Pros and Cons of e-tourque?

[robbiele]

I keep going back and forth about to order with or without e-torque. So what do we feel are the pros and cons and ultimately what would you choose even if your choice would have changed after you received your truck?

 

[Zinger]

Drive both eTorque and non back-to-back on the same loop. Reset the trip meter between both and see if you see a difference in MPG. ETorque at it's core is supposed to be a gas saver, but the jury is still out on that, so do your own test and see what you find. At the retail price, it may be very hard to financially justify the upgrade. Beyond the supposed gas savings the eTorque *might* produce smoother shifting, but again, that has never been well substantiated.

If the Mpg savings don't appear to be there I'd probably not get it, at least not at the $1450 it goes for. I got a $500 rebate on mine so I went with it, but looking back I'm not convinced the added complexity is worth it if the claimed gas savings aren't for real.

 

[Smashy71]

My opinion it’s not worth the extra 1600 bucks. From what I’ve been reading the people with etorque are not seeing any or much difference in fuel economy. I drove both and went with non etorque.

 

[I_really_really_want_one!]

If you are buying off the lot, and the truck that has what you want has an etorque and is marked way down then it might be worth the roll of the dice.

On the other hand if you are ordering, it's really hard to justify going out of pocket for an unproven contraption that might very well might go bonkers at some inconvenient moment (like 5 miles after your warranty expires).

With all that said I'm getting great mileage, and the little bolt-on miser is working perfectly in all of my 600 miles thus far.

 

[Longhorn5G]

When I watch youtube vids of amatuer reviewers who talk to on the spot FCA reps at events regarding the etorque, the FCA reps seem to always try to make clear to folks that

A. The additional torque is not added to overall Spec Torque, as its not an add on at best rpm or anything.

B. Rather than "A.", it is primarily to assist in the initial Go from a start/stop scenario after the car has shut off like at a stop sign or red light or wherever. That Etorgue amount of torque is the torque necessary to be able to GET that 5000lb+ rig moving, ajd moving smoothly until the engine can take over.

Theres nothing, that I have comprehended up to this point, that FCA has suggested that the eTorque benefits anyone after that initial go from a stop.

It seems as though the engineers found that solution to be the best thing they have to make a start from an engine shut off stop as smooth and expeditiously as possible.

The gas savings, where that comes in, as far as I can ascertain, is due to the start/stop sparing the unneccesary idles, amd that initial, and very minor initial first gear launch, unril the gas quickly joins in and takes over.

 

[SpeedyV]

If you are buying off the lot, and the truck that has what you want has an etorque and is marked way down then it might be worth the roll of the dice.

On the other hand if you are ordering, it's really hard to justify going out of pocket for an unproven contraption that might very well might go bonkers at some inconvenient moment (like 5 miles after your warranty expires).

With all that said I'm getting great mileage, and the little bolt-on miser is working perfectly in all of my 600 miles thus far.

At least it’s covered by the 8 year / 80K mile emissions warranty. That’s better coverage than the rest of the truck

 

[Longhorn5G]

The battery regenerates the same as any other hybrid type, by brake use, one FCA lady said. But they call it a Mild hybrid.

Given what i understand of it, its explainable why any gas savings are minimal to none. Its used semi rarely and in those start from go positions, and if you take a highway trip, ajd leave exit 52 of whatever state, drive your full tank without stopping, you shpuld see zero difference in tank mileage, given rhat the conventional 5.7 was running that entire time.

Now, I COULD BE WRONG, I know. But depending on your lifestyle and driving needs, to factor in whether it would be any good to you.

I think if anything, it would give a more city driver more of the boost in gas savings.

 

[Smashy71]

Before I decided to order I literally bought a loaded rebel with etorque and when I was to come pick it up the next day the etorque was jacked up and they nullified the contract because it was never in my hands.

 

[Kidder]

The battery regenerates the same as any other hybrid type, by brake use, one FCA lady said. But they call it a Mild hybrid.

Given what i understand of it, its explainable why any gas savings are minimal to none. Its used semi rarely and in those start from go positions, and if you take a highway trip, ajd leave exit 52 of whatever state, drive your full tank without stopping, you shpuld see zero difference in tank mileage, given rhat the conventional 5.7 was running that entire time.

Now, I COULD BE WRONG, I know. But depending on your lifestyle and driving needs, to factor in whether it would be any good to you.

I think if anything, it would give a more city driver more of the boost in gas savings.

Nailed it.

 

[Rototerrier]

I have it. Total waste. I see absolutely no benefit whatsoever. If anything it's a liability since it's just another thing to break. Fortunately, I've had zero issues but I'd still skip it if in a position to do over again. Seems pointless now that I've been living with it.

Pro: I can virtue signal
Con: I wasted money on something that doesn't do anything significant.

 

[Zinger]

The battery regenerates the same as any other hybrid type, by brake use, one FCA lady said. But they call it a Mild hybrid.

Given what i understand of it, its explainable why any gas savings are minimal to none. Its used semi rarely and in those start from go positions, and if you take a highway trip, ajd leave exit 52 of whatever state, drive your full tank without stopping, you shpuld see zero difference in tank mileage, given rhat the conventional 5.7 was running that entire time.

Now, I COULD BE WRONG, I know. But depending on your lifestyle and driving needs, to factor in whether it would be any good to you.

I think if anything, it would give a more city driver more of the boost in gas savings.

Here's the thing though, *somehow* the eTorque version of the truck was rated 2 Mpg higher than non. It's been rumored that somehow eTorque helps the MDS stay in longer but I don't think I've ever seen that officially stated. Which makes me wonder FCA pulled off the extra 2 MPG.

