How long before the E-torque takes a dump

[Kickboxer]

What year did the E-Torque come out ? My experience is that I had a 2020 Ram 1500 5.7
non-etorque, and when I found out the etorque was
mandatory in 2023, I traded mine for a 2022 without. I suspect in 2022 half of the 5.7 models
had e-torque, half without. I bought mine off the lot
in the fall before they were gone.
I wonder what the resale is on a comparison of the 2 ? Does the etorque take a hit ?
Long time farmer here, and I believe in the KISS
method. Keep it simple. Electronics are the bane
and majority of problems now.

 

[RamDiver]

Do you have any insight as to what is failing in the MGU from the dealer? Windings? Circuit boards? Heat? Bearings? Housing?

I’ve always had questions about any mileage improvement from e-torque. If there are any improvements it would almost have to be limited to in-town driving with the stop/start and off the line MGU torque boost. But I don’t see how all this hardware could provide any additional economy cruising at 70 mph down the interstate running in 8th gear. As far as I know the MDS is not dependent on e-torque since it’s been on the Hemi for many years - right?

Herein lies the issue with such a complex system: it figuratively has too many moving parts due to its complexity. I say figuratively because the interconnected electronic components are not technically moving, but they do require precise timing to operate successfully.

Yes, the marketing blurb makes it sound simple, but I assure you, it's anything but simple.

This complexity of operations results in a myriad of potential points of failure, and it is simply miraculous that many of the V6 versions appear to be operational.


I recall the bearing replacement fix that tb56 mentioned. It was a simple mechanical solution from within a highly complex network of components.

Be careful not to drink the Kool-Aid while watching the following marketing blurb.

What Is eTorque in a Jeep or RAM Truck?

Mild hybrid technology is present in an increasing number of combustion vehicles, which it makes better, and in Jeeps and RAMs, it's called eTorque.

www.makeuseof.com

.

 

[Randy Grant]

I am one of the Ram owners that have the 5.7 e-torque and the MGU has failed (starter generator) alternator with no replacement in stock and no remedy either I have called Ram customer support but so far no help

If it's just the bearings, replace them for $40

 

[mikeru]

Do you have any insight as to what is failing in the MGU from the dealer? Windings? Circuit boards? Heat? Bearings? Housing?

I’ve always had questions about any mileage improvement from e-torque. If there are any improvements it would almost have to be limited to in-town driving with the stop/start and off the line MGU torque boost. But I don’t see how all this hardware could provide any additional economy cruising at 70 mph down the interstate running in 8th gear. As far as I know the MDS is not dependent on e-torque since it’s been on the Hemi for many years - right?

Most of the posts I've seen (mostly in another forum) have been bearing failures. A few people who were outside the 8/80 warranty have replaced the bearings on their own and gotten their trucks up and running again. Apparently you get some warning with the bearing failures (groan or grinding noise).

I'm sure you're right about the mileage difference. People who drive exclusively in city traffic would probably see the most gain from the start/stop. My driving is mostly rural, with very little city traffic. Maybe 90/10 hwy/city.

 

[Randy Grant]

Do you have any insight as to what is failing in the MGU from the dealer? Windings? Circuit boards? Heat? Bearings? Housing?

I’ve always had questions about any mileage improvement from e-torque. If there are any improvements it would almost have to be limited to in-town driving with the stop/start and off the line MGU torque boost. But I don’t see how all this hardware could provide any additional economy cruising at 70 mph down the interstate running in 8th gear. As far as I know the MDS is not dependent on e-torque since it’s been on the Hemi for many years - right?

Mostly bearings from what I've seen. And if run to long with bearing wobble, it hits the reductor windings, and that is a big problem for nonliability.

