Most Reliable Engine

[SteveSRT8]

There are absolutely no facts to support your entirely anecdotal evidence. Remember this is 2012 right?

Anyone can find one car from any mfgr that is a lemon.

No problem with opinions, just don't like them presented as facts.

Pure anecdotal: my 300 is the BEST car I've ever owned in over 40 years of driving. 70k miles, over 50 dragstrip passes, many HPDE's at road courses all over the country. Nary a peep, just tires and some brakes.

I've had a ton of hi po machinery, and absolutely none of them could be driven this hard and had so little repairs and maintenance. Most of them weren't nearly as capable either.

But I don't use this to imagine ALL 300's are alike!!!

 

[cptbarkey]

Quote:

I don't see many Dodge trucks being worked hard that are 10+ years old.


you must have your eyes closed. i've owned/flipped several 1994-2001 dodges and see them every single day on the road. they are all universally beat to [censored] but thats because they are (surprise) being "worked hard."

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Chris Meutsch
Tundra appears to be very reliable if you're up for foreign makes.


Not being anti-foreign (the Tundra is built 80 miles from my house, after all) but frankly I don't think its in Ford/Ram/Chevy territory in reliability yet, a least not for trucks a few years old.

Of course as the OP has pointed out, that doesn't stop the Toyota name on the tailgate from jacking up the price of used ones... which were probably sold because they had minor problems! If the question were about buying *new* 2012 trucks, then I'd probably put the Tundra on the list. But used? No way.




Huh? What planet are you on? Especially comparing it to a Ram?

 

[mikeinaustin]

but this thread was about engine life not the entire life of the vehicle... i would vote for the toyota tundra v8 2uz-fe (for a gasoline engine that is). if you search the oil tests here, you'll see that the oil pretty much comes out brand new no matter how many miles are on that oil. in general, the engines just don't fail. now 30 years ago, i would have voted for the old chevy small block v6, those things lasted forever as well.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: jfrog
Ford makes good stuff as well I personally would go 5.0 over Eco boost.

Have you ever driven both the 5.0 AND ecoboost to compare?

 

[bigmike]

I don't tow, so I got the GM 4.8. It's been the quietest, no fuss engine I've ever owned. And, I still get 16.5-17 MPG city driving and 21-22 highway, even with Dueler Revo A/Ts on it. I've run anything from 5w30 to 15w40 in it and aside from using fuel treatment for some carbon knock, I haven't done anything to it.

That's the good news. The bad news is, I've replaced just about every major steering part. The horn is fussy, but I take the airbag out and clean the contacts about once every year or 2 to fix that. I've had a few other problems I consider were freak issues, so I won't comment on those.

Suspension is great, all original. Interior has actually been good quality, but I'm easy on it. No squeaks, creaks, etc. The ones I had have been fixed (one was a front shock squeak and another was a brake issue). Original brake pads and drums, but I changed the front rotors to slotted (no regrets). K&N air filter/intake, which is probably the most controversial addon, and a Gibson single exhaust were the only engine related modifications.

I personally plan to drive this vehicle until it becomes cost effective to buy a new one. I'm guessing that could be at least another decade, maybe up to 2.

 

[cptbarkey]

Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: jfrog
Ford makes good stuff as well I personally would go 5.0 over Eco boost.

Have you ever driven both the 5.0 AND ecoboost to compare?


we're talking about reliablity here, the 5.0 is not really a new design. the ecoboost has twin built in ticking time bombs called turbos that will cost a nice 3 grand to replace come 120k-150k.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mikeinaustin
but this thread was about engine life not the entire life of the vehicle... i would vote for the toyota tundra v8 2uz-fe (for a gasoline engine that is). if you search the oil tests here, you'll see that the oil pretty much comes out brand new no matter how many miles are on that oil. in general, the engines just don't fail. now 30 years ago, i would have voted for the old chevy small block v6, those things lasted forever as well.


By far and away, the longest lasting engine family is the Ford Modulars due to their use in LEO and taxi service. Finding examples with over 700,000-800,000Km is not uncommon. I've seen one with 1.2 million on it.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: jfrog
Ford makes good stuff as well I personally would go 5.0 over Eco boost.

Have you ever driven both the 5.0 AND ecoboost to compare?


we're talking about reliablity here, the 5.0 is not really a new design. the ecoboost has twin built in ticking time bombs called turbos that will cost a nice 3 grand to replace come 120k-150k.



The ecoboost has actually been around longer in different platforms then the 5.0L has been around. The 5.0L was a new design code named "coyote". There's not very much in common with any of the previous engines. Turbos are not new technology, look at all the diesel engines that use turbos with very little trouble. 3 Grand?! You've got to be kidding, no where near that much. Not to mention most people now days don't keep that vehicle 150k+ miles even so, they will last longer than 120k, they were engineered for 250k miles, are both water and oil cooled. Reliability, no one can actually comment to which one is more reliable at this point. There were more TSB on the 5.0L then there was the ecoboost. Both are fun to drive.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: jfrog
Ford makes good stuff as well I personally would go 5.0 over Eco boost.