 

[Longhorn5G]

Here's the thing though, *somehow* the eTorque version of the truck was rated 2 Mpg higher than non. It's been rumored that somehow eTorque helps the MDS stay in longer but I don't think I've ever seen that officially stated. Which makes me wonder FCA pulled off the extra 2 MPG.

Algorithym and equations I believe. EPA doesnt physically test for hundreds and thousands of miles, so to speak, to get figures. EPA gives the numbers. Factoring the benefits of stop and go fuel savings, I can understand the higher City portion and thus, higher average. The highway portion creates confusion.

The EPA equation, as I understand it, amoung its many many variables, the assumption of completely legal driving. Average highway speed limits, and nothing over. That keeps max RPMs down for the equation.

Also, the best possible, possibly inhuman means of acceleration, gears, shift points, etc. The shift point for you and me rely on how we drive it. It also includes a sea level and temp, and barometer that may not apply to everyone. Such as, sea level at 76 degrees and no humidity on completely level ground at top gear, many people may never see.

The key isbto understand what is their Highway definition, and City definition... and then ask, does that definition equate to what someone who says their own highwat numbers are way under?

One guys city, is not another guys city. My city, is Washington DC. The otger guys city, is suburb town in Bloomfield Illinois.

 

[Longhorn5G]

Bottom line, in my opinion, there are just too many variables to compare. Waaay too many. Whether comparing person to person, or person to EPA numbers.

Seriously, my highway is filled with ups and downs. Henry's highways are in Wisconsin with flat straight highways.

Also, some people dont turn off cruise when on hilly ups and downs, which actually hurts mileage...as the engine revs a tad in a lower gear to stay at speed instead of coasting more and gaining a little speed before the next incline.

One person may know how to achieve a stated mileage, and another may not kniw as much as to how to achieve it.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[SpeedyV]

Here's the thing though, *somehow* the eTorque version of the truck was rated 2 Mpg higher than non. It's been rumored that somehow eTorque helps the MDS stay in longer but I don't think I've ever seen that officially stated. Which makes me wonder FCA pulled off the extra 2 MPG.

That’s been explicitly stated. It also has been explicitly stated that the system smooths out shifting under load and (obviously) during stop/start. I feel like we’re starting to rehash ancient eTorque threads now...

 

[Longhorn5G]

To keep it on topic, though, the eTorque, in my opinion, depends on how you intend to use the truck.

 

[19Jake]

I have it. Total waste. No benefit whatsoever. Another thing to break. Seems pointless.

eTorque

 

[I_really_really_want_one!]

The other thing I wonder, is where did they get this technology? I mean a belt-starter-generator... who came up with that idea? Any other car ever built have such a thing? Is it good or bad to do it that way?

And the monster alternator - is its power really available to the rest of the systems? Can I power a rail gun or tesla coil with it?

Right now I'm thinking it's a slightly improved start-startup feature best suited for door-to-door delivery services, e.g. UPS. I think if they just pitched it as that there would be a whole lot less flame threads about the thing.

 

[SpeedyV]

The other thing I wonder, is where did they get this technology? I mean a belt-starter-generator... who came up with that idea? Any other car ever built have such a thing? Is it good or bad to do it that way?

And the monster alternator - is its power really available to the rest of the systems? Can I power a rail gun or tesla coil with it?

Right now I'm thinking it's a slightly improved start-startup feature best suited for door-to-door delivery services, e.g. UPS. I think if they just pitched it as that there would be a whole lot less flame threads about the thing.

This technology has been around for more than a decade, when 42V systems were first being explored. It was too expensive to prove cost-effective then, but as 48V systems have become more popular (for other applications), the cost to implement a P1 hybrid system in a vehicle has come down significantly. And everything cheaper (e.g. lightweighting, turbocharging, etc.) has already been largely explored. FCA first applied the "eTorque"-branded system to the Jeep Wrangler, and now to the Ram. Other manufacturers will undoubtedly continue to explore this and a host of other hybrid/electric options in the quest for reduce emissions and improved efficiency.

 

[Longhorn5G]

Right now I'm thinking it's a slightly improved start-startup feature best suited for door-to-door delivery services, e.g. UPS. I think if they just pitched it as that there would be a whole lot less flame threads about the thing.

Thats my feeling on everything I have compiled in my head. There are many scenarios around me that would benefit. Inside the Beltway, there are plenty, in fact, too many, situations where its light after light, 4 minutes each one. Not exxagerating, on a normal day at 2pm where I live, it takes 20 to 30 mins to get... no lie, 3 miles.

If I had that etorque and auto start stop, im sure it would help me. But like others said, one more thing to break and complicate things.

 

[Nails]

Etorque main focus is not mileage. Take away idle time, extend eco mode, push off stop and help push rpms to efficient lvl. Seamless start stop. Sure some savings in fuel. Time will tell. It is also to hype/pump the new model year and add manufacture points for cafe/epa.

It is to extend the life of the power train and truck around it. Takes work off brakes. Removes slipping of clutches on shifts. Removes drive train shock. To name a few. Again time will tell.
My impressions so far is I’m happy with the truck and lucky I haven’t run into issues at this time. I do feel extended eco even up upgrade of hills. Start stop is impressive. Shifts are not of notice. What I would say playful when driving still float around 17mpg combined highway and street.
If you feel uncomfortable about it then don’t get it.
As much as peeps, even I don’t want to hear it. Electric motion incorporated with Internal Combustion Engine is part of the quick future. Maybe time to jump on board. Unless hydrogen or another fuel alternative is to make a huge jump back in there is no other choice.
This does seem we are doing this over and over