3.5L EB vs. Supercharged V8 at lower rpm's

jmelgin83

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2023
Messages
14
Reaction score
9
Location
Estes Park, CO
I would like to develop a dyno chart comparing the 3.5L Ecoboost vs. the 5.0L V8 vs. a supercharged 5.0L V8 (with the Whipple). I'm finding it virtually impossible to find example dyno figures for a current generation motors. My hypothesis is that the 3.5L EB will have more HP and Torque below 4000 rpm than the supercharged V8. Being an engineer (sorry, just can't help myself), I want to prove or disprove this with some real data. Does anyone have any data or can point me in the right direction?
 
I'm gunna provide zero help but I'm tagging along for the answer.
 
5.0 with Whipple will produce much more tq everywhere. Screw SC will make insta tq. The big draw back to the 5.0 with SC will be that is wont be efficient for cruising compared to a turbo v6. Otherwise SC V8 will be pretty superior.
 
I would like to develop a dyno chart comparing the 3.5L Ecoboost vs. the 5.0L V8 vs. a supercharged 5.0L V8 (with the Whipple). I'm finding it virtually impossible to find example dyno figures for a current generation motors. My hypothesis is that the 3.5L EB will have more HP and Torque below 4000 rpm than the supercharged V8. Being an engineer (sorry, just can't help myself), I want to prove or disprove this with some real data. Does anyone have any data or can point me in the right direction?
What type of engineer are you?
Also, what type of vehicle do you own / drive.
 
What type of engineer are you?
Also, what type of vehicle do you own / drive.
I am a chemical engineer and auto enthusiast. I am about to order a '24 Tremor and am honestly wavering between the 5.0L and the 3.5L. My bias is to go with the V8 and do the supercharger upgrade. I'm a sucker for the bigger exhaust note of the V8 and I'm addicted to power. However, I drove my friends PowerBoost yesterday and was blown away with the low-end torque. Knowing that I spend most of my time driving < 4000 rpm, I'm genuinely interested in the HP/TQ curves to compare these various engine options.
 
I’ve noticed that the EcoBoosts definitely start dumping efficiency when you start to tip into the boost which doesn’t take much with some load behind it. I do agree though they’re great for grunt. I think a supercharger would be better overall but it’s definitely a tough call with how well the EcoBoosts have become. I am partial to a V8 though.

Found what I hope would reflect the most neutral take on dyno charting.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4905.jpeg
    IMG_4905.jpeg
    65.4 KB · Views: 44
  • IMG_4904.jpeg
    IMG_4904.jpeg
    204.7 KB · Views: 44
Here's my far less than perfect analysis. These charts are based on multiple Dyno inputs that reflect the latter generation engines. I just used my eyeball to try and read each of the Dyno results that many have shared plus a few additional ones I gathered from the internet gods. As a result, the data has some scatter but I think tells a compelling story.

My conclusion is that the V8 with the Whipple provides the greatest horsepower and torque across the entire rpm range. I had originally thought the Ecoboost would win out at lower rpm but that just isn't the case.

If you have data that refutes this analysis, please share. I have no pride of ownership here and am totally open to a different conclusion if supported by good data. Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread!
HP & Torque.png
 
Here's my far less than perfect analysis. These charts are based on multiple Dyno inputs that reflect the latter generation engines. I just used my eyeball to try and read each of the Dyno results that many have shared plus a few additional ones I gathered from the internet gods. As a result, the data has some scatter but I think tells a compelling story.

My conclusion is that the V8 with the Whipple provides the greatest horsepower and torque across the entire rpm range. I had originally thought the Ecoboost would win out at lower rpm but that just isn't the case.

If you have data that refutes this analysis, please share. I have no pride of ownership here and am totally open to a different conclusion if supported by good data. Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread!View attachment 26584
Are you comparing a stock EB 3.5 versus a Whipple 5.0? Seems that way. A tuned 3.5 makes more torque than the Whipple 5.0. That is due to the tune however.
 
Are you comparing a stock EB 3.5 versus a Whipple 5.0? Seems that way. A tuned 3.5 makes more torque than the Whipple 5.0. That is due to the tune however.
Yes, this is comparing with a stock EB. There seem to be many dyno charts from tuners. However, since there aren't any tunes available for the '23 models yet (at least to my knowledge), I just wanted to compare to stock. Comparing the Whipple to a tuned EB would be another interesting analysis.
 
