BowDown
Spends too much time on here
Mines a crew with the 5'7" bed. I've seen many others that are the same as well. I talking about the 2 piece rear section of the drive shaft, like in the picture above
5thGenRams Forums
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
eTorque vs. Hemi
- Thread starter Mad Cow
- Start date
- Status
Mines a crew with the 5'7" bed. I've seen many others that are the same as well. I talking about the 2 piece rear section of the drive shaft, like in the picture above
Which is what mine is, CC with the 5'7" bed. I'll try to remember to post a pic of my driveshaft later when I get home.
arod412
Ram Guru
Curious question to all. With my previous HDMI’s, I always like to look at idle hours. Would like to know how that effects idle hours…like is that a combination of engine being off, and battery power. Can idle hours now include when the start/stop isn’t available or when it’s off by the flip of a switch.
With that said, I would love to see some kind of battery indicator on how much juice is back there. Only thing that I know that it’s not fully charged, is when start/stop isn’t available
2021 Ram Rebel
2016 Dodge Charger scat pack
2021 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara (wife)
With that said, I would love to see some kind of battery indicator on how much juice is back there. Only thing that I know that it’s not fully charged, is when start/stop isn’t available
2021 Ram Rebel
2016 Dodge Charger scat pack
2021 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara (wife)
My Big Horn eTorque has a 26-gallon tank. I crawled under the truck to verify part numbers and later figured out that I could pull up a build sheet online. As I understand it, the dealer would have selected the 26-gallon tank as a $0 option.
Exactly right.
BowDown
Spends too much time on here
So I did an experiment today with etorque. Disabled the auto start stop for the day, running errands ciity driving.
Started at 17.8 miles per gallon, I am currently at 17.4 after only 3 hours of City driving.
What I have noticed is that it drops like a rock during stoplights and idle time at the bank and any other place where auto start stop would normally engage.
Over the course of a week I can easily see me being at high 14 to 15 miles per gallon. No way etorque and auto start stop doesn't save fuel.
Started at 17.8 miles per gallon, I am currently at 17.4 after only 3 hours of City driving.
What I have noticed is that it drops like a rock during stoplights and idle time at the bank and any other place where auto start stop would normally engage.
Over the course of a week I can easily see me being at high 14 to 15 miles per gallon. No way etorque and auto start stop doesn't save fuel.
Last edited:
I’ve googled this very thing, so far I’ve not been able to find a side by side 0-60 or quarter mile…
arod412
Ram Guru
I've driven a 2020 non etorque, and my current 2021 rebel which is etorque. I just don't think the numbers are there, because I really don't feel it.
The thing I'm confused about between the 2 engines is mpg. Yes, etorque is an assist, but when it shuts down at a light for 2 mins. That has to play into something. The "official" numbers between the two is what..1 mpg? Sitting at a light can drink more gas.
Just odd with this etorque system, and I'm learning alot in the last 1k miles. Braking is different.
2021 Ram Rebel
2016 Dodge Charger scat pack
2021 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara
BowDown
Spends too much time on here
Closest thing is can find is a Superchips rear wheel dyno chart
Etorque does appear to have a better torque curve and average power
2020 Ram 5.7L Hemi E-Torque and Non E-Torque Tuning Now Available
Adds up to 33 HP and 28 lb-ft TQ Includes option to manage throttle boost between 0-20% Disable Auto Start-Stop Manage features including speed limiter control, fan temperatures, and tire size Preloaded tuning to include performance, tow, and economy levels Supported coverage includes Flashcal...
superchips.com
BowDown
Spends too much time on here
I think (my opinion) the "official" numbers use a low average for stop lights. Very few lights around me if any are 90 seconds which is what the RAM numbers are based on. Lights here average 3 minutes. Second is the density of the traffic lights, this will also impact the economy.
I had about 300 miles on this tank of gas @17.8 mpg. When I disabled auto start/stop and drove around in the city I lost almost 1/2 a mpg.
The thing that I'm just now realizing is that I had averaged 17.8 for 300 miles the dropped 1/2 mpg in a short time. To impact a 300 mile average that drastically in such a short time by not engaging auto stop/start has to have used a considerable amount of fuel.
The kicker is that in a day of driving with auto stop/start re-engaged, I've only been able to recoup 2ths or about 1/2 the loss which further suggests to me that I took a huge hit in mpg.
Doing the math, I drove about 60 miles of city driving with auto stop/start disabled and now have an estimated remaining range of 60 miles which means I used about 4 gallons of fuel.
That 60 mile average comes out to 15 miles per gallon or about a 2.8 mpg difference. I consistently average 17.8 - 18.5 in mixed city driving, mainly city.
People can claim that etorque and auto stop/start doesn't offer any savings all they want but unless I've done some math wrong somewhere, it seems to be worth almost 3mpg for me. Obviously if you have a significant amount of city driving, etorque would save you fuel and if not, etorque wouldn't be a benefit for you.
asgadf/lkjnadsfg
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 202
- Points
- 43
- Age
- 55
I would very much like for you to make a valid analogy, but to date, you've not been able to.