 

[mikeru]

What year did the E-Torque come out ? My experience is that I had a 2020 Ram 1500 5.7
non-etorque, and when I found out the etorque was
mandatory in 2023, I traded mine for a 2022 without. I suspect in 2022 half of the 5.7 models
had e-torque, half without. I bought mine off the lot
in the fall before they were gone.
I wonder what the resale is on a comparison of the 2 ? Does the etorque take a hit ?
Long time farmer here, and I believe in the KISS
method. Keep it simple. Electronics are the bane
and majority of problems now.

I doubt etorque has much if any effect on resale at this point. Aside from people in forums, the general public is probably oblivious to what it even is. That may change in time if it becomes a more significant point of failure.

 

[Mojo88]

I doubt etorque has much if any effect on resale at this point. Aside from people in forums, the general public is probably oblivious to what it even is. That may change in time if it becomes a more significant point of failure.

Haha, you are spot on. A few days ago, I ran into a friend, haven't seen him in a while. He said he really liked my truck last time I saw him, and he's actually been looking to buy a RAM for himself, he had already checked out a few trucks. I gave him a few pointers and recommended, "try to find one without eTorque"...... he responded, "what's that?"

 

[20IndyRam]

Herein lies the issue with such a complex system: it figuratively has too many moving parts due to its complexity. I say figuratively because the interconnected electronic components are not technically moving, but they do require precise timing to operate successfully.

Yes, the marketing blurb makes it sound simple, but I assure you, it's anything but simple.

This complexity of operations results in a myriad of potential points of failure, and it is simply miraculous that many of the V6 versions appear to be operational.


I recall the bearing replacement fix that tb56 mentioned. It was a simple mechanical solution from within a highly complex network of components.

Be careful not to drink the Kool-Aid while watching the following marketing blurb.

What Is eTorque in a Jeep or RAM Truck?

Mild hybrid technology is present in an increasing number of combustion vehicles, which it makes better, and in Jeeps and RAMs, it's called eTorque.

www.makeuseof.com

.

That's a lot of generalization with very little substance. How to you suppose modern airliners manage to stay airborne? Their failure modes/failure rates are analyzed and accounted for - it's called reliability and systems engineering. A complex system is broken down into segments with associated MTBF's (Mean Time Between Failure). Where subsystem reliability can't be met with component design, backup systems are used. The space shuttle used 3 backups on critical systems. The 3'rd backup was required to be a different technology to prevent common mode failures.

Starter generator systems have been around for nearly 100 years. They're used in high tech applications like lawn tractors, motorcycles, outboard motors, aircraft, and (unfortunately) Ram 1500's.

Early starter generators used brushes are required periodic maintenance. Recent motor generators are brushless (permanent magnet) are are more reliable as a result.

Assuming Chrysler designed the system correctly (they apparently got the V6 Etorque correct), the Etorque electrical system should be more reliable than the Uconnect system. The Etorque doesn't have the problematic user interface.

Rather than throwing the blanket of "overly complex" over the subject, I'd like to learn what the failure mode is. I have read a number of posts regarding bearing failures. Not sure if that is the primary reason for the Etorque problems. Wouldn't be the 1st time that sealed permanently lubricated bearings had some quality issues.

 

[Randy Grant]

That's a lot of generalization with very little substance. How to you suppose modern airliners manage to stay airborne? Their failure modes/failure rates are analyzed and accounted for - it's called reliability and systems engineering. A complex system is broken down into segments with associated MTBF's (Mean Time Between Failure). Where subsystem reliability can't be met with component design, backup systems are used. The space shuttle used 3 backups on critical systems. The 3'rd backup was required to be a different technology to prevent common mode failures.

Starter generator systems have been around for nearly 100 years. They're used in high tech applications like lawn tractors, motorcycles, outboard motors, aircraft, and (unfortunately) Ram 1500's.

Early starter generators used brushes are required periodic maintenance. Recent motor generators are brushless (permanent magnet) are are more reliable as a result.

Assuming Chrysler designed the system correctly (they apparently got the V6 Etorque correct), the Etorque electrical system should be more reliable than the Uconnect system. The Etorque doesn't have the problematic user interface.

