e-Torque, an interesting article

[Docwagon1776]

The E-torque issues do make me nervous. I bought my '23 new 2 years ago. So thinking about if I should try to trade it in before the 3rd year is up? Or is that covered in the 5 year? I haven't had any major problems, but in 16K miles, I've had to take it to the dealer 4 times. Last one was a check engine light that turned out to be an E-torque issue. I didn't see any problems, but they said it needed a flash update causing the check engine. I pressed for more info, but didn't get much. Just sounds sketchy.

All the major components are named in the emissions warranty, which is 8 years/80k miles by law in the US. Look in your manual in the warranty section and you'll see the "Belt Driven Hybrid Starter Generator" and "Motor Generator Unit" among others.

 

[madtrucker2016]

12 mpg! My 23 Hemi eTorque with 3.92 got in the 14s towing a trailer and car. On average I get around 17.5 around town, 19+ on State highways.

Well, that is great news for you, but I even asked the dealer about the poor MPG and got a total sidestepping story.

 

[Kickboxer]

So it’s your mini van. Just messing with ya

My swanky vehicle is my Audi. The truck is more for work.

I'm with you, I've got an SQ5 for my fun car.

We just ordered a Grand Highlander to replace our Yukon. The Grand Highlander has acoustic glass like the Ram which makes them so quiet. I really like that.

 

[Kickboxer]

I appreciate the effort you went to to try and clear that up. Maybe I need to adjust my tin foil hat a bit, but your response brings up a question for me. This bill became law in November of 2021. That means they have had about four years to develop the technology. If the technology doesn’t exist yet, then how did my car tell me to stop and rest when I was on a long drive last fall? I was actually looking down at my phone (I know, not advised) and my car interpreted my looking down at my phone as me being tired. I’ve never owned a vehicle that does that before this Audi. It’s concerning to me because with just a few software tweaks they could turn that warning into something more intrusive like putting the car into limp mode, or worse. And they could also easily make it so it can’t be disabled. I’m sure Audi isn’t the only car maker who has developed this type of tech.

That tech has been common in farm machinery for well over 15 years. My combine would remind me to take a rest if I didn't lift my ass off the seat for an hour or so. A safety feature.......

 

[Ramit355]

Hey, U do what works for U. Yer wallet. If you happy with that DI Turbo Inline 6, I say go Gunga Din. I wouldn't, but than my 2019 is a Driveway Princess. The inline 6 would work for me, but I do not need any more nanny boo boo stuff, besides, paid off is great. But that is my circumstance. (FTR, no E junkola here).

I really enjoy my 3.0 HO Hurricane after owning 5 Ram hemis. I like the the fact mine is payed off so I enjoy both worlds. The Hurrican is my first 6 banger from Dodge but 2nd one counting a new 1987 F150 back in 1987 which was great until it hit 51000 miles!! Have not owned a Ford truck since.

 

[Ramit355]

eTorque is the reason I just bought a Ram with the Hurricane instead of the Hemi. Had 2 Hemis and they were great. I didn't need the grief of eTorque. I am not sorry I went with the Hurricane. It is powerful and quiet. Getting better gas mileage than my '16 Hemi.

I2nd your thoughts for sure! This Hurricane is a fine powerful motor with no issues at all,runs quiet with far more power and pulls trailers very well loaded sometimes with gravel. MPG is slightly better but not by much at all.

 

[poopsleeve]

I'm open to source documents. If they are correct, than legislation would be easy to link to by the authors of those articles. I think what you'll find is they are not correct, and I'll link a few more primary sources to show why.

First off, just read the legislation I posted. It's in plain language, no lawyers required. It includes a timeline once the rule is made:

"To allow sufficient time for manufacturer compliance, the compliance date of the rule issued under subsection(c) shall be not earlier than 2 years and not more than 3 years after the date on which that rule is issued."

So the rule would have been published in 2023 if it has to go into effect in 2026.

What actually happened in 2023 was the *start* of the process of rule making: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-01-05/pdf/2023-27665.pdf



Now, there's a lot of reading there so let's cut to the important bit. The technology did not yet exist in 2023 (and still doesn't, which we'll get to).



How do we know the technology doesn't yet exist? Well, Congress said so 4 months ago and wants to step up getting the technology to work by offering cash to inventors:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6704/text

Bottom line: There is no mandate in the legislation in 2021 other than to study the feasibility of the technology and make a recommendation in pursuit of an eventual rule. The threat is real, but not on the timeline of by the end of this year. The only "penalty" for DoT not making a rule right now is the necessity for an annual report as to why there's no rule. There's no rule because no technology yet meets the requirement. Once a rule is met, manufacturers will have 2-3 years to comply unless new legislation alters that.

Tyvm