The comment i made was not "that the etorque was one more thing that could fail", that leaves out a material aspect of my statement, which included the savings of the promised benefit of the system vs the potential cost of fixing it.
My comment was that etorque could fail and offset the fuel savings they say are the primary benefit. That statement has nothing to do with why YOU bought it. I don't care why you personally bought it, and have not argued for or against anything you've done.
The supercharger does exactly what they say it does, as does the 4WD, which is why they are both invalid comparisons to a system that offers as one of it's primary benefits, fuel savings, and may not deliver those savings when netted against a potential repair. The etorque auto-stop might provide fuel savings, but the potential cost of a fix that offsets any fuel savings would make the entire thing a fail. That's basic cost/benefit analysis. Basic.
Last edited:
BowDown
Spends too much time on here
Yet here you are doing just that acting as though 4wd and a SC will not cost anything to repair, but you don't care...I would very much like for you to make a valid analogy, but to date, you've not been able to.
My comment was that etorque could fail and offset the fuel savings they say are the primary benefit. That statement has nothing to do with why YOU bought it. I don't care why you personally bought it, and have not argued for or against anything you've done.
The supercharger does exactly what they say it does, as does the 4WD. The etorque auto-stop might, but the potential cost of a fix that offsets any fuel savings would make the entire thing a fail.
asgadf/lkjnadsfg
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2021
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 202
- Points
- 43
- Age
- 55
Show me where i said that. Quote it. I'll wait.
You are again ignoring, intentionally or unintentionally, the linkage between the promised fuel savings of the feature, and the cost to repair.
4WD and the Super Charger deliver exactly what they were designed to deliver. so there's no comparison to the e-torque stop/start. You continue trying to compare a feature designed to save money (etorque start/stop), with systems that are not designed to save money. That's why your analogy is invalid.
Nobody is saying 4WD and SC won't cost money to repair. They surely will, but fixing a supercharger is just the price of participating in the world of high performance machines.
Last edited:
AngelPhoenix
Ram Guru
I mean, if you never have eTorque, then you obviously have no potential for the fuel savings at all. It's sort of a gamble I guess? But one that's more likely to pay off than not. I get what what you're saying in that if the eTorque craps out and you have to pay out of pocket to fix it, then you lost whatever money you might have saved from it. But it's mostly likely not going to crap out, and even if it does, if it's far enough down the line that you've had years of fuel savings, you might break even. And still have enjoyed it's other benefits.
Again, paying the $1500 for it when it first came out (or $800, or hell even $300) is probably a no-go. But when you pay nothing at all for it up front, I don't see the issue. Stuff like superchargers and 4WD cost money up front AND could cost you to repair them, and while the former could potentially be a "needed" item (moreso than the eTorque system), a super charger is less so (unless you're drag racing or something I guess).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument here, but if you're talking about a "basic cost/benefit" proposal, eTorque seems like a pretty good one to me.
BowDown
Spends too much time on here
You don't care yet here you are
For you, etorque may not deliver what its promised, for me it clearly has and as I said, don't really give an S what you think about it.
As far as repair cost vs functionality, that's what one premise of this thread was, go back to the OP.
As to show you where you said that comment, said what?
How's fixing etorque not just the price for participating in the world of mild hybrids? You may not want it to be a valid analogy and what one needs is certainly subjective but you are the one claiming "need" aspect to all of this. Its all options to me but you do carry on, you obviously have a need to have people accept your opinion for you to come back after almost 2 weeks to "prove your point". No one cares
Last edited:
BowDown
Spends too much time on here
Not sure why this is so hard for him to grasp and esp when torque is covered under the 80/80,000 miles warranty and if you read the majority of the owners comments here, the truck will be long gone before you get to that point anyway so again, what's the issue?
RockJock
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2018
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 161
- Points
- 43
I went back and forth a little bit about getting ET. I decided it wouldn't do me much good. I do next to zero driving in stop and go traffic. There's a (good?) chance when I'm ready for my next truck all electric will be an option. Figured maybe I'd make the switch from gas then.
silver billet
Spends too much time on here
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
- Messages
- 2,701
- Reaction score
- 2,614
- Points
- 113
No doubt etorque saves money in the city. But I wouldn't base the exact amount of savings off of the ECU, they can be unreliable. You would have to hand calc that, or run a test that lasts 2 or 3 full tanks for each truck.
My truck will drop MPG very quickly when I remote start for 5 to 10 minutes, but yet at the end of the tank I haven't really lost anything compared to when I didn't use remote start even though the ECU will bounce around a little every time I use it. For some reason I find myself using it a lot lately, must be getting old.
My truck will drop MPG very quickly when I remote start for 5 to 10 minutes, but yet at the end of the tank I haven't really lost anything compared to when I didn't use remote start even though the ECU will bounce around a little every time I use it. For some reason I find myself using it a lot lately, must be getting old.
- Status
