I'm contemplating a new pickup.  I now have a V8 and know nothing about the reliability, real-world towing experience, or maintenance cost of a V6 twin turbo engine.

Anyone out there with actual experience towing with a V6 twin turbo engine?

The only thing better might be a twin-turbo V8.

Ours is 6 years old this month, and it is our go-to road vehicle whether we're pulling the pod or not. When we're not pulling the pod and highway driving, we typically get 21-22 MPG. Not too shabby for a torque beast.

+1 to GlueGuy.  We previously has a 2011 F-150  5.0L V-8 coyote engine which pulled just fine yet as GG states it does pull even better than the V-8 and at lower rpm's, that is a huge plus in my eyes.

We drive a 2017 so not as many miles so the one to watch is GG.  Age does matter here as far as reliability and endurance.

I anxiously await the coming monster.
http://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/01/twin-turbo-ford-godzilla-v8-rumor/ -
LINKY!!

There's no substitute for cubic inches.

Thanks for all the replies.

Is there more maintenance or service required for a V6-twin turbo engine versus a V8?

Nothing special for the turbos, as the engineering has adjusted for the problems that some early turbos saw back in the 1980s and early 1990s. There is literally nothing in the maintenance schedule for the turbos.

I was told when purchasing my 3.5 EB to let it idle for a few minutes before shutting down if it is either running in hot weather or been hauling a trailer to let the turbo cool down.  Do you concur?

That's what I did with my turbo.  I rarely ran it hard, but it seemed to be a no-cost precaution that might help a little.

Thanks all.  I'm considering a 2022 Tundra which is rumored to be coming out with a V6 twin turbo engine based on the Lexus engine.

Or maybe a Ford F-150 EcoBoost.  I need a double cab with a standard length bed.

Originally posted by offgrid 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.

I agree with higher volume, less mechanical stress and complexity.  That's the direction I'm leaning.

That may have been true in the old days, as shutting down quickly would cause the oil in the turbos to sit and coke up.

However, the way the new turbos are designed, they have auxiliary cooling and do not get hot enough to cause the coking. That, and with synthetic oils, that kind of problem is thankfully behind us.

If one is worried about engine reliability, some manufacturers offer extended warranties for an affordable price.  We just got a 150K/6yr. transferrable warranty for all the major systems for our F-150.  Now any concerns about the reliability of the turbo engine are put to rest.

I personally would prefer to get one of the electric F-150's, but the range is completely impractical as a TV.  

OG in regard to your statement that the standard ICE is more reliable than the modern twin turbos, such as the EcoBoost, please provide statistical evidence of engine failure rates from 2018 on to support your claim.  Yes older turbos may have been less reliable, but where is the data to show the newer ones are not as reliable as a standard motor?  As for how many miles people will get on an EcoBoost or similar engines engine, time will tell.

That may have been "historically: true for early boosted engines. The early GM ones in particular were just plain disasters.

However, almost all long haul diesel tractors are boosted, and they last routinely in the neighborhood of 1,000,000 miles. The key is beefing up the crankshaft and main journals. If you look at the 2.7L and 3.5L EcoBoost engines, they have very beefy main journals with 6-bolt mains. That is extremely unusually in a gas engine, but maybe not so much in a diesel.

The V6 EcoBoost engines have been very, very reliable.

When overhead valves were introduced, people resisted and preferred the older flathead design.  Same for fuel injection vs. the carburetor and electronic ignition as opposed to points and condensers.  Every innovation in engine technology has it detractors who like the older simpler systems while others prefer the higher efficiency of the newer technology.

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. 

To each his own. OG likes his Highlander, and that's all he needs to know.

As for an F-150 EcoBoost "cult," it doesn't come close to the true belief of the Toyota cult members.  I'm still waiting for Toyota to come clean with their sudden acceleration defect that killed too many people.  Their bogus and clumsy attempt to blame it on the driver's side carpet and operator error was nothing more than a cynical attempt to hide a serious engineering flaw.

This was the reason why I got rid of my F-150 with the 5.0 Coyote engine.  Oil consumption.  With only 140,000 miles we were going through 1.5 quarts of oil every 1000 miles.  After our 2019 trip to RMNP and Utah for a month I burned through 9 quarts of oil after traveling 6100 miles.  At that rate I never have to change the oil do i?  Changed to a 2017 F-150 with 3.5 eb.  Happy so far and hoping it will go as far as my old 94 F-150 5.0 V8 stick with 322,000 miles.  Still see her on the road a lot, just had to sell it after killing 31 deer and hitting over a hundred, the metal body started to show signs of wear, especially the front end but at least it had a 'killer' bumper on the front!

And here I thought I'd avoid the "red pill/blue pill" controversy!

Anyhow, I do appreciate all the input on the V6-twin turbo versus V8 normally-aspirated engines.