I don't think you can go wrong with either. As you stated maintenance cost for the Coyote will be less over time. But the only additional thing you will be buying for the V6 is the turbos. Just doing a quick look it looks as if you can get one for around $1k. Which if you can afford the truck then you can probably afford to replace the turbos. If you are like me nothing stays stock and twins offer a lot of tuning potential. Tune and exhaust people are picking up like 50 horse and 100 lbs. of torque along with better fuel economy.

 

MSRP for a turbocharger for the 3.5L is $610.95. One of our site sponsors, AutoNation Ford, sells them for $403.23 each. Turbochargers have been around for more than 100 years, I don't think they're going to be a normal wear item.

http://parts.autonationfordwhitebear...omponents-scat

 

Turbos are most definitely a wear item. But my results was just a quick search. Sounds like OP has gone with the 5.0l.

 

I guess by that definition piston rings and crank bearings are as well. There are lots of turbos that last well beyond 500,000 miles, just like the other two components I mentioned.

 

By what definition? What turbo have you seen last 500k? I would seriously like to see that. Most light duty truck turbos won't make it much past 100k.

 

Used to be a commercial truck driver, and turbo replacements in my fleet were far from common.

Lots of light-duty diesel turbochargers last 200,000+ miles, and to my knowledge the 2011-present F150 is the first production light-duty pickup in history to use a turbocharged gas engine. These units lack the finnicky VGT hardware that most modern turbodiesels use.

At this point they have been around for over five years, and lots of them are racking up well over 100,000 miles, and you don't hear of many turbo failures.

 

1.8T Jetta with 500k on the original turbo and engine!

That said, the turbos should have no problems with at least a 200K service life. But you won't see a coyote live that long most likely without parts either. My guess is the lower end of the 3.5 is going to be better built than the 5.0 so that catastrophic failures between the two are pretty much a wash on likelihood.

 

My 6.0 and a friends both needed turbos barely over 100k. My dads common rail 5.9 needed one at 145k. You are making it seem like its unheard to replace turbos. A lot will rack up miles and a lot get replaced without high miles.

 

I haven't bought a truck yet. I test drove another one today.. it's a year older as a 2012 but otherwise is almost the same as the first 5.0 truck I tested, and it's $1,000 less. It's got 97,000 miles on the odo which is a lot for a 2012. But it has NO ticks or knocks, drives perfect, and they're asking $22,950 for it which seems in line compared to others locally. It's a one owner with a perfect Carfax. It's got 3.55 non-LS rear axle which I'm OK with. It's got a very expensive ARE camper shell on it which I could sell and make a little extra money off of. I'm going to look at the financing on it tomorrow.

 

It's certainly not unheard of to replace a turbo, I never suggested that. But there are lots of turbo applications where they last for hundreds of thousands of miles on a routine basis. Neither truck you mentioned had a water-cooled turbo like the EB has, and the 6.0L is known for having turbo problems. Until these engines start seeing that kind of mileage you're simply guessing.

 

I wasn't guessing, simply implying turbos would be the biggest cost difference between maintaining the two.

 

Arguing about which engine is going to cost less to operate is just silly. There have been far fewer turbo complaints than 5.0L replacements for cylinder distortion. The 5.0L has been just as or more problematic than the 3.5L and the funny thing is, the ecoboost makes up 60% of all F-150 sales since 2011.

The ecoboost has had it's fair share of misfiring issues, CAC issues, cat replacements and some engine failures, but rarely turbo related.

I had a bulletproof 5.8L in a 1988 f-150 that needed to be replaced at 101K miles. Failures happen and it sucks but they happen.

 

Turbos may not need replacing.....but just how much labor is it to replace them? I don't have issues with the turbos. my issue is when the rings get worn and the turbos spool up....the rings will not hold it. and Ive had worn engines that went quite a while, but turbos will finish off a worn engine quickly.

 

Golly, the things some people worry about...

 

It comes from reading forums too much. I hear a tiny tick every 2 minutes and the next thing I'm expecting my motor to blow up, my tranny shred itself and watch my rear axle pass me by on the highway. I'm also guilty of this.