Have you ever driven both the 5.0 AND ecoboost to compare?


we're talking about reliablity here, the 5.0 is not really a new design. the ecoboost has twin built in ticking time bombs called turbos that will cost a nice 3 grand to replace come 120k-150k.



The ecoboost has actually been around longer in different platforms then the 5.0L has been around. The 5.0L was a new design code named "coyote". There's not very much in common with any of the previous engines. Turbos are not new technology, look at all the diesel engines that use turbos with very little trouble. 3 Grand?! You've got to be kidding, no where near that much. Not to mention most people now days don't keep that vehicle 150k+ miles even so, they will last longer than 120k, they were engineered for 250k miles, are both water and oil cooled. Reliability, no one can actually comment to which one is more reliable at this point. There were more TSB on the 5.0L then there was the ecoboost. Both are fun to drive.


The 5.0L is a big bore 4.6L. It has a LOT in common with its predecessor. The engine that is "new" is the 6.2L, which was Hurricane and the engine design that actually pre-dated the Modular, but was shelved due to size limitations in FWD applications.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey

Ford makes good stuff as well I personally would go 5.0 over Eco boost.
we're talking about reliablity here, the 5.0 is not really a new design. the ecoboost has twin built in ticking time bombs called turbos that will cost a nice 3 grand to replace come 120k-150k.



The ecoboost has actually been around longer in different platforms then the 5.0L has been around. The 5.0L was a new design code named "coyote". There's not very much in common with any of the previous engines. Turbos are not new technology, look at all the diesel engines that use turbos with very little trouble. 3 Grand?! You've got to be kidding, no where near that much. Not to mention most people now days don't keep that vehicle 150k+ miles even so, they will last longer than 120k, they were engineered for 250k miles, are both water and oil cooled. Reliability, no one can actually comment to which one is more reliable at this point. There were more TSB on the 5.0L then there was the ecoboost. Both are fun to drive.


The 5.0L is a big bore 4.6L. It has a LOT in common with its predecessor. The engine that is "new" is the 6.2L, which was Hurricane and the engine design that actually pre-dated the Modular, but was shelved due to size limitations in FWD applications.


I was also informed that the 6.2L was shelved to CAFE reasons. The only reason Ford brought it out now was for bragging rights and for a power house to compete, thats why its only available in higher up trims; to help with the CAFE numbers. They also also revived it for a more efficient HD engine then the V10.

The 5.0 also has a lot newer technology than the previous modulars. There a lot in common but theres still a lot thats different.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey

Ford makes good stuff as well I personally would go 5.0 over Eco boost.
we're talking about reliablity here, the 5.0 is not really a new design. the ecoboost has twin built in ticking time bombs called turbos that will cost a nice 3 grand to replace come 120k-150k.



The ecoboost has actually been around longer in different platforms then the 5.0L has been around. The 5.0L was a new design code named "coyote". There's not very much in common with any of the previous engines. Turbos are not new technology, look at all the diesel engines that use turbos with very little trouble. 3 Grand?! You've got to be kidding, no where near that much. Not to mention most people now days don't keep that vehicle 150k+ miles even so, they will last longer than 120k, they were engineered for 250k miles, are both water and oil cooled. Reliability, no one can actually comment to which one is more reliable at this point. There were more TSB on the 5.0L then there was the ecoboost. Both are fun to drive.


The 5.0L is a big bore 4.6L. It has a LOT in common with its predecessor. The engine that is "new" is the 6.2L, which was Hurricane and the engine design that actually pre-dated the Modular, but was shelved due to size limitations in FWD applications.


I was also informed that the 6.2L was shelved to CAFE reasons. The only reason Ford brought it out now was for bragging rights and for a power house, thats why its only available in higher up trims; to help with the CAFE numbers.

The 5.0 also has a lot newer technology than the previous modulars. There a lot in common but theres still a lot thats different.


Certainly, but the 5.0L is the natural evolution of the DOHC 4.6L but with VCT (like BMW's VANOS). It is based on probably the most reliable gasoline engine family ever made, so it comes from some very strong roots. In comparison, the ecoboost does not have those same roots and is quite "new" relatively speaking, as the Modular dates back to the early 90's.

I think both are fine engines.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: lexus114
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Chris Meutsch
Tundra appears to be very reliable if you're up for foreign makes.


Not being anti-foreign (the Tundra is built 80 miles from my house, after all) but frankly I don't think its in Ford/Ram/Chevy territory in reliability yet, a least not for trucks a few years old.



Huh? What planet are you on? Especially comparing it to a Ram?


Rams are pretty trouble free before ~98 and after ~03. I routinely see them with way on the high side of 200k miles. Tundras are getting there, but a good friend is battling chronic electronic gremlins in his 09 Tundra right now just as an example (I know a sample size of 1 means nothing, but just scan the web forums for a while and you'll see they're hardly perfect). They're definitely on the upward curve, but they've got two things going against them: 1) no HD, 3/4 ton 1-ton, or diesel AT ALL, and 2) still not convinced that they've got the brake, front suspension, and rear axle issues they've had in the past beaten to submission. The drivetrains (at least forward of the axle) are absolutely rock solid, I'll give them that. And the frames don't seem to rust in half anymore.