Rather than throwing the blanket of "overly complex" over the subject, I'd like to learn what the failure mode is. I have read a number of posts regarding bearing failures. Not sure if that is the primary reason for the Etorque problems. Wouldn't be the 1st time that sealed permanently lubricated bearings had some quality issues.

Considering where the electronics in vehicles come from, and the fact that these trucks are rolling computers with about ten controlling it, and the fact that most if not all of those countries hate America, It's a wonder that they make it out of the driveway every morning. And the rest of the manufacturers are in the same boat. It's all in the luck of the draw.

 

[turkeybird56]

Really enjoy my 19. Lowly optioned Biggyhorn but just a pleasure to drive.

 

[Kickboxer]

That's a lot of generalization with very little substance. How to you suppose modern airliners manage to stay airborne? Their failure modes/failure rates are analyzed and accounted for - it's called reliability and systems engineering. A complex system is broken down into segments with associated MTBF's (Mean Time Between Failure). Where subsystem reliability can't be met with component design, backup systems are used. The space shuttle used 3 backups on critical systems. The 3'rd backup was required to be a different technology to prevent common mode failures.

Starter generator systems have been around for nearly 100 years. They're used in high tech applications like lawn tractors, motorcycles, outboard motors, aircraft, and (unfortunately) Ram 1500's.

Early starter generators used brushes are required periodic maintenance. Recent motor generators are brushless (permanent magnet) are are more reliable as a result.

Assuming Chrysler designed the system correctly (they apparently got the V6 Etorque correct), the Etorque electrical system should be more reliable than the Uconnect system. The Etorque doesn't have the problematic user interface.

Rather than throwing the blanket of "overly complex" over the subject, I'd like to learn what the failure mode is. I have read a number of posts regarding bearing failures. Not sure if that is the primary reason for the Etorque problems. Wouldn't be the 1st time that sealed permanently lubricated bearings had some quality issues.

Today's vehicles including Ram are not anywhere close to being aviation quality or not sure why you mentioned space shuttle. All the majors
currently have recalls on many different things. And that is also besides software updates changes, etc.

Right now my friend has a 6.2 GMC that is under recall for engine failure. They plug it in and it is pass or fail. It it fails they order and put in a new engine, if it is OK they change the oil to a heavier weight and send him home. Valve train issues and sudden problems.

That is another question I will bring to the forum. I question the use of the very thin 0W-20 oil that is used in today's vehicles. I am a farmer and have bought diesel oil in bulk, 100 gallons at a time.
So, I have experience, and don't like breakdowns and problems.

 

[RamDiver]

Rather than throwing the blanket of "overly complex" over the subject, I'd like to learn what the failure mode is. I have read a number of posts regarding bearing failures. Not sure if that is the primary reason for the Etorque problems. Wouldn't be the 1st time that sealed permanently lubricated bearings had some quality issues.

I agree, it would be great to have access to this data and be able to craft our own solutions.
We couldn't do much worse than Stellantis.

I wish you luck with that study and look forward to reading your report.

It does appear that the e-Torque for the Pentastar engine fails less often than the Hemi, but I don't have any real-world stats to support that claim.

That's a lot of generalization with very little substance. How to you suppose modern airliners manage to stay airborne? Their failure modes/failure rates are analyzed and accounted for - it's called reliability and systems engineering. A complex system is broken down into segments with associated MTBF's (Mean Time Between Failure). Where subsystem reliability can't be met with component design, backup systems are used. The space shuttle used 3 backups on critical systems. The 3'rd backup was required to be a different technology to prevent common mode failures.

Starter generator systems have been around for nearly 100 years. They're used in high tech applications like lawn tractors, motorcycles, outboard motors, aircraft, and (unfortunately) Ram 1500's.

Early starter generators used brushes are required periodic maintenance. Recent motor generators are brushless (permanent magnet) are are more reliable as a result.

