Originally Posted by johndog82

Here's some common sense: No one ever said theyre worried about mass, up-front catastrophic failure of the 3.5. That has nothing to do with it and you guys are missing the point. Bottom line is, even if Fords claims are spot on and it goes 150k as a workhorse, what happens at 250k? 350k? The turbo hardware isnt going last forever if its frequently spooling up to tow that heavy load for 15-20 years. that's just science. ..its going to start lagging and mileage will go down eventually. And Its gonna cost you (or whoever owns that old truck then) a few thousand when it comes time to service it. Go ahead, laugh at me and name all the notoriously reliable GAS turbos throughout history.

Originally Posted by DemonGT

And common sense would tell you even a truck WITHOUT a turbo could have failures on parts at the 150K,250K or 350K mark.

here are some vehicles that had turbos

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...rs/?thumbnails

Originally Posted by Doug06fx4screw

You left out the small displacement issue. It's common sense that a smaller engine is going to strain it's guts out trying to compete with a larger engine and is likely to wear itself out much earlier. That's common sense!

Originally Posted by johndog82

Right, and having a NA motor guarantees there's one less MAJOR component to fail you.

Originally Posted by countrysquire

With modern oils, a turbocharger should last hundreds of thousands of miles. Now, if the oil somehow got diluted with fuel...well that could change things, but what are the chances of that?

Originally Posted by countrysquire

With modern oils, a turbocharger should last hundreds of thousands of miles.

Now, if the oil somehow got diluted with fuel...well that could change things, but what are the chances of that?