But even if I'm not giving the Tundra enough credit for advances since around 2009, there is STILL absolutely nothing to clearly set it above Ram, Ford, and GM. Those 3 are absolutely indistinguishable, and Toyota is at best also indistinguishable in reliability. Add to that Toyota's artificially high price on the used market, and that just takes it out of the running as a used vehicle. I will not pay that kind of premium for any name on the tailgate, be it Ram, Ford, GM, Subaru, Honda, Toyota.... anything. Go on and keep your low opinion of Rams... it makes used ones much more affordable to me. Your loss, my gain.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Certainly, but the 5.0L is the natural evolution of the DOHC 4.6L but with VCT (like BMW's VANOS). It is based on probably the most reliable gasoline engine family ever made, so it comes from some very strong roots. In comparison, the ecoboost does not have those same roots and is quite "new" relatively speaking, as the Modular dates back to the early 90's.

I think both are fine engines.


Well put, evolution of a solid architecture.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: lexus114
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Chris Meutsch
Tundra appears to be very reliable if you're up for foreign makes.


Not being anti-foreign (the Tundra is built 80 miles from my house, after all) but frankly I don't think its in Ford/Ram/Chevy territory in reliability yet, a least not for trucks a few years old.



Huh? What planet are you on? Especially comparing it to a Ram?


Rams are pretty trouble free before ~98 and after ~03. I routinely see them with way on the high side of 200k miles. Tundras are getting there, but a good friend is battling chronic electronic gremlins in his 09 Tundra right now just as an example (I know a sample size of 1 means nothing, but just scan the web forums for a while and you'll see they're hardly perfect). They're definitely on the upward curve, but they've got two things going against them: 1) no HD, 3/4 ton 1-ton, or diesel AT ALL, and 2) still not convinced that they've got the brake, front suspension, and rear axle issues they've had in the past beaten to submission. The drivetrains (at least forward of the axle) are absolutely rock solid, I'll give them that. And the frames don't seem to rust in half anymore.

But even if I'm not giving the Tundra enough credit for advances since around 2009, there is STILL absolutely nothing to clearly set it above Ram, Ford, and GM. Those 3 are absolutely indistinguishable, and Toyota is at best also indistinguishable in reliability. Add to that Toyota's artificially high price on the used market, and that just takes it out of the running as a used vehicle. I will not pay that kind of premium for any name on the tailgate, be it Ram, Ford, GM, Subaru, Honda, Toyota.... anything. Go on and keep your low opinion of Rams... it makes used ones much more affordable to me. Your loss, my gain.








Ford makes a very good truck imo. If I was in the Market for a Pick up, or van. That would be my choice. I like the looks of the Ram, but too many horror stories from their owners. In the Ram`s defense, some of it could be lingering stories such as Quaker State causes sludge in your motor.

 

[hattaresguy]

I find on trucks the motor is usually the last thing you have to worry about. Usually the transmission or rear end goes first, or on my GM at least a steering component.

Also if you use it as a truck and work it the body and rest of the vehicle age faster than the motor.

 

[jigen]

Originally Posted By: bigmike

GREAT looking truck! Love it! If I had the space and more regular use for it, it would love to have a truck just like yours.

 

[Zaedock]

I replaced my '03 5.4L F150 with a 2012 F150 5.0L. It gets good mileage, is comfortable, and tows very well.

 

[Dakota1820]

ok im going to give my 2 cents on what i would do. i think all the big 3 makes good trucks. the toyota is ok but not my taste. but here is how i see it if i was going to buy a truck i would go for the best deal and i would give heavy favoritism to ford for having integrity!! kudos to ford for building solid vehicles that sell and do not need a hand out. that is my belief but all 3 are good. do what you wish and buy what you want. i personally love trucks but own a econo box because i dont enjoy buying gas but i drive a lot if you can afford a truck and want you earned it. your an
American buy what you want!!

 

[JavierG]

Originally Posted By: Alamogunr


It serves as a second vehicle. Occasionally, we need to take things to our sons who live about 3 hours away. I haul leaves, trash, deliver meals for our senior citizens center(similar to Meals on Wheels). My F150 is not an extended cab and my wife hates to use it to go anywhere. We had our bags rained on once.

I don't like the looks of the Ridgeline. I can't explain why. I just don't like it. If reliability were the only consideration, then it would rise to the top.

But this thread is titled " Most Reliable Engine". Hahaha
Seriously though you'll just have to go out and test drive everything. You'll get differing opinions on the same truck so it will just get confusing as you try to seperate the truth from fiction. Test drive and decide for yourself.
By the way I didn't care for the Ridgeline's look at first either. But I didn't need a full size truck as I only occasionally haul leaves, furniture etc. Plus I like the in bed trunk to keep groceries out of the rain. But test drive whatever you like because I think all of the trucks previously mentioned have their strengths.
Happy hunting!