Is the 2.0 etorque back?

TheGreyWolf

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
30
Reaction score
43
Location
Northern Virginia
Vehicle(s)
2020 Sahara
Vehicle Showcase
1
Maybe I missed the news but I thought that Jeep did away with the 2.0 etorque for 2021 and replaced it with the 2.0 sans etorque. But today I was doing my daily, what if build, and saw it as an option... what’s going on here? Or am I just crazy?

for the record, I have a 2020 Sahara 2.0 etorque.

6A18D9CE-C842-4F45-A65A-766EBA1B8EE2.png
Advertisement

 

DavidArmen

Well-Known Member
First Name
David
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
791
Reaction score
677
Location
Hollywood, CA
Vehicle(s)
2021 Red JLUR
Are you building a 2021? When I was buying my jeep in September, I was allowed to build a 2020 and a 2021 model year.
 
OP
OP
TheGreyWolf

TheGreyWolf

Active Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
30
Reaction score
43
Location
Northern Virginia
Vehicle(s)
2020 Sahara
Vehicle Showcase
1
Are you building a 2021? When I was buying my jeep in September, I was allowed to build a 2020 and a 2021 model year.
This was it... you can only build “2021” but the option I was screwing around with was the Sahara altitude and shows up as 2020... tricked again by FCA
 

aldo98229

Well-Known Member
First Name
Aldo
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
13,445
Location
Bellingham, WA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara, 2018 Fiat 124 Spider Abarth
Occupation
Market Research
Vehicle Showcase
2
Why did they remove etorque in the first place? Unreliable?
FCA removed it because it wasn't selling.

At one point 18 months ago, 80% of unsold JLs had the 2.0 eTorque motor. FCA had to add a $500 rebate (the motor was a $1,000 option) to help dealers clear the lots.

The culprit was a combination of factors, but mainly that FCA failed miserably to articulate eTorque’s benefits to consumers. When buyers looked at the 2.0 eTorque $1,000 price tag over the 3.6 V6, they couldn’t see what they were getting for the extra money.

This is still the case to a large extent: there’s widespread lack of understanding about what eTorque gets you. Online reviews seem to agree that you get a smoother operation but that’s about it; performance and efficiency numbers are mostly unchanged. Asking to pay $1,000 extra for an additional 2 MPG is a non-starter with most buyers. And, if you believe the online reviews, you will be hard pressed to see any real efficiency gains. Worse, consumers in general have little trust FCA can build vehicles with a complex technology that are reliable.

The bottom line is: FCA wants more people to buy its most fuel efficient models, in order to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and penalties for failing to achieve CAFE numbers. Since FCA already failed to market eTorque properly, it has been gradually making eTorque mandatory: first on the V6; it is only a matter of time until it becomes mandatory on 2.0, too.

As 392 hits showrooms, FCA is going to be under increased pressure to sell more JLs that are as fuel efficient as possible.

It is telling that FCA went about bringing the 2.0 eTorque so quietly: they fear getting burned twice.
 
Advertisement

Next Venture Motorsports
 
Advertisement
Top