|
Forums46
Topics538,024
Posts9,731,982
Members87,055
| |
Most Online25,604
Feb 12th, 2024
|
|
|
 Re: V6 turbo ford engines
[Re: Sneaky]
#8655791
08/03/22 10:45 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,841
DocHorton
THF Trophy Hunter
|
|
THF Trophy Hunter
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,841 |
Nothing looks good lowered.  
|
|
|
|
Re: V6 turbo ford engines
[Re: Sneaky]
#8655806
08/03/22 11:10 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 18,556
ducknbass
THF Celebrity
|
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 18,556 |
Nothing looks good lowered. Worth saying again
|
|
|
|
Re: V6 turbo ford engines
[Re: Paluxy]
#8655984
08/04/22 02:58 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,871
topwater13
Veteran Tracker
|
|
Veteran Tracker
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,871 |
Not 100%, but asking about longevity and the ford fans talking about being on their 4th+ ecoboost doesn't seem to bode well. Unless you're getting 200k+ out of one with little to no issues, I wouldn't even mention longevity. We can all trade in trucks every two years and talk about how great they were for 70k miles.
Being a little facetious here, but come on.
' How does that compare with 3/4 ton diesels needing injectors and other repairs? I haven't driven a diesel in 12 years....and only had one when one was provided for me via employer, so diesel longevity is a moot point IMO. Based on the OP, we are talking about 1/2 ton gassers. Turbo vs. v8. My point was how many trucks, gas or diesel, can go 200k+ without any issues. Very few from my observations, as always there are exceptions. I get it....and I must be the exception. I have had two 5.7 tundras (08 &10) that went 200k without anything but oil changes and batteries.
|
|
|
|
Re: V6 turbo ford engines
[Re: Paluxy]
#8656311
08/04/22 04:06 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31,953
txtrophy85
THF Celebrity
|
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31,953 |
My point was how many trucks, gas or diesel, can go 200k+ without any issues. Very few from my observations, as always there are exceptions.
Most modern engines can do that easily. That isn't a huge feat these days if proper maintenance is done.
For it is not the quarry that we truly seek, but the adventure.
|
|
|
|
Re: V6 turbo ford engines
[Re: txtrophy85]
#8656329
08/04/22 04:19 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,358
bronco71
Pro Tracker
|
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,358 |
My point was how many trucks, gas or diesel, can go 200k+ without any issues. Very few from my observations, as always there are exceptions.
Most modern engines can do that easily. That isn't a huge feat these days if proper maintenance is done. mostly true but I can name 3 from my fleet parts man experience that don't hold up in stock form... 5.3L GM 6.0L PS and 6.4L PS. From personal experience the Toyota 3.0L truck engine from the early 90's was a POS...
|
|
|
|
Re: V6 turbo ford engines
[Re: bronco71]
#8656333
08/04/22 04:26 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31,953
txtrophy85
THF Celebrity
|
|
THF Celebrity
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 31,953 |
My point was how many trucks, gas or diesel, can go 200k+ without any issues. Very few from my observations, as always there are exceptions.
Most modern engines can do that easily. That isn't a huge feat these days if proper maintenance is done. mostly true but I can name 3 from my fleet parts man experience that don't hold up in stock form... 5.3L GM 6.0L PS and 6.4L PS. From personal experience the Toyota 3.0L truck engine from the early 90's was a POS... I can't agree with the 5.3 liter as I know of several that have 200k on them but the 6.0 Powerstroke were last produced in 07' and the 6.4 liter in 2010. So you are referencing a 15 year old and a 12 year old engine. Much has changed since then. But yes, they were turds. The 7.3 liter would that preceded them would do 200k like it was nothing, but again that's not a "modern" engine as we know them today
For it is not the quarry that we truly seek, but the adventure.
|
|
|
|
Re: V6 turbo ford engines
[Re: 603Country]
#8656348
08/04/22 04:40 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,358
bronco71
Pro Tracker
|
|
Pro Tracker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,358 |
In my case the 5.3L was used in bigger fleet delivery trucks and that was probably too much for it. The company eventually replaced them with 6.0L gas GM engines which were great(and I am normally anti GM) I still have my 99 7.3L PS in a F450 and it is running strong... I would rock a 6.0L PS if bulletproof was done correctly but it is too much $$$$ for me to justify it.
|
|
|
Moderated by bigbob_ftw, CCBIRDDOGMAN, Chickenman, Derek, DeRico, Duck_Hunter, hetman, jeh7mmmag, JustWingem, kmon11, kry226, kwrhuntinglab, Payne, pertnear, rifleman, sig226fan (Rguns.com), Superduty, TreeBass, txcornhusker
|
