Easy to read article on etorque

[DeanKing]

I found this went into some of the aspects of it that other articles didn’t and it wasn’t written too technical.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/amp23306626/ram-1500-etorque/

 

[Edwards]

There are some "get legal involved" gross errors in this article. At no point ever are the "conventional disc brakes disabled" due to eTorque!

I expect far better from Popular Mechanics.

 

[elguapo503]

There are some "get legal involved" gross errors in this article. At no point ever are the "conventional disc brakes disabled" due to eTorque!

I expect far better from Popular Mechanics.

I would assume that the disk brakes are disabled at minor braking in order for the eTorque motor to act as an alternator.

 

[356]

The price for the Hemi ET has changed since published, that's for sure. So far, the hype on MPG seems true--Fuelly is showing approx. 2 MPG gain for ET over non-ET, although the number of ET trucks is still too few to made any formal conclusions.

 

[rvsixer]

Wow. More misinformation than even vr spreads around regarding e-torque.

 

[rvsixer]

The price for the Hemi ET has changed since published, that's for sure..

One thing they got right. Article says $1450 price to add etorque to Hemi. Current RAM online configurator also shows $1450 for adding etorque to Hemi.

 

[go-ram]

There are some "get legal involved" gross errors in this article. At no point ever are the "conventional disc brakes disabled" due to eTorque!

I expect far better from Popular Mechanics.

I agree completely. While the article does have some good points and presents the information in an easy-to-understand way, that statement about "disabling the disc brakes" is a red flag that the author is either mixed up, or just didn't explain very well a small subtlety that Ram engineers explained to the author.

Here's another glaring error:
"Adding eTorque to the Hemi boosts the truck's towing capacity from 11,610 o 12,750 lbs. (if you option it out similarly with the tallest 3.92 axle ratio and towing package)."
Doesn't it seem highly unlikely that a 130 lbf*ft eTorque electric motor, which only operates at low RPM, can possibly increase the towing capacity of the vehicle by 1040 lbs? That increase must be due solely to the taller rear-axle ratio, right?

Perhaps the original poster should modify their original post to include a disclaimer in all caps that the article has some questionable aspects.

 

[SpeedyV]

I agree completely. While the article does have some good points and presents the information in an easy-to-understand way, that statement about "disabling the disc brakes" is a red flag that the author is either mixed up, or just didn't explain very well a small subtlety that Ram engineers explained to the author.

Here's another glaring error:
"Adding eTorque to the Hemi boosts the truck's towing capacity from 11,610 o 12,750 lbs. (if you option it out similarly with the tallest 3.92 axle ratio and towing package)."
Doesn't it seem highly unlikely that a 130 lbf*ft eTorque electric motor, which only operates at low RPM, can possibly increase the towing capacity of the vehicle by 1040 lbs? That increase must be due solely to the taller rear-axle ratio, right?

Perhaps the original poster should modify their original post to include a disclaimer in all caps that the article has some questionable aspects.

That’s not just one glaring error. The “tallest” ratio is the numerically-lowest, i.e. 3.21 in the Ram. The author should’ve written “shortest” in reference to the 3.92. Then there’s the implication that eTorque is the primary reason for the additional towing capacity, as you pointed out, when that number is only achieved with one (very) specific configuration that includes much more than just the eTorque option.

 

[devildodge]

The thing he is missing in the option everyone seems to miss with the max towing. The Dana Super 60.

From what others have said here, the etorque alone actually loses towing over the NoN eTorque.

Article writers very usually don't have all the facts. Usually why I read @redriderbob articles andthen compare others. He usually has actual FCA releases with his, but FCA is still tight lipped about so much, no wonder the confusions

 

[SpeedyV]

From what others have said here, the etorque alone actually loses towing over the NoN eTorque.

Yes...except on the one configuration that actually achieves the 12,750 lb tow rating. Remember the payload and towing chart that was shared a while back?

 

[DeanKing]

The thing he is missing in the option everyone seems to miss with the max towing. The Super Dana 60.

From what others have said here, the etorque alone actually loses towing over the NoN eTorque.

Article writers very usually don't have all the facts. Usually why I read @redriderbob articles andthen compare others. He usually has actual FCA releases with his, but FCA is still tight lipped about so much, no wonder the confusions

Tell me more about the Dana 60? How do you get that? The 3.92? Off road package?

