With the 4xe gone, should eTorque return?

[garyji]

Probably don't need to chime in after 5 pages, but my eTorque has been flawless. 95k. I'd definitely get another one if they brought it back.

G.

Sponsored

 

[Zandcwhite]

Since when would 4.10’s be a disadvantage off the line

I think you misread the conversation? The rubicon is quicker but has the advantage of gearing. Attributing the quicker off the line to the etorque is inaccurate.

 

[Guv]

If it compensates for turbo lag then…it is a performance gain. Maybe only from a dead stop but I bet if you put a stopwatch on it or measured tq at the wheels on a dyno you would find it is a gain in performance. How could it not be? Now the 3.6, maybe the same but I would think it’s increase would not be as much.

 

[BigRedRidinHood]

I did own a JK Rubicon 3.6 without eTorque, and now a JLUR with eTorque, and the latter is noticeably quicker off the line than the former. The other thing that I find confusing is that hp and torque numbers for JL 3.6 with, and without eTorque, are the same, yet I have read that eTorque adds 90 lb ft. When I bought it new, no one mentioned at the dealer or the manufacturer that it had eTorque. I found out when I was looking for the AUX battery. FCA and then Stellantis (who killed it) never marketed it, probably because it was MUCH MORE costly than ditching it in favor of the quick to die AUX battery, leaving you stranded in the middle of nowhere. I am certain that this decision was done purely for profit on the part of Stallantis, which is crazy because it hurt reliability and the overall reputation of the Jeep brand. 4XE made the situation worse, much worse. So far, eTorque has been flawless and I have six more years of warranty on the 48 volt battery system. The AUX battery usually dies at 36 months just after warranty, just like most motorcycle batteries that I have had in the past for a '84 BMW R65 LS. I love my Jeep but I have been disappointed with Stallantis. The brand is in trouble, due to lack of reliability concerns and subsequent resale values in the toilet. They used to be simple, reliable, held their value, and were in extremely high demand. They need to go back to their roots. Remember the CJ5 with the 304 V8? Create a Jeep with the 5.7 Hemi, 2 door and 4 door, with a/c, power windows, soft top, automatic, cloth seats, Willys wheels and tires, 4 wheel low range and charge 45k for the two door and 50k for the four door. They would sell hundreds of thousands.

 

[Guv]

Maybe time for an aluminum block, GDI and PFI 5.7
One question; so did all the eTorque Wranglers use the ZF 8 speed in place of the other 5/6 speed automatic? If so, right away you probably have a torque multiplication advantage.

 

[Zandcwhite]

nothing in my post ever noted to what you inferred at all -it does torque fill below 1500 revs, and its a great system

It doesn't torque fill below 1500rpms, it engages from a dead stop for a quarter of a rotation and nothing more. Describing it as you did implies from idle to 1500rpms it's helping. From idle to .001 seconds after you got the throttle its doing a little tiny bit. That's why the etorque is no quicker than the non-etorque.

 

[Zandcwhite]

I did own a JK Rubicon 3.6 without eTorque, and now a JLUR with eTorque, and the latter is noticeably quicker off the line than the former. The other thing that I find confusing is that hp and torque numbers for JL 3.6 with, and without eTorque, are the same, yet I have read that eTorque adds 90 lb ft. When I bought it new, no one mentioned at the dealer or the manufacturer that it had eTorque. I found out when I was looking for the AUX battery. FCA and then Stellantis (who killed it) never marketed it, probably because it was MUCH MORE costly than ditching it in favor of the quick to die AUX battery, leaving you stranded in the middle of nowhere. I am certain that this decision was done purely for profit on the part of Stallantis, which is crazy because it hurt reliability and the overall reputation of the Jeep brand. 4XE made the situation worse, much worse. So far, eTorque has been flawless and I have six more years of warranty on the 48 volt battery system. The AUX battery usually dies at 36 months just after warranty, just like most motorcycle batteries that I have had in the past for a '84 BMW R65 LS. I love my Jeep but I have been disappointed with Stallantis. The brand is in trouble, due to lack of reliability concerns and subsequent resale values in the toilet. They used to be simple, reliable, held their value, and were in extremely high demand. They need to go back to their roots. Remember the CJ5 with the 304 V8? Create a Jeep with the 5.7 Hemi, 2 door and 4 door, with a/c, power windows, soft top, automatic, cloth seats, Willys wheels and tires, 4 wheel low range and charge 45k for the two door and 50k for the four door. They would sell hundreds of thousands.

Nobody mentions the added torque because it's only engaged for a fraction of a second from a dead stop. Unlike the 4xe where the electric motor can provide assistance throughout the rpm range and thus is power is added to the 2.0Ts peak power as they are both there. The etorque functions only at such low rpm that it can't be measured on a conventional dyno and the gas engine is maybe putting out 10% of its power. The JL is quicker because of the transmission improvements and the higher compression PUG version of the 3.6L.

