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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.)
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 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.
Detailed info on the stop start on the 2.0l. Must see!! before purchasing a 2.0Here are the components of the BSG "eTorque" mild hybrid system:
2.) High voltage cables
Awesome explaination of the system. Thanks!Detailed info on the stop start on the 2.0l. Must see!! before purchasing a 2.0
No problem dude. Share it if you wish. Thanks again.Awesome explaination of the system. Thanks!