2.0L eTorque (BSG) mild hybrid system components - MGU, Cables, PPU

[BillyHW]

Here are the components of the BSG "eTorque" mild hybrid system:

1.) MGU
2.) High voltage cables
3.) PPU

 

[BillyHW]

BSG battery location:

https://jalopnik.com/the-2018-jeep-wrangler-didnt-get-soft-it-got-much-bett-1821160227

So what does the V6 have there at the moment...just an empty space?

 

[camodog]

If it is an empty space, that would make a great 2nd fuel cell location. Maybe this is why the JL has 1 gallon less fuel capacity? I don't know just asking.

 

[BillyHW]

If it is an empty space, that would make a great 2nd fuel cell location. Maybe this is why the JL has 1 gallon less fuel capacity? I don't know just asking.

Maybe some aftermarket company will make a small secondary fuel tank to go in there? But it would only be for one model year, maybe it's not enough for anyone to make the investment in designing/creating one.

Or did you mean a secondary battery?

 

[BillyHW]

Separate starter motor for cold starts:

So what's the difference between a "cranking event" and an "autostop/autostart event"?

(This actually sounds like it's describing a small auxiliary battery in the Pentastar like in the GC.)

What's a DTC?

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

DTC is Diagnostic Trouble Code, ie like a check engine event, but instead it inhibits or triggers an action. Like hood open will disable the remote start, or low fuel will allow it to start but kill it after a preset amount of seconds.

So as I suspected in our thread about what happens when the 48V fails/dies, then the ECU will tell the Wrangler to act as if it has no 48V battery, and thereby disable the BSG operation, and in this case it seems also ESS as a function of that as well.

This is a good thing, meaning a battery failure or BSG failure shouldn’t leave you stranded on the trail... barring them taking out other ancillary components.

IIRC the BSG has its own drive/recovery independant of the belt, and can free-wheel when necessary, thus not dosabling other features, when no longer able to assist with them.

 

[BillyHW]

More eTorque info to be found in these 2019 RAM 1500 articles:

https://www.allpar.com/trucks/ram/2018-1500.html

https://www.allpar.com/news/2018/01/the-all-new-ram-1500-is-bigger-and-better-in-every-way-39316

The BSG battery is only 0.33 kWh, which is pretty small, roughly half the capacity of a traditional starter battery.

I also don't know how they will last very long given all the charge/discharge cycles they will be subjected to. And probably cost $$$ to replace.

Interesting it will also provide power during transmission shifts.

 

[BillyHW]

He talks about eTorque at 10:15.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Yeah, just playing catch-up on all the info from the past few days/week, and also noticeable is the tiered power level offerings, with the Hemi eTorque offering 130lb/ft of torque, the PUG eTorque offering 90lb/ft. The 2.0T is rated around 70lb/ft (72lb/ft IIRC). So it will be interesting to see the performance change in the fall PUG+BSG refresh.

0.33 KWHr is a bit of a dissapointment, I was expecting the typical 0.5 based on size, but perhaps that box needs a lot of crunch protection for the Li cellls adding to its apparent thicknesss. Definitely means the benefits/desire to run other appliances/applications off that source is more questionable.

Cost of replacement should be less than a 0.5KWHr battery, but it is unlikely price will be driven by cost so much as alternatives and what FCA thinks they can charge and also if the market just sees them as a generic BSG battery replacement price for a ‘unit’ not for a capacity.

It’ll also be interesting to see if the 40 shift schedules mentioned for the RAM ZF8 have made their way to the JL(U) if not for the gasoline versions, then for the diesel which will share the same variant.

 

[BillyHW]

If you factor in the extra initial costs of eTorque, along with the extra maintenance costs, I'm not sure the fuel savings are enough to really justify it economically to the average consumer.

It seems like this is just for FCA to boost their mpg numbers a bit for CAFE.

I think consumers also put too much weight into advertised mpg numbers without really working out how minor the cost savings are.

Hybrid systems seem to make more sense if you're leasing vs buying too.

Now if you're interested in eTorque because of the various performance benefits, that's another story. But the system is so new, how many bugs and kinks might there be to work out in the first couple years of release? With 40 different shift schedules, how many software updates are we looking at down the pike? I don't really feel like being a guinea pig for that. There's still a lot of unknowns with this. And that's just for the unknowns we know about. Who knows how many unknowns we don't even know about yet. They're impossible to know.

He also mentioned that the belt driven motor doesn't work well for extreme cold weather starts, so they still have a small traditional starter motor in there for that. But this is a downgrade from the beefed up starter motor in the models without eTorque/BSG. So it seems to me that for extreme cold weather environments it's better to avoid the BSG model. (Great Ape, I would be interested to hear your opinion on this.)

The eTorque BSG is optional on the RAM Hemis and mandatory on the Pentastars. We will need confirmation if it will optional or mandatory on the 3.6L Wrangler JL in 2019MY. Hopefully we will know soon.

Interesting that I don't think GM has made these eAssist systems mandatory yet on their vehicles.