That Whipple curve is ridiculous. I have the 3.5 with no regrets. But if I had the money to drop $9k on top of a brand new Tremor for the Whipple I probably would have done that. I doubt it gets 17-19mpg zooming around though like I do.
 
Yes, this is comparing with a stock EB. There seem to be many dyno charts from tuners. However, since there aren't any tunes available for the '23 models yet (at least to my knowledge), I just wanted to compare to stock. Comparing the Whipple to a tuned EB would be another interesting analysis.
A modified EB versus a modified 5.0 is a more accurate analysis IMO. Otherwise you are bringing a gun to a knife fight. Below is a tuned 3.5 making 552 ftlb torque to the wheels by ~3300 rpm. That is roughly 100 ftlb tq more than the Whipple 5.0 in your graph above at the same rpm. If you want to compare apples to apples and dollar for dollar in modifications then bigger turbos comes into play and it gets more interesting from there. You seem to want a pragmatic view of the comparisons but then state how you want the sound of the V8. Seems by the data you collated and the manner to which it was presented you are delivering a bias towards what you want versus providing a comprehensive analysis. Just my two cents.

Also to note, the 23 is able to be tuned however it requires additional work depending on the tuner, i.e. sending in your ECU or having your vehicle present at their location.

Screenshot_20240208_050819_DuckDuckGo.jpg


Edit: A good article on the tune ability of the 3.5 EB depending on your apatite.

 
Last edited:
I've updated the graphs to include a tuned version of the 3.5L EcoBoost. Looks like the EB - Tuned outperforms the V8 - Whipple on HP in the lower rpm range. The V8 - Whipple has the edge on Torque up to about 2750 rpm, then the EB - Tuned grabs the lead up to about 4250 rpm.

Horsepower.png
Torque.png
 
For me it'd still come down to use case/noise. EB with a multimap will be easier to swap between kill and chill over carrying around pulleys. Our crazy white shit in FL is a little diff than yalls in CO but wouldn't an "instant torque" on a blower be a bit of a handful up there?
 
For me it'd still come down to use case/noise. EB with a multimap will be easier to swap between kill and chill over carrying around pulleys. Our crazy white shit in FL is a little diff than yalls in CO but wouldn't an "instant torque" on a blower be a bit of a handful up there?
How the Whipple would handle a snowy condition is certainly on my mind. I live at 8000' elevation, so the naturally aspirated 5.0L V8 takes a significant hit due to the thin air. Putting a blower on it would resolve that issue, but might be too much instant torque in the snow. On the other hand, the 3.5L either stock or with a tune wouldn't suffer the power loss due to the thin air because of the turbo boost. I think, for me at least, it comes down to personal preference. I like the exhaust note of the V8 and the thought of a supercharger makes my muscles look bigger. :)
 
How the Whipple would handle a snowy condition is certainly on my mind. I live at 8000' elevation, so the naturally aspirated 5.0L V8 takes a significant hit due to the thin air. Putting a blower on it would resolve that issue, but might be too much instant torque in the snow. On the other hand, the 3.5L either stock or with a tune wouldn't suffer the power loss due to the thin air because of the turbo boost. I think, for me at least, it comes down to personal preference. I like the exhaust note of the V8 and the thought of a supercharger makes my muscles look bigger. :)
twinscrews have the most fun...you always hear them saying wheeeee
 
I've had a couple of twin screws in the past. They sure are fun. But the 3.5 is plenty for me. I must be getting old....


DSC_0874.jpeg
IMG_1376.jpeg
 
Something else note here as well, you don't have 93, you have shitty 91. Unless you are going to run an E-blend your numbers will be far less and the thinner are to boot. I lived in the Springs over half my life and that is one thing I don't miss, crap gas and thin air for performance. I do miss all the back country hiking, fishing, and camping but after a while it all looks the same.
 
The eco boost ultimately won’t be able to make up the difference of 1.5 liters of displacement. If both engines are getting compressed air the displacement will win the day.

That said I have a 3.5 and I love the tq delivery.
 

New Topics

Back
Top