E-Torque Worth It?

[Cannonball]

The standard tank on all the trucks is 23 gal, until you get to the Laramie and up trims, where it's supposed to be 26 gal. The 26 gal and 33 gal tanks are the optional ones. It's not about the engine choice.

 

[Rototerrier]

I don't know where the "smooth" shift thing comes from either. I've test driven with and without and I have no idea how the trans could shift any smoother. These trucks with and w/o etorque have the same trans. I know I saw it somewhere in the marketing hype, but I'm pretty sure it sits in the same BS category as the better EPA rating. About as real as fairy dust and unicorns.

 

[Nails]

I don’t disagree with mpg statements, hype or smoothness shifts of non etorque.
I do agree great tactics to push the next gen of ram 1500.
That smoothness on non etorque comes with a cost of friction material lose per forced slippage to achieve that. As for cost of abuse on the etorque system. Only time will tell

 

[riccnick]

As for cost of abuse on the etorque system. Only time will tell

Ill say this, I'd rather replace the MGU and or its belt (like an alternator) than replace the transmission!

 

[Capt Joe]

Simply.....NOPE!

 

[Nails]

Ill say this, I'd rather replace the MGU and or its belt (like an alternator) than replace the transmission!

No doubt, as I stated earlier in thread, not only cost difference. as you said, labor difference as well!!!

 

[SpeedyV]

I opted for eTorque because I believe in supporting technology designed to reduce emissions and improve efficiency. Does it provide “significant” benefits? That’s debatable. Does it represent a step in the right direction? Certainly.

 

[Nails]

^^^you put it in better words then me mate! A1 sir

 

[pinkerton]

It’s a bad investment. No one can debate the math: 100k miles of 1mpg savings @ $2.50/gal is $1k returned on a $1,250 investment. That’s bad, really bad. Not to mention it will be expensive to repair.

 

[Jus Cruisin]

I ordered my truck with the E-torque last June because it was a cheap option. At current prices, I'd skip it.

My thinking at the time was for the added torque they advertised as I do some towing (enclosed car trailer) and I felt I could get the mpg benefits of the 3.21 gears and the additional torque off the line. I'm plenty fine with the 3.21's running around as I run "empty" 95+% of the time. I'm finally dragging my car trailer a bit this weekend. A trip to Bradenton and back. Maybe about 300 miles round trip. Curious what kind fuel economy will be. Performance will be just fine because there will hardly be a hill along the way.