Is eTorque to 4xe conversion possible?

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
9,198
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
@Headbarcode I'm not sure about the 1500 rpm thing. Isn't the stall speed of the converter higher than 1500? That would mean it would stop helping before the converter hits. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand and that part doesn't make sense to me so I'm wondering. If it worked off wheel speed (the half rotation) that would make more sense with a converter.
I recall 1800 rpm from a past search that led me into articles published by the manufacturer. There's so much conflicting info regarding the details, so I was just going with 1500 because it was mentioned earlier than my post in this thread. I will say that 1500 is the lowest threshold I've come across. 1800 is more commonly seen, but again, who knows.
Advertisement

 

Jeepnutz

Well-Known Member
First Name
Don
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Messages
116
Reaction score
76
Location
Southern Oregon
Vehicle(s)
Chevy Silverado 3500
Thanks for the clarification. It would seem then that eTorque is pretty much just an expensive and complicated start/stop feature then.
It just amazes that people are so easy to feed into false claims like this 40-70 ft lb torque B.S....
 
OP
OP

Fargo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2017
Messages
102
Reaction score
80
Location
ND
Vehicle(s)
2005 Rubicon Unlimited Sahara Limited edition
It just amazes that people are so easy to feed into false claims like this 40-70 ft lb torque B.S....
Yeah, I question the torque claims. I just don't see how that much torque could be transmitted from a generator through a belt and to the drivetrain. Thats about 30%-50% of the torque made by my LJ with the 4.0. Depending on which numbers you look at. That just seems like a lot of torque coming from, what is essentially, a big starter motor.

I'd like to see a (private) dyno test of an eTorque JL compared to a similar ESS JL. I have a hard time believing that you will see a noticeable and repeatable difference in HP or Toque at the wheels.

I'll just avoid eTorque as much as I can. I just don't want the added complexity of an additional electrical, cooling, and other related systems that come with eTorque.
 

turbosix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
128
Location
dallas
Vehicle(s)
2019 JL Rubicon
You guys will question a BSG adding 70lbs of torque through a belt but won't question a supercharger taking the same or more amount of power to spin..... :LOL:
 

oldcjguy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
277
Reaction score
301
Location
Central FL
Vehicle(s)
16 Challenger Hellcat, 19 Challenger Scatpack, 20 JLUR Recon
Occupation
Software Engineer
Yeah, I question the torque claims. I just don't see how that much torque could be transmitted from a generator through a belt and to the drivetrain. Thats about 30%-50% of the torque made by my LJ with the 4.0. Depending on which numbers you look at. That just seems like a lot of torque coming from, what is essentially, a big starter motor.

I'd like to see a (private) dyno test of an eTorque JL compared to a similar ESS JL. I have a hard time believing that you will see a noticeable and repeatable difference in HP or Toque at the wheels.

I'll just avoid eTorque as much as I can. I just don't want the added complexity of an additional electrical, cooling, and other related systems that come with eTorque.
Do what you want for what ever reasons you want. It's going to be your vehicle. So I totally agree with you getting whatever vehicle and whatever features makes you happy.

It still cracks me up to hear people, not just you, talk about the complexity of eTorque. What's so complex? A generator instead of an alternator, a 48v battery pack instead of a second 12v battery, an isolated cooling system (electric water pump, a couple hoses and coolant) and a controller. Even having a controller is no big deal. Any idea how many controllers are on modern vehicles including a jeep? Power windows uses a controller. There are no more uncomplicated new cars. They don't exist. Did you ever watch a log of the throttle on a new vehicle. If you have a tool that does OBD2 logging, just for giggles, log absolute throttle position, throttle position, load, and RPM. Then drive around the block LOL! Watch what the computer has your throttle doing regardless of how heavy or light you're trying to be on the gas pedal as you drive. Looks like the throttle is possessed! LOL But you never feel it. That's also why a little 122 cubic inch turbo motor makes more horse power and torque across the whole RPM range while getting better fuel economy than one of those "simple" 200+ cubic inch V8 engines from 30 years ago. Don't fear the complexity, it's not going any where and a lot of the time it's here to help.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an old guy. I love the old small block chevy engines and I've built plenty of them. I'm also a software engineer and I appreciate what computer controls have given us in cars. My last car was a hellcat challenger with over 700HP at the wheels. That car idled silky smoothly at 750-800 rpms and got over 22 mpg at 100 mph! Back in the day 600hp would be shaking the car apart idling at 1000 rpms! Probably getting me 15 mpg doing 65 mph. That last hellcat saw 29 mpg doing 60 mph on a highway!
 

turbosix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
128
Location
dallas
Vehicle(s)
2019 JL Rubicon
Do what you want for what ever reasons you want. It's going to be your vehicle. So I totally agree with you getting whatever vehicle and whatever features makes you happy.

