Why no E-Torque?

[TennesseePA]

Seems like a no brainer engine choice for Gladiator since it is available in the Ram and coming to JL.

Sponsored

 

[Lou3.6]

Seems like a no brainer engine choice for Gladiator since it is available in the Ram and coming to JL.

Sheeeeeeeeeeee . . . be quiet ! Jeep and Ram already slept together and gave us the rebirth of a new "Gladiator," now what you want, them to shack up again and produce the genetically modified version too ? Out of wedlock relationships don't often work out for the best . . . hee hee !
Sure hope your wrong on the JL "talk" !? Bad enough it's on the 2.0; you suggesting it's coming to the 3.6 in 2019-ish ??
I haven't heard that . . . is that true or Fake News ? Although I must say I was very pleasantly surprised a couple months ago when I test drove a 3.6 DT with the ESS/eTorque ! Only thing I could tell in the short test drive was that at stop lights it performed as advertised -- Quiet as a mouse, Quick as a wink and the initial torque at start up was "nice" ! Not Hemi-nice, but nice !

 

[TennesseePA]

Over on the JL forum it has been confirmed through the 2019 order codes. I haven’t hung around on the JL side for a while to see it it has been retracted or not but I am actually a fan of technology.

 

[TennesseePA]

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...nual-transmission-and-3-6l-bsg-engines.15390/

 

[Lou3.6]

Over on the JL forum it has been confirmed through the 2019 order codes. I haven’t hung around on the JL side for a while to see it it has been retracted or not but I am actually a fan of technology.

OH ! I am more of a JL Visitor, where I actually have my moniker posted ! This Gladiator thing is a new possibility for me but honestly I'm leaning toward the more practical parts of the JLU (Rubi) for ME ! I do enjoy the camaraderie on both sites. Never say never . . . I could change my mind (on the gladiator) after all my last vehicle before my current 2 years of WK2 had been a RAM 1500 (13 years worth). I too am a "fan" of the eTorque tech; just not how they implemented it on the Jeeps ! Better with the RAM DT's IMHO, after a test drive (V6 version).

 

[drogers]

OH ! I am more of a JL Visitor, where I actually have my moniker posted ! This Gladiator thing is a new possibility for me but honestly I'm leaning toward the more practical parts of the JLU (Rubi) for ME ! I do enjoy the camaraderie on both sites. Never say never . . . I could change my mind (on the gladiator) after all my last vehicle before my current 2 years of WK2 had been a RAM 1500 (13 years worth). I too am a "fan" of the eTorque tech; just not how they implemented it on the Jeeps ! Better with the RAM DT's IMHO, after a test drive (V6 version).

What's wrong with the jeep implementation? Honest question - I thought it was pretty much a standard capability set, not something you could screw up too easily.

 

[Lou3.6]

What's wrong with the jeep implementation? Honest question - I thought it was pretty much a standard capability set, not something you could screw up too easily.

You've not read some of the information via 'Jeep Informant' on the "complexities of heating & cooling lines along the underbelly (2.0) ? Then there were the Fires !? I just don't have confidence in the newness with it in the Italian 2.0 Turbo version, simple as that - not based on any rocket science or 3rd party knowledge from an insider source ! I mean I'm all for trying to "save the Planet, with the improved mpg's," but IMHO we've screwed IT up so bad for so long - kicking the responsibility-can down the road; frankly it's too late ! Earth Day #1 was the time (1970). ME ? Guilty as charged - that was my time; at 67, all I can do is pray for the next generations to lessen the catastrophe that awaits. Hope I didn't depress anyone !
Sorry for the side rant - it just was something I needed to say . . . not sure even why, least not on this topic !

 

[TennesseePA]

The fires in the 2.0 were blown way out of proportion. Yes there were a few 2.0 fires but none of them made it to market and there have not been any fires caused by the wiring since the revision.

 

[Lou3.6]

The fires in the 2.0 were blown way out of proportion. Yes there were a few 2.0 fires but none of them made it to market and there have not been any fires caused by the wiring since the revision.

