Shopping for an airborne SUV and it seems like these fit the budget, configuration and mission.
I'm pretty familiar with most of the specs but can't seem to find real-world speed difference numbers from anyone familiar with both. Guessing about 7-10 knots difference from the Cherokee-6/300 to the Lance?
Also what's the skinny on the Turbo Lance? There's a wealth of info about the TC and TN Beeches (thanks to BT) but I can't gather anything definite on the Lance. Specifically, I'll seldom go over 10K so is the turbo Lyc similar to the turbo CMI in that there's not much benefit except to the fuel vendor? Or is a turbo Lyc ok down low and good up high? It seems like many of the nicer Lances are turbo and they don't seem to command a higher price than the N/A birds.
Other thoughts and comments are always welcome.

The Cherokee 6 is a great hauler for short trips, but for me it is just too slow for a long trip. It will haul what you want to haul at roughly 135-140 knots on 15 GPH.

The Lance is a 6 with folding gear and will buy you another 15 knots of speed. The Turbo Lance began in 1978 and comes with the T-Tail. It is a 155 knot plane down low and will do 170 knots up high. They fly fine, but are not real good short performers. They have the Hershey Bar wing just like the Lance and the 6. You can get a pretty good deal on one. Big cabin and front baggage area makes them nice haulers. The T-Tail and most pilots inability to fly them correctly make them cheap.

The Saratoga is the best choice IMO. The turbo will do 175-180 knots up high and has the standard tail and improved wing. I have owned 2 1978 Turbo Lance and 1 1980 Saratoga SP Turbo. They were all good planes. Buy the Lance if you want a deal. Buy the Saratoga if you want to go a little faster and have better take-off performance.

Todd, thanks for the reply. Good to have PIREP numbers instead of published specs.
80-90% of my trips will be less than 250 nm and 90% of those will be less than 100 nm. Anywhere from 2-6 souls aboard (some kids) and around here the average airport elevation is 1000 MSL. The C-6 is probably great for all that but I'm finding turbo Lances for the same money. (I hear ya on the T-tail thing. Same principle as the V-tail I guess.) There may be an occasional long trip too, it's a little too early to tell how this whole thing is going to shake out.
Is the turbo Lance "overkill" and a gas hog at low altitudes and is there more $$$ in maintenance for them? They really seem to be good bang for the buck.
I had looked at the Saratoga but I need to measure the hangar doors Hate to have that happen. My K35 is about 3' from each side of the door.

If you are only going that far I would stick with a Cherokee 6 300HP. You will save no time on your trip with a Turbo Lance. The Turbo Lance will Burn about 15% more fuel and since you are not going very high and are flying out of low MSL airports the turbo will not help you much. You are also adding complexity in the exhaust and fuel system when it is not needed. The 300 HP Cherokee 6 is a good machine. You do not need retractable gear for the speed difference either. Stick with simple.

The V-Tail, IMO, is a benefit as I do believe it is a little faster than a straight tail of the same HP. The T-tail; however, is a VERY heavy design and does nothing for performance. Piper wanted their planes to look like airliners, so they put T-tails on the Lance and Arrow and made the airplane worse, not better.

Had a 1965 pa32-260 that was turbo normalized. N67180. Lovely SUV with some extra pop. Look for one of those :-)

I have owned a 76 Lance and now own an 83 Turbo Toga. A straight tail Lance or a Cherokee 6 are great airplanes. When I was looking I did quite a bit of research in the differences in the stratight and T-tail lance. The T-tail is a runway hog the wing will fly, but the elvator will not since it is not in the prop wash. It will also not handle well in slow flight because of the t-tail being out of the prop wash. You can get it cheaper, but there is a reason, they are not good handling airplanes. Will they fall out of the shy, no, but you have to handle them much differently and they are not forgiving at the worse times, landing and taking off. I have talked to several professional pilots who have told me the t-tail was their least favorite and most challenge aircraft to fly. Did not seem like the kind of aircraft I wanted to pack my family into. Other then the t-tail, they are awesome. If you want a turbo, get a Toga, you can get a good one for about 135 if you look and are not scared off of what people are asking. Asking prices are high, but you can get them for less. A good 6 with nice avionics can be had for about 100K as well as a good lance as well.

