If that's the case, then it is disappointing. I don't like the ESS for the wear it puts on the engine and the added complexity would be worth it to me only if it added that 90ft lbs of torque just a little longer than half a wheel turn. The cost/benefit just doesn't work out for me, if that is indeed how it functions. Just my 2 cents. It doesn't matter, anyway, since I'm a big fan of the manual transmission, anyway.I have the 3.6 etorque with an automatic trans.
Based on what I have researched, read and seen of the etorque, the prior posts about it activated for about half a wheel turn are correct. FCA doesn't even count the claimed 90 ft lbs of torque in their overall engine torque number, so that shows you it really has no major contribution to engine torque.
I can tell you it does make the ESS stop/start silky smooth. I think that is the major benefit, plus it has the large battery to run AC and electrics more efficiently while the engine is off due to ESS.
I can't say off the line performance is affected or even noticeable versus non-etorque, but so far I am glad for it just for the smooth restarts.
The ESS actually works ok in the manual. I just don't like the wear it causes. Of note, for those worried: They did put a coating on pistons and wear parts in the PUG Pentastar and likely the 2.0, as well, to mitigate the wear of all those starts. But the jury is out on how well it protects. Time will tell. I hope it does. Because that means mine will go that much longer because I don't use the ESS. They also did beef up the starter in the non E-torque version I have. So without so many cycles, that starter will probably live longer than me.
We'll see how real world feeback looks, though. I'll reserve a final opinion until I hear from someone who buys one and drives it a bit. They'll tell the story.