I plan on disabling ESS, so it doesn't seem that for me the benefits of eTorque outweigh the costs at this time. I will probably be trying to avoid it by buying a 2018 JL, but that's only if I can swing a Rubicon financially this year. Otherwise I will have to wait until later and maybe be forced to get it.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

If you factor in the extra initial costs of eTorque, along with the extra maintenance costs, I'm not sure the fuel savings are enough to really justify it economically to the average consumer.

It seems like this is just for FCA to boost their mpg numbers a bit for CAFE.

I think consumers also put too much weight into advertised mpg numbers without really working out how minor the cost savings are.

Yeah, I’d agree with that, and apply the same statement of over-optimism to the PUG 3.6 improvements, the 2.0T itself and the ED 3.0.

I am optimistic that the BSG will help me in the once every year or two (or twice a year or more when unlucky) scenarios where I am stuck in true gridlock for hours trying to go 2KMs downtown or on Deerfoot/HWy2 or the TC, twice I have almost ran out of gasoline from 1/2 tanks from spending ~3hrs trying to get out of true gridlock.
Or even while waiting for avalanche control in the various passes or icey roads in the south, but that isn’t about saving money so much as hopefully making my fuel tank last longer while waiting it out (and still wanting power for my cell booster and ioad, etc), or creeping along at 5kph through the city.

Now if you're interested in eTorque because of the various performance benefits, that's another story. But the system is so new, how many bugs and kinks might there be to work out in the first couple years of release? With 40 different shift schedules, how many software updates are we looking at down the pike? I don't really feel like being a guinea pig for that. There's still a lot of unknowns with this. And that's just for the unknowns we know about. Who knows how many unknowns we don't even know about yet. They're impossible to know.

I have faith in the ZF schedules, but then again the ZF9 programming in dad’s Cherokee should be telling me to know better than that. I also think that while I still have an auto-stick I’m fine, and everything is better than the 42RLE. I will be interested in seeing how the ZF8 shifting does in the Wrangler configuration (don’t like the button on the front when the tap motion is back/front) not side to side.

He also mentioned that the belt driven motor doesn't work well for extreme cold weather starts, so they still have a small traditional starter motor in there for that. But this is a downgrade from the beefed up starter motor in the models without eTorque/BSG. So it seems to me that for extreme cold weather environments it's better to avoid the BSG model. (Great Ape, I would be interested to hear your opinion on this.)

Yeah, I mentioned the slippage issue in the cold earlier when they first mentioned the BSG, I am happy they’ve taken it into consideration for cold starts, especially having been on the hills (and unplugged) the last few weeks during the -30C cold snaps recently. Not that plugging it in will do anything to warm up the belts, so this would’ve been a good time to test the cold weather effect on the BSG for the handful that are in reviewers hands.
To me it is likely similar to the belts of a drier you have outside at the cottage in the garage where initially it slips upon start up with a heavy load, but if you warm it up empty for a minute, then it’s fine. Likely the same with the BSG, once the starter gets it running and warms up the engine bay then the BSG belt will be fine, so take the time to move the temp guage needle for thing to warm up. I’ve always advocated 40c engine temp (when needle budges off C on temp guage in Wrangler) before going in very cold weather to ensure everything has a chance to warm up, not just immediate engine components.

Funny thing is Motoring TV just mentioned the same thing last on TSN in their tip of the week (not on the website yet) and they covered the pistons warming up, but it’s everything... and now that included the BSG belt.

I plan on disabling ESS, so it doesn't seem that for me the benefits of eTorque outweigh the costs at this time. I will probably be trying to avoid it by buying a 2018 JL, but that's only if I can swing a Rubicon financially this year. Otherwise I will have to wait until later and maybe be forced to get it.

I will be disabling ESS for the most part (hopefully semi-permanently, where I can enable it for that once a year traffic jam scenario above). I would love the option to also selectively disable BSG for those cold whether periods. I know that the system itself should also have cold weather as a triger for disabling it by default (just like ESS does in the owner’s manual) when the engine is cold, the battery is cold, or the defroster is on, but user disabled as well would just be more reassuring that I’m not straining the system when I know I don’t need it.
I am concerned that disabling ESS by default disables BSG, because to me they are independantly desirable, even though the later is made to improve the former for the most part.

I am more optimistic about BSG than ESS, because hopefully the BSG will show benefits in other areas too, like performance, otherwise I agree, for the little fuel they’re saving I’d rather pay my Hemi premium and then write two separate cheques for FCA’s CAFE hit, and another donation to an environmental/alt-energy charity/fund and just get the better fit for my needs.

 

[BillyHW]

But wouldn't you rather have the beefed up starter motor in the non-BSG system?

 

[brandonh]

Here are the components of the BSG "eTorque" mild hybrid system:

1.) MGU
2.) High voltage cables
3.) PPU

Detailed info on the stop start on the 2.0l. Must see!! before purchasing a 2.0

 

[Oneilc01]

Detailed info on the stop start on the 2.0l. Must see!! before purchasing a 2.0

Awesome explaination of the system. Thanks!

 

[brandonh]

Awesome explaination of the system. Thanks!

No problem dude. Share it if you wish. Thanks again.

Sponsored