 

[BigRedRidinHood]

Maybe time for an aluminum block, GDI and PFI 5.7
One question; so did all the eTorque Wranglers use the ZF 8 speed in place of the other 5/6 speed automatic? If so, right away you probably have a torque multiplication advantage.

Yes I believe all eTorques have the ZFs because of when they came form the factory.

In terms of 1st gear ratios for the 5 speed versus 1st gear ratios for the 8 speed a little AI birdie says this:

JK (2012–2018 Models (5-Speed Automatic): These vehicles were upgraded to the W5A580 (NAG1) transmission, which has a significantly lower 1st gear ratio of 3.59:1.)

JL (The first gear ratio in a Jeep JL Wrangler Automatic, 8-speed transmission is 4.71:1)

I also think the rear end ratio was the same but I also need to check that my Rubicon JK with tow vs my Rubicon Jl With tow. A little AI checking shows all JKUR's had 4:10s or 4:11s and some JLURs with tow had 4:88s. I need to see what was installed on my Window Sticker.

So there are a lot of factors as to why a JLUR eTorque is significantly faster off the line compared to a JKUR, not just eTorque.

 

[whitechocolate]

It doesn't torque fill below 1500rpms, it engages from a dead stop for a quarter of a rotation and nothing more. Describing it as you did implies from idle to 1500rpms it's helping. From idle to .001 seconds after you got the throttle its doing a little tiny bit. That's why the etorque is no quicker than the non-etorque.

it torque fills at certain speeds when needed, you're on about speed an quickness etc.. which it's fuckin Jeep so whatever.. anyway this is a cool video though that breaks it down nicely. Have a great day man too

 

[Zandcwhite]

it torque fills at certain speeds when needed, you're on about speed an quickness etc.. which it's fuckin Jeep so whatever.. anyway this is a cool video though that breaks it down nicely. Have a great day man too

Guess what happens to every vehicle ever made if you add 90ftlbs of torque? Or gets quicker... unless it's magical etorque. Guess what happens on the dyno when you add power? It's clearly measurable... unless it's magical etorque. It is in no way measurable but we all believe it's doing something? I drive both back to back on a regular basis in very similar builds. The etorque jlur has 53k miles on it now and the non-etorque JT has 44k miles. It does nothing perceptible period. Can't be measured or quantified because it barely does anything period.

 

[yokramer]

If it compensates for turbo lag then…it is a performance gain. Maybe only from a dead stop but I bet if you put a stopwatch on it or measured tq at the wheels on a dyno you would find it is a gain in performance. How could it not be? Now the 3.6, maybe the same but I would think it’s increase would not be as much.

A dyno doesnt measure take off power so if all it ever helps with is the first .03 seconds of acceleration you wont be measuring it.

 

[Zandcwhite]

If it compensates for turbo lag then…it is a performance gain. Maybe only from a dead stop but I bet if you put a stopwatch on it or measured tq at the wheels on a dyno you would find it is a gain in performance. How could it not be? Now the 3.6, maybe the same but I would think it’s increase would not be as much.

0-60 times are the same between etorque and non-etorque models. There goes the stop watch theory. Dynos typically start a pull around 2k rpms and the graphs are identical between etorque and non-etorque. If it helps at all it's at such low rpm and for such a short duration it doesn't do anything you can measure. At the cost of a $3k battery, $1-2k generator replacing the alternator, and an entire strand alone cooling system which will also require routine maintenance. Just watch how little time you actually spend below 1500rpm and you'll see why it had no gain.

 

[2nd 392]

0-60 times are the same between etorque and non-etorque models. There goes the stop watch theory. Dynos typically start a pull around 2k rpms and the graphs are identical between etorque and non-etorque. If it helps at all it's at such low rpm and for such a short duration it doesn't do anything you can measure. At the cost of a $3k battery, $1-2k generator replacing the alternator, and an entire strand alone cooling system which will also require routine maintenance. Just watch how little time you actually spend below 1500rpm and you'll see why it had no gain.

Those that like it have the perception actual or not that it’s an advantage. So offer it as an extra cost option ….. there is room for it and a CAI under the hood.

 

[yokramer]

0-60 times are the same between etorque and non-etorque models. There goes the stop watch theory. Dynos typically start a pull around 2k rpms and the graphs are identical between etorque and non-etorque. If it helps at all it's at such low rpm and for such a short duration it doesn't do anything you can measure. At the cost of a $3k battery, $1-2k generator replacing the alternator, and an entire strand alone cooling system which will also require routine maintenance. Just watch how little time you actually spend below 1500rpm and you'll see why it had no gain.

This is the thing that @TheRaven just could never understand in the v6 vs turbo debates.

 

[Zandcwhite]

This is the thing that @TheRaven just could never understand in the v6 vs turbo debates.

Even the 392 doesn't make shit for power that low. It doesn't need to. Blip the throttle and you're over 2k rpms and into actually making power.

Sponsored