. . . and you know this, how ? I find so many of us (yes I include myself as well) are quick to offer-up information with nothing to back it up with - facts, for instance ! Thus this "information" is really just a wishful thinking opinion, . . . yes ? ! Though I'd love nothing more than for this opinion to be true, and lay to rest any founded concerns about future (unknowable) events, I'll stick with my original concerns - due to my "untrusting nature" (think I was born a "doubting-Thomas") . Oh, almost forgot, thank you for the 3.6 eTorque reference - I spent the better part of the next 2 hours (then) and read all I could find over at the JL Sister sight ! It WAS enlightening . . . almost makes me wish I had saved earlier so I could of placed a 2018 order, or a 2019 right now before they start to build them ! But, being the doubting-T and practical-procrastinator, I remain conflicted & curious to the point where I find it difficult to "make a decision". So I'll procrastinate a bit longer . . . and wait to see what develops with this 3.6 eTorque ! Will it be redesigned so it is AirCooled like the V8 or remain similar to the 2.0 Turbo with all the additional "entrapments" to the 48V-box ? At THAT point, if it's not too late, I'll place a non eTorque 3.6 order (if it's not improved!) .
Meantime I have my 3.6 ESS WK2 to get me not quite as far off the beaten-path (as a JL could) - though I cringe every time I add a swirl or some A-hole chips my doors ! Ah the ins, outs . . . ups & downs of everyday life ! Take care out their - those holiday shoppers are "crazy" on those concrete jungles !

 

[TennesseePA]

A quick scan of the news is how. FCA is NOT in a class action lawsuit for burning down 2.0 owners homes. How many 2018 Jeep JL fires outside of the storage lots can you cite? Only one I know of was. 3.6.

 

[WXman]

My only concern about eTorque is reliability. That BSG unit is what, $1,800? And it's never been used before in mass produced 4x4s. I will pass and see just how much trouble people end up having out of that system over the next few years.

 

[DarkAardvark]

Assuming a few things...
Fuel savings looks like 1-3mpg with it
We'll assume the JT gets 17mpg combined without e drive(based off of 2018 ram)
Assuming you drive 20 miles a day, you would drive 7,300 miles per year
You would use 430 gallons of fuel without e drive
You would use 365 gallons of fuel with e drive, assuming best case 3mpg improvement

You would save 65 gallons per year
At $3.20 per gallon, that's $208 per year

At $1,800 it would take 8.65 years to break even for fuel savings

How long does the added battery last before you gave to replace it? Who knows

From a fuel savings perspective, it's pretty meh
Maybe the low down torque makes it useful. Maybe the added mechanical complexity makes it terrible. Who knows

I'm probably skipping it

 

[TennesseePA]

It is not about the fuel mileage for me it is about the 90 lb ft of torque added below 1500 RPM. The system is not all that complicated when you look at it closely. Electric motors driving belts are quite common in industry. The hardest part of making the system work is the software integration. Fortunately that can easily be changed as FCA learns more about how the system performs under real world use.

 

[WXman]

It is not about the fuel mileage for me it is about the 90 lb ft of torque added below 1500 RPM. The system is not all that complicated when you look at it closely. Electric motors driving belts are quite common in industry. The hardest part of making the system work is the software integration. Fortunately that can easily be changed as FCA learns more about how the system performs under real world use.

I hear ya'. But from all the press videos it seems that the 90 lbs/ft only helps get you off the line. It doesn't impact actual driving at all.

And I respectfully disagree about eTorque not being complicated. 3 cooling systems, with coolant lines running in risky places under the vehicle, 48V lithium battery pack with electical lines everywhere, and a BSG unit that currently is priced 9 times higher than a traditional alternator sounds overly complicated and expensive to me.

If it was providing a 90 lbs/ft advantage in all driving situations, perhaps it would be worth the trade-off. But all they're doing is using that BSG unit to keep the ESS system smooth upon leaving a red light or stop sign, and provide a small amount of battery charging from brake energy. That's it. 99% of the time you're not even going to know that eTorque system is there.

 

[TennesseePA]

I still believe that it is a very simply designed system. Every engine with a heater core has the exact same system as etorque coolant lines run to the battery pack same as the heater core, albeit a longer run but still not a big deal. Many mid-engine sports cars have front mounted radiators. My Polaris Ranger has coolant lines run from the engine in the back to the radiator in the front grill. The 48V motor generator is much more heavy duty by design. Commercial generators run thousands of hours a year why should we assume that the one in a Jeep will fail. The belt side of the system is very well tested in industry. In a past life I had a Barko 930 Forestry Mower that had and 8.3L Cummins with 1100lb Ft of torque. The drive belts from the hydraulic motors to the rotor bearings lasted 5000 hours and were still quite serviceable when I sold the tractor. I cannot imagine the shock loads put on the belts when that 2500 lb rotating drum lays into an old oak tree. So I once again say the system is a simple design using very common industrial technology to add a crap ton of torque way down low where torque belongs. Just think how easily that camper will start rolling from the stop light with that extra torque. Once you hit 1500 RPM the engine horsepower can handle the light work of keeping the mass in motion. Disclaimer: typing on my phone and I did not proofread!

This was my very tractor being tested before it was delivered to me.

Sponsored