3.6L vs 3.6L BSG

TLife

Member
So for the purpose of this discussion lets assume that the 3.6L with BSG (called eTorque in the Ram) will be coming to the Wrangler and that when it does we'll have the choice of the standard 3.6 or the BSG (possibly not true, but humor me). In the Ram the 3.6 BSG is supposed to provide an additional 90 torques at low RPM. Wondering how this is going to affect real world driving has left me with more questions than answers. I've made a list of things I'm unsure about below and welcome anyone to provide input, insight or wild guesses that they might have.

  • What RPM range is the electric motor working at?
  • Will the torque bump be noticeable at crawling speeds?
  • Will the electric motor make a bigger difference with tires larger than stock?
  • Will any gains be worth the added complexity?
  • Do you want it on your 3.6?
 

MrGiant

New member
The idea itself is cool, but I am generally sceptic about such things.....there is a lot that can go wrong or at least cause trouble or high costs for repairs.
I'd go without if I had the choice

Sent from my SM-G950F using JL Wrangler Jeep Forum mobile app
 

13_gecko_rubi

New member
If that were to happen the eTorque power is more based on battery power. The RAM has a bigger system. If JL were to get it the specs would likely be same as the 2.0L eTorque which can deliver ~70 ft lbs of torque below 1500 engine RPM. Having driven the 2L with and without it, you can notice a slight difference if you drive them back to back and are very critical. A normal person would likely never notice. The amount of time you spend below 1500 rpm is minimal.

What you do notice more is the seem less start stop. And in city driving you will notice a significant (relative) fuel economy improvement.

In the next 3-5 years tops I bet almost every volume vehicle made has some type of hybrid system. Whether it be a mild hybrid like eTorque, a full hybrid like a prius or a plug-in hybrid. Given the current fuel economy and green house gas regs there really is no way around it. Trump has had them visiting changing the rules but even if that happens it will just delay it a few years.

Sent via....
 

notnalc68

That dude from Mississippi
If that were to happen the eTorque power is more based on battery power. The RAM has a bigger system. If JL were to get it the specs would likely be same as the 2.0L eTorque which can deliver ~70 ft lbs of torque below 1500 engine RPM. Having driven the 2L with and without it, you can notice a slight difference if you drive them back to back and are very critical. A normal person would likely never notice. The amount of time you spend below 1500 rpm is minimal.

What you do notice more is the seem less start stop. And in city driving you will notice a significant (relative) fuel economy improvement.

In the next 3-5 years tops I bet almost every volume vehicle made has some type of hybrid system. Whether it be a mild hybrid like eTorque, a full hybrid like a prius or a plug-in hybrid. Given the current fuel economy and green house gas regs there really is no way around it. Trump has had them visiting changing the rules but even if that happens it will just delay it a few years.

Sent via....

I’m sure you are correct, but I won’t buy that technology voluntarily. I’ll buy it when I’m forced to. Meanwhile, I’m going to pass all the gas I can, to give the middle finger to the government.


Sent from my iPhone using JL Wrangler Jeep Forum mobile app
 

13_gecko_rubi

New member
I’m sure you are correct, but I won’t buy that technology voluntarily. I’ll buy it when I’m forced to. Meanwhile, I’m going to pass all the gas I can, to give the middle finger to the government.


Sent from my iPhone using JL Wrangler Jeep Forum mobile app

If I had extra cash id start buying up Challenger and charger hellcats and redeyes and park then in a storage facility. Probably better investment than my 401k lol

Sent via....
 

TLife

Member
If that were to happen the eTorque power is more based on battery power. The RAM has a bigger system. If JL were to get it the specs would likely be same as the 2.0L eTorque which can deliver ~70 ft lbs of torque below 1500 engine RPM. Having driven the 2L with and without it, you can notice a slight difference if you drive them back to back and are very critical. A normal person would likely never notice. The amount of time you spend below 1500 rpm is minimal.

What you do notice more is the seem less start stop. And in city driving you will notice a significant (relative) fuel economy improvement.

Thanks for the info! I couldn’t find maximum RPM the motor was assisting at. 1500 is a little lower than I was thinking (hoping), agreed on not spending much time in that range. It might affect driving more if it was up to 2000 RPMs.

Edit: maybe it’s designed to 1500 RPMs to limit usage because more usage would require more battery capacity?

Do you think constant torque would be more noticeable with larger tires? In my head that’s the case, but it might not be in reality.
 

Last edited:

13_gecko_rubi

New member
Thanks for the info! I couldn’t find maximum RPM the motor was assisting at. 1500 is a little lower than I was thinking (hoping), agreed on not spending much time in that range. It might affect driving more if it was up to 2000 RPMs.

Edit: maybe it’s designed to 1500 RPMs to limit usage because more usage would require more battery capacity?

Do you think constant torque would be more noticeable with larger tires? In my head that’s the case, but it might not be in reality.
It's not a big enough battery to provide the torque at those higher speeds. Remember same torque at higher speeds = more hp which translates to more wattage from battery. It's really meant for just that low speed launch and start stop.

As for larger tires I mean more torque is always better but once rolling momentum keeps you going. It's great for acceleration but once up to speed not a huge deal.

Sent via....
 

Top