Assuming Chrysler designed the system correctly (they apparently got the V6 Etorque correct), the Etorque electrical system should be more reliable than the Uconnect system. The Etorque doesn't have the problematic user interface.

As far as substance is concerned, Stellantis has had about 8 years to work out the bugs, and yet, here we are. How much more evidence do we need?

Some choose to play the blame game. It's the engineering, or it was the bean counters, who forced them to use substandard parts. Or, the supply chain is failing to deliver for whatever reason.

The bottom line is that the e-Torque with the Hemi engine appears to be unreliable, as are the OE repair opportunities, leaving trucks inoperable for several months.

This sounds very much to me like this design is too complex for Stellantis because they still haven't created a reliable solution.

YMMV

.

 

[20IndyRam]

Today's vehicles including Ram are not anywhere close to being aviation quality or not sure why you mentioned space shuttle. All the majors
currently have recalls on many different things. And that is also besides software updates changes, etc.

Right now my friend has a 6.2 GMC that is under recall for engine failure. They plug it in and it is pass or fail. It it fails they order and put in a new engine, if it is OK they change the oil to a heavier weight and send him home. Valve train issues and sudden problems.

That is another question I will bring to the forum. I question the use of the very thin 0W-20 oil that is used in today's vehicles. I am a farmer and have bought diesel oil in bulk, 100 gallons at a time.
So, I have experience, and don't like breakdowns and problems.

Back in the 70's there was a marked difference in the quality/temperature range/screening of Military/Aerospace Integrated circuits vs commercial. I can remember buying the highest grade IC's (mil/883 and JANTXV) and then sending them back out to an independent lab for re-screening on the Navy F-18 Hornet and E2-C Hawkeye programs. The Navy was getting fed up with counterfeit parts making it into the supply chain and grounding their aircraft.

The difference between aerospace and automotive electronics has largely disappeared over the years. The temperature ranges now overlap (-65 to 300F) and many of the qualification requirement are shared. There are programs that actively qualify automotive Grade 0 components for Aerospace/Military/Space use. The automotive world typically doesn't qualify for lightning or radiation (why would they?) and they do not 100% test (sample testing). 100% testing is normally a requirement for any critical parameter in Aerospace. On the flip side, people will line up to tell you that you can't "test" quality/reliability into a given part.

As far as fielded technology is concerned, automotive is way ahead in many areas. Aerospace get's the benefit of the automotive guys field experience on new tech without having to blaze the trail. My Aerospace customers (Boeing, Airbus, GE, Pratt, Lockheed) would normally want to see Millions of flight hours of field experience or a long term technology demonstrator program before even talking with us about a product. This is the real difference (in my mind) between Automotive and Aerospace. Aerospace uses proven/field tested technology while Automotive pushes the envelope (and I am glad for this).

Military is a bit different. They are willing to take more risks and to fund demonstration programs. These can be very expensive for the Company with no guarantee of a product at the end of the demonstration. This is why the big players are normally the ones involved (deep pockets). For the big boys, the cost of not being in the game could be lost future programs.

I brought up the Space Shuttle because it's an example of an extremely complex system that is managed/designed in a way to make the end product reliability acceptable. Now, you could argue that two catastrophic failures out of 135 missions is a poor record - you would not be wrong. Human decisions played into both of those failures.

The GM L87 issue is confusing as well. I've seen reports of contamination, rad/crank tolerances and surface finish. I would also be concerned by the decision to increase the viscosity to 10w-40 on affected engines. That sounds like clearances are larger than as designed.

Toyota recommends 0w-8 for my Wife's new Camry (10K mile OCI). I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me when I first read it. I changed it @1K miles. Had to order the oil from wally world. My 1st Toyota. Time will tell if it is my last.

Sorry for the long winded response...

 

[Kickboxer]

Ram introduced E-torque in the 2019 models.