 

[devildodge]

2wd trucks only. Ram itself hasn't said much about it. There are a few threads here that mention it. Mainly me telling people that the max tow (and with all manufactures) is a very specific configuration. The main thing for max tow Is the Dana Super 60. It is open differential only.

To get max tow it has to be a guad cab 2wd 5.7l hemi with eTorque.

I think it is also trim limited, but not 100% sure...tradesman for sure, bighorn/lonestar 90% positive and 95% positive not with Laramie or Limited

 

[DeanKing]

2wd trucks only. Ram itself hasn't said much about it. There are a few threads here that mention it. Mainly me telling people that the max tow (and with all manufactures) is a very specific configuration. The main thing for max tow Is the Dana Super 60. It is open differential only.

To get max tow it has to be a guad cab 2wd 5.7l hemi with eTorque.

I think it is also trim limited, but not 100% sure...tradesman for sure, bighorn/lonestar 90% positive and 95% positive not with Laramie or Limited

That explains why I never heard of it. I never tried the online configuration with anything but 4wd. That is a serious diff.

 

[4sallypat]

I would assume that the disk brakes are disabled at minor braking in order for the eTorque motor to act as an alternator.

Yes, the eTorque acts a energy generator to recharge the battery pack.
During deceleration and light braking, the eTorque will produce a form of engine braking which is then used to generate power back to the battery pack.
A lot of hybrids use this type of energy regeneration.

 

[Edwards]

I've been wondering too if the MGU is "idle" most of the time while driving/accelerating, i.e. no drain on engine like an alternator would. That would assist with MPG as it could run off the eTorque battery down the road until it needed a recharge and then engage the MGU to create electricity. Make sense?

 

[SpeedyV]

I've been wondering too if the MGU is "idle" most of the time while driving/accelerating, i.e. no drain on engine like an alternator would. That would assist with MPG as it could run off the eTorque battery down the road until it needed a recharge and then engage the MGU to create electricity. Make sense?

Makes sense. But even if that’s the case, it’s spinning directly off the crank, so there would be some parasitic power loss. Would be interesting to see the cost/benefit numbers.

 

[Chris]

Makes sense. But even if that’s the case, it’s spinning directly off the crank, so there would be some parasitic power loss. Would be interesting to see the cost/benefit numbers.

I imagine the electric magnets in the MGU with no charge would incur only negligible friction losses from the belt and bearings, like a clutched A/C that is turned off.

 

[SpeedyV]

I imagine the electric magnets in the MGU with no charge would incur only negligible friction losses from the belt and bearings, like a clutched A/C that is turned off.

That may be true. You'd still experience marginally higher losses than an alternator due to the (assumed) larger rotational mass of the BSG, being spun by a larger drive belt, which is in turn rolling over (IIRC) two idler pulleys in between. The engineer in me would be interested to learn more about the logic used to engage/disengage the BSG in various modes, i.e. stop/start, initial acceleration, steady-state, deceleration, etc.

 

[Edwards]

That may be true. You'd still experience marginally higher losses than an alternator due to the (assumed) larger rotational mass of the BSG, being spun by a larger drive belt, which is in turn rolling over (IIRC) two idler pulleys in between. The engineer in me would be interested to learn more about the logic used to engage/disengage the BSG in various modes, i.e. stop/start, initial acceleration, steady-state, deceleration, etc.

Would be very nerd cool if we could get a gauge option on the LCD for BSG input/output. Would be interesting to watch it swing wildly positive and negative!

 

[go-ram]

Would be very nerd cool if we could get a gauge option on the LCD for BSG input/output. Would be interesting to watch it swing wildly positive and negative!

For an interested driver, the type of display you describe can actually be educational, not just entertaining. I know this from driving a Prius for years - if you pay attention to the electricity flow graphics on the dash, you learn cause-and-effect pretty quickly, and you can learn the most efficient techniques for accelerating/decelerating/braking.

I know, I know, no pickup truck owner really cares about fuel efficiency, and they all hate Priuses, etc., but it's still good knowledge to have in general (i.e. how to be efficient when you need to be), and in fact it can be entertaining to challenge oneself on occasion to achieve maximum fuel efficiency. Not every day, but once in awhile a different challenge can be kind of fun and interesting.