V8 or V6 Twin Turbo pickup?

Bottom line, if you are going to buy a car or truck to tow your travel trailer, pick something that is safe, reliable, comfortable, has the needed towing capacity, and minimizes its environmental impact, that you can afford.  It's all a matter of personal choice.  The major vehicle manufacturers usually make engines that last a very long time, whether gasoline or diesel, turbo or not.  Certainly there are some notable exceptions usually found when a company experiments with new technology, but that is the price we end up paying in order to see engine technology advance.  Hopefully, in the coming years, we'll see non-CO2 emitting power plants for TV's emerge with adequate range and refueling infrastructure to make cross-country trips possible.  There will always be promoters and detractors of new technology; some touting the new stuff, while others preferring what they believe is tried and true.

Originally posted by GlueGuy If you want to talk about reliability, turbos are not the issue. They just don't fail all that often. If you are comparing the V6 to the V8, the latest iteration of the coyote has been having significant issues with oil consumption. It's apparently a process problem with the plasma-coated cylinders.

DO NOT MAKE ME PUT Y'ALL IN A CORNER...

Calling those who happen to like the EcoBoost engine "cult" members is insulting, OG.  From your post:  "I think I have it now. It must be the f150 Ecoboost cult."

LA, at what point did I put down your choice of an Ecoboost Ford engine?

This thread is directed toward the pris and cons of larger normally aspirated vs. smaller turbocharged engines.

Here was my response:


If the new Tundra engine is out of the ls500 then it's got a few years history behind it already. That being said, my personal preference would be for normally aspirated engines of higher volume (regardless of manufacturer). Less engine stress and complexity.

That is a very reasonable personal preference and is neutral with respect to manufacturer. I do not drive at altitudes over around 4000 feet, so I have no compelling need for a turbo in the arena where it has a clear advantage.

In contrast, you have suggested that I am such a Luddite about turbochargers that I should just go buy 1940's engine tech. That kind of lack of tolerance of alternative viewpoints is a hallmark of cultish behavior, as is the unacceptably of dissent.

Here is another cult like behavior for you: raising unrelated issues to distract attention. Toyota unintended acceleration claims have absolutely zero to do with the topic of this thread.

As for your reference article, the folks interviewed all had around 100k on their vehicles. But I don't really care about how good vehicles are in that mileage range. I usually buy my vehicles used with around 90-100k on them (my Highlander had 88k). So I'm interested in the reliability history of vehicles between roughly 100 and 300k. That history takes many years to aquire. It took me 11 years and 3 design generations to decide I was ok buying a Prius, even though I thought its hybrid technology was darn compelling.

In that mileage range things start to break, and more complexity means there is more stuff to break. That is my point. Most folks don't do it the way I do, which is why I stated it was a personal preference.