It still cracks me up to hear people, not just you, talk about the complexity of eTorque. What's so complex? A generator instead of an alternator, a 48v battery pack instead of a second 12v battery, an isolated cooling system (electric water pump, a couple hoses and coolant) and a controller. Even having a controller is no big deal. Any idea how many controllers are on modern vehicles including a jeep? Power windows uses a controller. There are no more uncomplicated new cars. They don't exist. Did you ever watch a log of the throttle on a new vehicle. If you have a tool that does OBD2 logging, just for giggles, log absolute throttle position, throttle position, load, and RPM. Then drive around the block LOL! Watch what the computer has your throttle doing regardless of how heavy or light you're trying to be on the gas pedal as you drive. Looks like the throttle is possessed! LOL But you never feel it. That's also why a little 122 cubic inch turbo motor makes more horse power and torque across the whole RPM range while getting better fuel economy than one of those "simple" 200+ cubic inch V8 engines from 30 years ago. Don't fear the complexity, it's not going any where and a lot of the time it's here to help.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an old guy. I love the old small block chevy engines and I've built plenty of them. I'm also a software engineer and I appreciate what computer controls have given us in cars. My last car was a hellcat challenger with over 700HP at the wheels. That car idled silky smoothly at 750-800 rpms and got over 22 mpg at 100 mph! Back in the day 600hp would be shaking the car apart idling at 1000 rpms! Probably getting me 15 mpg doing 65 mph. That last hellcat saw 29 mpg doing 60 mph on a highway!
BRO U JUST DON'T NO. THIS IS ALL OBAMA'S FAULT WITH THEM LECTRIC CARS. I WANT A JEEP NOT A TOASTER!
 

scotty517

New Member
First Name
Scott
Joined
Aug 20, 2021
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
Location
GA
Vehicle(s)
Wrangler JLU 2021
If you don't think 70ft pounds can go through a belt you don't know anything about torque. How much torque do you think it takes to start an engine? Stick a torque wrench on the crank pulley and spin it to find out.

I mean you can easily make over 100 foot pounds on a bicycle for a brief period (seconds). Chain or belt driven.

70 ft pounds at 1500rpm maybe that is doubtful from the etorque system.

I like the etorque. In cities with traffic and long long lights it's great. Normal ESS sucks. Etorque you don't even notice.

If you live in the country and never need to stop etorque is pretty useless though.
 
OP
OP

Fargo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2017
Messages
102
Reaction score
80
Location
ND
Vehicle(s)
2005 Rubicon Unlimited Sahara Limited edition
If you don't think 70ft pounds can go through a belt you don't know anything about torque. How much torque do you think it takes to start an engine? Stick a torque wrench on the crank pulley and spin it to find out.

I mean you can easily make over 100 foot pounds on a bicycle for a brief period (seconds). Chain or belt driven.
Those are actually really interesting points for me to think about. The amount of torque required to turn over an engine would really depend on compression. Old engines didn't have much compression and modern engines often use decompression systems. So I'm not sure putting a torque wrench on one would tell the whole story, but it would give some insight. I'll give that some thought.

The bicycle example is very interesting to think about too. I don't know of any bikes that use a belt, but I know some motorcycles are belt driven. However, I think they always have teeth for the belt to ride on like a chain. Hmm I wonder why that might be? Maybe because its needed to keep from slipping when under torque load? Thats just my guess. But since the belt design on a bike is very different than a car belt, thats not really a fair example either since the eTorque system just uses a flat serpentine belt. (Unless I'm mistaken.) So although these seem like strong arguements, I'm still not convinced you can put 70lbs of torque through a serpentine belt.

Then again, don't most CVT transmissions use a belt drive system? So maybe you can run that much torque through the belt to the crankshaft. So accepting the argument for the moment that a belt drive system can indeed transfer adequate torque levels, the question then becomes, as you noted below, does the eTorque actually produce that much torque? How big of an electric motor would it take to produce 70 ft/lb of torque? Does the eTorque BSG appear big enough to produce that much power? I've never needed an electric motor that powerful to know.

If the BSG is big enough to produce 70 lb/ft of torque and the belt drive system is stout enough to deliver all that torque to the drivetrain. Then what is the weak link here? If we have all the systems in place to produce 70 lb/ft of additional torque, then why can't the eTorque system be used as a supplemental power plant to produce an extra 70lb/ft of torque. I assume its the size of the battery. Which brings me back to my original question wondering if the eTorque could be used as a hybrid system similar (but much cruder) to the 4xe, if future battery technology allowed a big enough batter to be installed. (Provided someone can program the computer to accept all of the changes.)


