With the 4xe gone, should eTorque return?

[Bulletbill]

It seems those who actually have the etorque love it and these forums in the last five years have shown very little issues with it.

I don’t disagree. Unfortunately recent changes in our country have proven the masses don’t care.

If there were some statistics that showed increased engine life with less wear and tear on the internal combustion components due to the etorque then I think there would be a market for it. But the moment you talk about gas mileage or the environment you lose the majority which is pretty sad.

Sponsored

 

[WXman]

On the 2.0, it does have benefits. Zero turbo lag, just punchy power right off the line. And 1 mpg better. And never concerning one's self about start/stop.

For the 3.6, the benefits were less obvious. People who have owned both still seem to prefer the eTorque though.

My thinking is they had the right plan from the start - put it on the 2.0, but leave it off the v6 for the KISS crowd. Everyone's happy.

I had a 2.0 eTorque for a week while my EcoDiesel was in the shop. I felt like the eTorque system was the worst part of the powertrain. The 2.0 had good power and showed good fuel economy, but the eTorque system and integration made it clunky and unpredictable at low speed like coming to a stop or taking off again, which ironically were the instances that the system was supposed to make smoother. And it doesn't make the engine "peppier" because it's not capable of adding horsepower while driving. It's a very minimally useful system compared to the mild hybrids from all other brands.

I've seen a lot of MGU replacements, and they usually happen just out of warranty. So I would prefer to keep the KISS principle intact. But, to each their own. My guess is Jeep will make NO changes to the current engine lineup until the next Gen Wrangler debutes in 24 months. There is no reason to make any change, unless they find it necessary to put gasoline particulate filters on the 2.0s for 2027 to meet the new tier of emissions requirements.

 

[KCSgtMaj]

The “NO’s” have it! God I love Democracy!

 

[Wbino]

The “NO’s” have it! God I love Democracy!

The no's are guaranteed not to be owners of the etorque and this forums members are decidedly against anything with a battery.
It's no surprise.
But the lack of any major issues with the etorque confirms that I made a good choice.

 

[Terrymo]

I made the perfect choice getting a Etorque 3.6.
I can skim over the eliminate battery, ESS, and generally most complaints about the Jeep threads on this forum. Never have to push the ESS button to turn the system off and I don't experience any of the complaints about trying to make the Jeep more peppy. Still have the original 12v battery from my March 2021 delivery as well.
I wish my wife's V6 GC had it.
Along with the 4 Auto it makes winter driving here in the northeast a pleasure.

But with the etorque and your lack of interest in motorcycle batteries and extra ground wires and fuses you miss out on half the forum content here. Sadly, you aren’t seeing the 10 paragraph comments that some of us less intelligent forum users may find unnecessarily verbose. in actuality the more words the exspurts use to answer the simplest of questions, the more the common people will know just how intelligent they are and finally give them all the respect they demand.

 

[Wbino]

But with the etorque and your lack of interest in motorcycle batteries and extra ground wires and fuses you miss out on half the forum content here. Sadly, you aren’t seeing the 10 paragraph comments that some of us less intelligent forum users may find unnecessarily verbose. in actuality the more words the exspurts use to answer the simplest of questions, the more the common people will know just how intelligent they are and finally give them all the respect they demand.

You forgot to mention that I'm also missing out on the threads involving lift questions, tire size increases and pictures of dogs in the passenger seat with a bandana around their necks.
I did get corralled into that Barbie jeep thread though.... it was a weak moment on my part...

 

[Terrymo]

You forgot to mention that I'm also missing out on the threads involving lift questions, tire size increases and pictures of dogs in the passenger seat with a bandana around their necks.
I did get corralled into that Barbie jeep thread though.... it was a weak moment on my part...

Man that’s sad…what does that leave for you really, like 10% of the forum content? But you still get to laugh at all the nonsense here so there’s that.

 

[Wbino]

Man that’s sad…what does that leave for you really, like 10% of the forum content? But you still get to laugh at all the nonsense here so there’s that.

If I read more than 10% of the forum I would start wearing shorts in the winter, clogs on my feet and listening to the Oak Ridge Boys.
I haven't even had my windshie....no ....forget it... not going to say it...

 

[jeepoch]

@Ratbert

John, Mandate doesn't necessarily mean law, it's more of heavy gov't persuasion due to strict CAFE standards.

