^^Couldn't agree more with this. I haven't seen any benefit from it, but I don't do any real city driving on my regular commute. In fact, my 2020 Laramie with etorque gets worse average fuel economy than my 2017 Rebel did. I have yet to read any real world instances where people have seen much of a fuel mileage benefit. But then again, how many etorque owners are first time Ram owners? It's hard to know if there's an improvement if you've never owned one without etorque.From what I've read re; eTorque the way it works is via a 48v (430 watt) air cooled battery pack, it spins a belt connected directly to the crank. It only comes into play during the very first one half of tire rotation when leaving from a stop. In addition, it features the start / stop (love it or hate it) feature which can save a few ounces of fuel per day depending on how many times and for how long you are stopped at lights. I can almost see it saving fuel in heavy city driving. It also has some regenerative braking capabilities as well thus potentially saving on brake wear.
For the 2021 MY it only adds $200 to the MSRP but for me personally, I don't need the potential extra headache years down the road as the system just isn't beneficial enough.
My truck cannot maintain MDS above 40mph unless I'm going downhill with a tailwind. ..and I have the 3.92s.It also works to allow the truck to stay in ECO/MDS mode longer, saving cruising/highway fuel. I get about 16-16.5 pure city mileage and 22-24mpg highway. YMMV
This is documented in earlier threads and by FCA. A primary benefit is stop/start, of course. FCA shows that a certain number of ounces of fuel are burned at every 90-second stop, and that eventually adds up. But at speed, eTorque also enables the truck to remain in MDS longer than a non-eTorque truck.How can eTorque increase the rated mpg by 10%? Is it just from the auto-stops or is there anything else it is doing to impact mpg while driving?
Interesting...could it be the additional weight the Longhorn carries? I too, with my 3.92s, have noticed my eTorque stays in ECO/MDS mode longer than my previous non-eTorque 2019 which had a 3.21. And yes, I do notice like tgwill is the shifts are much smoother. Love my eTorque.My truck cannot maintain MDS above 40mph unless I'm going downhill with a tailwind. ..and I have the 3.92s.
Highly possible! She's a heavy girl.Interesting...could it be the additional weight the Longhorn carries? I too, with my 3.92s, have noticed my eTorque stays in ECO/MDS mode longer than my previous non-eTorque 2019 which had a 3.21. And yes, I do notice like tgwill is the shifts are much smoother. Love my eTorque.
That's usually the case for me too but even a slight downhill at 70 MDS can kick in and that improved the instant MPG by 7-8 it seems.My truck cannot maintain MDS above 40mph unless I'm going downhill with a tailwind. ..and I have the 3.92s.
My point in comparing the 2017 Rebel with my current Laramie is that I'm seeing worse mileage with the Laramie, which has etorque, than I saw in my Rebel which (obviously) did not have etorque. Definitely not an apples to apples comparison, but if anything, an etorque equipped 5th gen should get better mileage than a 4th gen, especially a Rebel. The Rebel was heavier and had worse aero. It is a valid comparison for me because I use/used them both for the same commute. The fact that the 5th gen with etorque gets worst mileage than a 4th gen is telling for me.This is documented in earlier threads and by FCA. A primary benefit is stop/start, of course. FCA shows that a certain number of ounces of fuel are burned at every 90-second stop, and that eventually adds up. But at speed, eTorque also enables the truck to remain in MDS longer than a non-eTorque truck.
As for those who don't believe it does anything, please see my earlier reports based on Fuelly data. 10% might be optimistic, but there is a measurable gain. We're not comparing 4th gens to 5th gens; we want to see the net benefit of eTorque on 5th gens (i.e. apples-to-apples comparison).
...and if you had the same 5th gen Rebel without eTorque, you’d see even worse mileage, based on real-world data. The “eTorque effect on mpg” (the title of this thread) is still positive. I don’t doubt your observations about 4th gens vs 5th gens, but that’s not a drawback of eTorque.My point in comparing the 2017 Rebel with my current Laramie is that I'm seeing worse mileage with the Laramie, which has etorque, than I saw in my Rebel which (obviously) did not have etorque. Definitely not an apples to apples comparison, but if anything, an etorque equipped 5th gen should get better mileage than a 4th gen, especially a Rebel. The Rebel was heavier and had worse aero. It is a valid comparison for me because I use/used them both for the same commute. The fact that the 5th gen with etorque gets worst mileage than a 4th gen is telling for me.
It doesn't matter how much fuelly data you throw up, it doesn't reflect what I've seen on my commute. I've driven with MDS and stop/start enabled for 5 tanks, and with both disabled for 5 tanks. I saw an improvement of less than .5 mpg, which I would consider to be within the margin of error. I wish it made a difference for me but I'm just not seeing it.
When I compare the fuel economy my wife is seeing in her Limited (without etorque), she's seeing pretty much identical fuel economy I'm seeing. Her truck has air suspension, 33 gallon fuel tank, and the MFT, otherwise they are comparably equipped. We both work at the same place and have the same commute. We just work different hours. I'd like to believe what you're saying. But I just don't see it....and if you had the same 5th gen Rebel without eTorque, you’d see even worse mileage, based on real-world data. The “eTorque effect on mpg” (the title of this thread) is still positive. I don’t doubt your observations about 4th gens vs 5th gens, but that’s not a drawback of eTorque.