70 ft pounds at 1500rpm maybe that is doubtful from the etorque system.

I like the etorque. In cities with traffic and long long lights it's great. Normal ESS sucks. Etorque you don't even notice.

If you live in the country and never need to stop etorque is pretty useless though.
I'm in a rural area and never see traffic. Which is why I prefer to not have start/stop at all. But if the eToque provides additinal hp/torque, then its a lot easier to accept the extra cost and complications and vulnerabilities of the system.
 

turbosix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
128
Location
dallas
Vehicle(s)
2019 JL Rubicon
Those are actually really interesting points for me to think about. The amount of torque required to turn over an engine would really depend on compression. Old engines didn't have much compression and modern engines often use decompression systems. So I'm not sure putting a torque wrench on one would tell the whole story, but it would give some insight. I'll give that some thought.

The bicycle example is very interesting to think about too. I don't know of any bikes that use a belt, but I know some motorcycles are belt driven. However, I think they always have teeth for the belt to ride on like a chain. Hmm I wonder why that might be? Maybe because its needed to keep from slipping when under torque load? Thats just my guess. But since the belt design on a bike is very different than a car belt, thats not really a fair example either since the eTorque system just uses a flat serpentine belt. (Unless I'm mistaken.) So although these seem like strong arguements, I'm still not convinced you can put 70lbs of torque through a serpentine belt.

Then again, don't most CVT transmissions use a belt drive system? So maybe you can run that much torque through the belt to the crankshaft. So accepting the argument for the moment that a belt drive system can indeed transfer adequate torque levels, the question then becomes, as you noted below, does the eTorque actually produce that much torque? How big of an electric motor would it take to produce 70 ft/lb of torque? Does the eTorque BSG appear big enough to produce that much power? I've never needed an electric motor that powerful to know.

If the BSG is big enough to produce 70 lb/ft of torque and the belt drive system is stout enough to deliver all that torque to the drivetrain. Then what is the weak link here? If we have all the systems in place to produce 70 lb/ft of additional torque, then why can't the eTorque system be used as a supplemental power plant to produce an extra 70lb/ft of torque. I assume its the size of the battery. Which brings me back to my original question wondering if the eTorque could be used as a hybrid system similar (but much cruder) to the 4xe, if future battery technology allowed a big enough batter to be installed. (Provided someone can program the computer to accept all of the changes.)




I'm in a rural area and never see traffic. Which is why I prefer to not have start/stop at all. But if the eToque provides additinal hp/torque, then its a lot easier to accept the extra cost and complications and vulnerabilities of the system.
Jesus Christ dude. No one needs to read this.

Belt driven superchargers can take as much and even more power than the BSG.

None of you are engineers and none of you even thought twice about the comparison.
 
OP
OP

Fargo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2017
Messages
102
Reaction score
80
Location
ND
Vehicle(s)
2005 Rubicon Unlimited Sahara Limited edition
Jesus Christ dude. No one needs to read this.

Belt driven superchargers can take as much and even more power than the BSG.

None of you are engineers and none of you even thought twice about the comparison.
I have no experience whatsoever with superchargers. My knowledge of superchargers is the belt turns the supercharger and the supercharger pushes more air into the engine. Similar to a turbo, except the turbo is powered by the exhaust system. I have no idea how much torque it takes to turn a supercharger or a turbo. So the analogy was lost on me.
 

mwilk012

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
4,281
Reaction score
3,848
Location
Oklahoma
Vehicle(s)
2018 Ocean Blue JLU Rubicon
70 foot pounds of torque is very small.
CVT transmissions do use belts but they are generally made of steel, and the friction is on a smaller surface area than the etorque serpentine belt.

a cheapie dewalt 20v handheld 1/4 impact driver produces more than 70 ftlb of torque. Now obviously that is not translating to 70 ftlb of torque at the wheels. That’s for someone else to explain.
 
OP
OP

Fargo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2017
Messages
102
Reaction score
80
Location
ND
Vehicle(s)
2005 Rubicon Unlimited Sahara Limited edition
70 foot pounds of torque is very small.
CVT transmissions do use belts but they are generally made of steel, and the friction is on a smaller surface area than the etorque serpentine belt.

a cheapie dewalt 20v handheld 1/4 impact driver produces more than 70 ftlb of torque. Now obviously that is not translating to 70 ftlb of torque at the wheels. That’s for someone else to explain.
OK, what am I missing here? How can you say 70 ft/lbs of torque is small? If you had the choice between two engines, one producing 230 ft/lbs vs one producing 300 ft/lbs, which one would you choose? Thats a 30% increase in power. I don't think you would say the difference is small. A lot of guys go through great trouble to increase torque or horsepower by 30%. So why is 70ft lbs small when it comes to the eTorque but worth thousands of dollars when it comes to an ICE engine.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm just extremely confused at how eTorque is powerfull enough to provide 70 ft lbs of torque to get the jeep moving from a standstill but not powerful enough to provide additional torque any other time.