Beechtalk rules!
I posted a similar query on a leading Brand P forum and after 3 days only 1 rather lame response. Further proof that BT is the pinnacle of aviation forums.
So I'm to understand that the main downside to a turbo is excessive fuel burn for little performance gain at my altitudes. Is there an engine longevity penalty? Cooling issues in Oklahoma summers?
A search reveals that the wingspan on my k-35 with M tips is 33'5", the lance /C-6 is 32'10" and the Saratoga is 36'3" so it seems the Toga will fit.
Don't stop with the suggestions. The more information the better.

Figure this on a turbo machine vs NA: the overhaul will cost you 20 AMU more, and typically the TBO is less. Unless your operating at 10k or more, your aiming for your wallet and hitting your butt going turbo. That explains the minimum price difference between turbo and normally aspirated. Personally, I'm trying to close a deal on a 66 260 horse. Would prefer the 300 with fuel injection, but price point on this particular airplane rules the decision.
As to the T tail versions, another reason they suck at low envelope is the surface area is less than the standard stabilator. Poor decision on Pipers' big hauler at the time. Too many pilots have booed vs the few that cheer the T tail.
The straight legged 6 will do fine for your mission also... Less chance of extension problems, cheaper to annual, and don't forget insurance considerations. If I need to go long, I have the turbo banana .....
Just sayin

These trips are perfect for a Six. I would just make sure to get one early enough to have the four separate tanks. My 79 and I think the Saratogas have the four tanks plumbed together into a left and right and there is no reliable way to short fill it. With the four separate tanks you can just leave two empty for more payload.

And my 79 300 will do 140-145kt on 13 gph in cruise depending on altitude averaging 15gph for the trip. Yes, that is LOP. They did a lot of cleanups for 79 in prep for the Saratoga the next year that gave it 5 knots or so over the earlier Sixes.

The turbo will run cool in the Toga or the Lance, but that is not the issue. Thee turbo is built for a few reasons:

1. To make sea level power at altitudes up to 15k or so for better takeoff performance.
2. To make full cruise power available at higher altitudes so you can go faster and maybe top some weather.

Since your average trip is only going to be a couple hundred miles and you are operating out of strips near sea level the turbo will not help you much and may in fact not be as good of a choice since your useful load will be less and the fuel burn higher requiring more fuel on board instead of passengers and baggage.

The Turbo Saratoga is my favorite single engine traveling machine for comfort. The cabin is far more comfortable than an A36 due to the increased width and the front baggage area. The A36 handles better and looks better also, but the Toga is far superior for passengers and baggage. The NA Toga will do what you want, but why have the added expenses of retract when it is not needed? A 6 with a 300 will do everything you want and will most likely have the highest useful load as well. Great airplane.

The turbo will run cool in the Toga or the Lance, but that is not the issue. Thee turbo is built for a few reasons:

1. To make sea level power at altitudes up to 15k or so for better takeoff performance.
2. To make full cruise power available at higher altitudes so you can go faster and maybe top some weather.

Since your average trip is only going to be a couple hundred miles and you are operating out of strips near sea level the turbo will not help you much and may in fact not be as good of a choice since your useful load will be less and the fuel burn higher requiring more fuel on board instead of passengers and baggage.

The Turbo Saratoga is my favorite single engine traveling machine for comfort. The cabin is far more comfortable than an A36 due to the increased width and the front baggage area. The A36 handles better and looks better also, but the Toga is far superior for passengers and baggage. The NA Toga will do what you want, but why have the added expenses of retract when it is not needed? A 6 with a 300 will do everything you want and will most likely have the highest useful load as well. Great airplane.

What Brian says is true. Some of our most comfortable trips to FL was in the Saratoga. Even though it was slightly slower than the Baron it was a much more comfortable cabin. The Baron and Bonanza are darn good airplanes, but if you want comfort the Piper wins hands down.

Love the cherokee six. Have 4 kids and we take it all over. Several trips 4.5-5 hrs and no problems. 135-137 kts. Like the multiple fuel tanks. Really a great family plane. Factory AC is nice. We fly Dallas to Florida a bit. Also Dallas to Colorado and New Mexico not a problem. The baggage area is also really nice. Loaded a honda odyssey worth of bags into it and still room and usefull load left.

Can you post a few more pics of exterior and the interior. It looks like a sweet Cherokee 6.

Cute kids Jason. Nicest 6 I've ever seen.