a need. It would rarely be for truck purposes - ie - buy stuff from home depot for diy projects. Toss bikes in bed to go ride w kids (already have a hitch bike carrier for the subaru). No towing (unless one day decide to get trailer or smal camper). Even the V6 turbo would be more engine that I would need. From the posts sounds like a toss up so best to go w gas efficient engine.

Or even buy a tacoma 4 cylinder extended cab
The 2.7 liter V6 is faster accelerating, better towing and more tractable around town. It develops maximum torque of 400 ft/lbs at a much lower RPM than the 5.0 V8. Test drive both.
“You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.“ — Warren Buffett

AF_Engineer
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:05 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by AF_Engineer » Tue May 19, 2020 10:58 pm

I have a 2018 F-150 with the 3.5L Ecoboost & 10-speed transmission, has about 33,000 miles. I've really enjoyed the truck and have had 0 issues....but one quirk that seems to plague both the 3.5L and 5.0L engines is a very strange loud rattling noise when you decelerate (let your foot off the gas), when the engine is still cold. The noise goes away once the engine is warm, but it's a little unsettling to hear, and doing research online seems to indicate it was a common problem in the 2016-2018 timeframe. Ford came out with a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB 18-2274), that identifies the problem, but it doesn't seem to be a fix out there. The popular analysis is that the noise is due to something related to the Variable Camshaft Timing (VCT) solenoid, and the self-cleaning process.

I'm definitely no expert and it may be a harmless quirk that doesn't degrade reliability or engine life.....but it really gives me pause to recommending this engine to anyone. I plan on taking it to the Ford dealership to at least document my truck has this common problem, in case there has been a recent credible fix or some sort of remedy or warranty claim I can pursue down the line. :confused

User avatar
Brianmcg321
Posts: 683
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:23 am

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Brianmcg321 » Wed May 20, 2020 12:25 am

V8 hands down.

Less parts that can break vs a turbo.

Also the V8 gets better gas mileage when towing or with a full bed.
Rules to investing: | 1. Don't lose money. | 2. Don't forget rule number 1.

beernutz
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by beernutz » Wed May 20, 2020 1:04 pm

If you are one of those rare truck owners who tows heavy loads more frequently than they drive towing nothing, get the V8 if the maybe 1 better mpg the V8 gets in that situation is important to you.

Otherwise enjoy the better overall fuel economy, acceleration, towing capacity and torque of the 3.5L Ecoboost. I test drove both the V8 and the 3.5L Ecoboost before buying my F150 Platinum 3.5L Ecoboost and the difference to me was night and day.

I've towed my 5k lb 22ft center console hundreds of miles and a friend's 26ft 8k+ lb toy hauler and the Ecoboost has never disappointed.

Or listen to randos on the internet pontificating on vehicles they've never even driven.

grok87
Posts: 9038
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:00 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by grok87 » Wed May 20, 2020 1:56 pm

bubbadog wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 8:05 pm
helloeveryone wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 8:00 pm
blastoff wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:27 pm
How are you going to use the truck?
Significant towing or other heavy use?
It’s a want not a need. It would rarely be for truck purposes - ie - buy stuff from home depot for diy projects. Toss bikes in bed to go ride w kids (already have a hitch bike carrier for the subaru). No towing (unless one day decide to get trailer or smal camper). Even the V6 turbo would be more engine that I would need. From the posts sounds like a toss up so best to go w gas efficient engine.

Or even buy a tacoma 4 cylinder extended cab
Or even a Honda Ridgeline???

It probably matches your proposed use best.

Just a thought
i thought about a ridgeline, but it has no clearance
RIP Mr. Bogle.

emoore
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:16 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by emoore » Wed May 20, 2020 3:14 pm

If I had to choose between the two then I would choose the turbo 6. I've owned a turbo for 9 years and haven't had any issues. I'm not sure more moving parts means less reliable. That would make a Tesla the most reliable car ever! On the other hand if I were looking at a Ford Truck I would hold out a few years and buy an electric one.

Barefoot
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Barefoot » Wed May 20, 2020 4:03 pm

Teague wrote:
Tue May 19, 2020 6:38 pm
But, where do the blow-by gases, PCV fumes go? Right past the intake valve, without the benefit of gasoline cleansing the oily deposits off?
You'd think an engine guy would know about PCV, oil catch cans and the like...

Carguy85
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:26 pm

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by Carguy85 » Wed May 20, 2020 6:24 pm

The Tundra has had the exact same drivetrain for the last 12 years. You are the kinda person that really loves this or hates this. Maybe it’s just my misconception but ford truck guys seem to be extremely forgiving.

iamlucky13
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Ford F150 Engine long term reliability - V8 versus Turbo V6?

Post by iamlucky13 » Wed May 20, 2020 6:48 pm

beernutz wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 1:04 pm


Or listen to randos on the internet pontificating on vehicles they've never even driven.
Wasn't the internet invented for us all to share our convictions about topics for which we have no relevant personal experience?
grok87 wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 1:56 pm
i thought about a ridgeline, but it has no clearance
On a positive note, they got rid of the absurd bed rail design for the 2nd generation, but then they made it look like a minivan with a pickup bed. Of course, since the Ridgeline, Pilot, and Odyssey all share a platform, in a sense, it is a minivan with a pickup bed.

Post Reply