If eTorque is nothing more than an elaborate start/stop system, I am not interested. But if it provides additional torque, then you have something worth my attention.
 

Sean L

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
29,111
Reaction score
153,668
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jeep Wrangler Sahara, 2017 Honda Accord Sport, 2003 Yamaha V Star 650 Silverado, 2014 Yamaha V Star 1300 Tourer
Occupation
Retired Marine, Construction Estimator
Vehicle Showcase
2
OK, what am I missing here? How can you say 70 ft/lbs of torque is small? If you had the choice between two engines, one producing 230 ft/lbs vs one producing 300 ft/lbs, which one would you choose? Thats a 30% increase in power. I don't think you would say the difference is small. A lot of guys go through great trouble to increase torque or horsepower by 30%. So why is 70ft lbs small when it comes to the eTorque but worth thousands of dollars when it comes to an ICE engine.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm just extremely confused at how eTorque is powerfull enough to provide 70 ft lbs of torque to get the jeep moving from a standstill but not powerful enough to provide additional torque any other time.

If eTorque is nothing more than an elaborate start/stop system, I am not interested. But if it provides additional torque, then you have something worth my attention.
Its a mild-hybrid. Its designed to give short bursts of additional torque but not run continuously on electric like a full hybrid. It reduces the amount of fuel needed to get the Jeep moving while keeping the production costs at a lower level than a full hybrid system. That's what it does, if you don't want it then don't buy it.

6 Speed V6 does not have ETorque

8 speed I4 does not have ETorque (on current year models)

The Diesel does not have ETorque

Supposedly its possible to order an 8 speed V6 that does not have ETorque through the dealer.

The Rubicon 392 doesn't even have Start/Stop.

Or you could get any Gladiator, as they are not offered with ETorque.

These are your options with the JL/U/T
 

GATORB8

Well-Known Member
First Name
Matt
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
1,427
Location
CLT NC
Vehicle(s)
21 JLUR 4xe
OK, what am I missing here? How can you say 70 ft/lbs of torque is small? If you had the choice between two engines, one producing 230 ft/lbs vs one producing 300 ft/lbs, which one would you choose? Thats a 30% increase in power. I don't think you would say the difference is small. A lot of guys go through great trouble to increase torque or horsepower by 30%. So why is 70ft lbs small when it comes to the eTorque but worth thousands of dollars when it comes to an ICE engine.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm just extremely confused at how eTorque is powerfull enough to provide 70 ft lbs of torque to get the jeep moving from a standstill but not powerful enough to provide additional torque any other time.

If eTorque is nothing more than an elaborate start/stop system, I am not interested. But if it provides additional torque, then you have something worth my attention.
Think of it more as a "better" starter. A standard starter is capable of pretty high torque, but it's duty cycle and power requirements limit it's usefulness for more than turning the motor over to allow the 4cycle to start.

With the bulked up 48v power system and electric motor, etorque allows you to use it's "starter" for propulsion until the ICE motor is running.

Supposedly it does also do a little work during the shift pattern, but I don't think it's enough to make a big difference in power feel.

The biggest issue is probably stored power. The 4xe battery is 17kwh and can run about 21 miles. The etorque battery is 0.43kwh so even if it was fully charged and drained all the way, you may be able to get enough for .5 miles. Since starting from a stop takes a lot more power, all it'd be worth is probably 1000 feet anyway.
 

SecondTJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
1,067
Location
Il
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
The eTorque system provides a near instant delivery of 70 or 90 lb/ft of torque right off idle and cuts off at about 1500 rpm. It's not a long event, as it's only to supplement the higher initial load required to get going from a dead stop.
It’s not that the eTorque “cuts off”. It’s that the output quickly decreases from idle to ~1500 rpm as the engine’s torque increases to the point it overruns the system.

2.0/3.6’s BSG produces 12hp/39 lb-ft

Through a 2.3:1 gear reduction is where Jeep claimed 90 lb-ft. (39 lb-ft x 2.3)

That would be like claiming the 3.6L produces 1,066 lb-ft in a Rubicon (260 lb-ft x 4.10)
 
Advertisement

Done Right LED
 
Advertisement
Top