I'll concur my use of the word 'mandate' has ambiguios context. My use of the word is the least dominant while 'legal mandate' is what your are referring. The English language is rather soft in certain cases.

The issue now is how to best 'fix' the total removal of ESS altogether. With much less pressure (with my softer use of the word mandate) from the EPA is a good first step.

Another perspective:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/trump-epa-targets-car-stop-start-systems-052725.html

“Stop-start systems wear out starters, irritate drivers, and barely move the carbon needle,” Zeldin said. “There’s no reason taxpayers or regulators should be encouraging it.

The announcement has rattled the global auto industry, where stop-start systems are worth an estimated $67 billion annually, according to IMARC Group. Major suppliers including Bosch, Denso, Hitachi, SEG Automotive, and Valeo now face uncertainty over whether automakers will continue ordering the tech.

Automakers adopted the systems starting in the early 2010s under pressure from the EPA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which offered bonus credits for vehicles with stop-start. The tech has since become ubiquitous in ICE vehicles — equipped on 65% of U.S. cars in 2023, up from just 1% a decade prior.

But with no legal mandate for their inclusion, many automakers may now opt to eliminate stop-start systems to cut costs, especially as they grapple with rising tariffs and EV transition expenses."

Hope this helps clarify things.
Jay

 

[Ratbert]

@Ratbert

John, Mandate doesn't necessarily mean law, it's more of heavy gov't persuasion due to strict CAFE standards.

I'll concur my use of the word 'mandate' has ambiguios context. My use of the word is the least dominant while 'legal mandate' is what your are referring. The English language is rather soft in certain cases.

The issue now is how to best 'fix' the total removal of ESS altogether. With much less pressure (with my softer use of the word mandate) from the EPA is a good first step.

Another perspective:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/trump-epa-targets-car-stop-start-systems-052725.html

“Stop-start systems wear out starters, irritate drivers, and barely move the carbon needle,” Zeldin said. “There’s no reason taxpayers or regulators should be encouraging it.

The announcement has rattled the global auto industry, where stop-start systems are worth an estimated $67 billion annually, according to IMARC Group. Major suppliers including Bosch, Denso, Hitachi, SEG Automotive, and Valeo now face uncertainty over whether automakers will continue ordering the tech.

Automakers adopted the systems starting in the early 2010s under pressure from the EPA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which offered bonus credits for vehicles with stop-start. The tech has since become ubiquitous in ICE vehicles — equipped on 65% of U.S. cars in 2023, up from just 1% a decade prior.

But with no legal mandate for their inclusion, many automakers may now opt to eliminate stop-start systems to cut costs, especially as they grapple with rising tariffs and EV transition expenses."

Hope this helps clarify things.
Jay

According to Oxford, mandate (in this context) is

an official order or commission to do something.

No, there is / was no mandate for the EPA to remove. Incentives to improve economy? Yes. Mandates for ESS? No. I just wish people would stop regurgitating that bullshit.

 

[kah.mun.rah]

I was not a fan of etorque, until I got one. Having both the regular 3.6 and then the etorque version has made me a believer. I like the extra pep if provides and the BSG is a beast of a charging system.

I’m in this same camp.

 

[kah.mun.rah]

Not only no, he'll no. Etorque was corporates way to pass on training costs of an EV to the consumer. How'd that work out 4xe owners?

My etorque 2 door was lemonade because of how erratic the system worked, with no fix. If it worked for you, good. Enjoy the 4 grand replacement cost of the 48v battery

I will gladly pay $4K every 10 years to keep the advantages my 2021 3.6L ET has over my 2018 3.6L without it.

 

[The Last Cowboy]

I’m not a fan of unnecessary complication and expense for little to no return.

However, my wife’s Wagoneer has a 5.7 Hemi with it. It’s an extremely smooth powertrain with no clunks, or harsh shifts whatsoever, even when you hit wide open throttle and get downshifts. That having been said, it actually does contribute to a luxury feel in an already excellent drivetrain.

 

[WillysMeow]

I personally love our 2019 eTorque 2.0. In my mind, this was a great combo - instant torque and then a spooled-up turbo. I'll read comments about turbo lag, and I think to myself 'there is no turbo lag', and then I remind myself that 2.0 hasn't had eTorque for several years.

Hell no!

 

[wcjeep]

I don't recall any substantial mileage benefit of Etorque. Prefer the Straight 6 engine.

Sponsored