2019 Ram 1500 ETorque First Drive - Fresh Horses

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

If the pithy sub-title to this review sounds familiar, give yourself a pat on the back. Or an extra carrot during feeding time. “Fresh horses” is a term deployed to describe steeds that riders substitute in place of the exhausted horses that grew tired during a long ride.

When Ram introduced its new 1500 pickup back in April, it was clear to all that the company shovelled many cubic acres of cash into revamping its exterior, chassis components, and interior. Lighter, sleeker, and more luxurious, about the only thing missing at launch were tweaks to the venerable Hemi V8 – an apparent lack of fresh horses, right?

The company promised tweaks in the form of a forthcoming mild hybrid system appended to both the truck’s V6 and V8 engines. Now, those fresh horses are here and we had a chance to let them run.

Fair warning: there will be ample technical detail in addition to driving impressions. Those who are solely interested in the butt dyno can skip to that section, located towards the end of this review. I appreciate your enthusiasm. Thanks for clicking.

Now we’ve gotten rid of those losers, let’s jump into the meat of this mild hybrid system as it pertains to the 2019 Ram 1500. Marketed under the eTorque banner, a key intention is to deliver gains in fuel economy. As an aside, they should have given it a more “truckified” name like PowerWatt or VoltMax or Continuity Drive. I hear Flux Capacitor was already taken.

Anyway, the eTorque system comprises a belt-driven motor generator unit with a 48-volt battery pack. Chief amongst its responsibilities is to enable a quick and seamless start/stop function, allowing the mechanical starter to rest until the next ignition cycle. It also provides a short-duration torque addition to the engine crankshaft in certain driving situations, a trait which smooths out power delivery. The unit also handles brake energy regeneration duties, said to improve system responsiveness and efficiency.

The 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 is now available only with eTorque, while it appears as a $1,450 option on the 5.7-liter Hemi V8.

The underhood bits of the electrified system are surprisingly different depending if it is lashed to the six- (305 hp/289 lb-ft) or mighty eight-cylinder (395 hp/410 lb-ft) engine. The Pentastar eTorque unit is liquid cooled and mounted on the front of the engine. The Hemi eTorque unit is a Marelli system, air cooled and mounted toward the top of the engine in the traditional alternator location. Think of them as fraternal brothers: same parents, similar dispositions, completely different looks.

Both eTorque motor generator units employ a pair of belt tensioners to keep the 8-rib drive belt tight when the unit is generating electricity or adding torque to the crankshaft. Keen-eyed readers will note the Hemi engine has separate belts for the water pump and eTorque system.

No matter the number of cylinders, the belt-driven motor generator unit replaces the traditional alternator. With the gas-powered engine running, this unit feeds 48-volt current to a 430 watt-hour lithium-ion Nickel Manganese Cobalt (NMC)-Graphite battery. The battery pack includes a 3-kilowatt DC-to-DC converter to maintain the battery’s state of charge and convert 48 volts to 12 volts to power the Ram 1500’s accessories and charge its conventional 12-volt lead-acid battery.

This 48-volt battery is about the size of a carry-on suitcase and resides in the truck, mounted vertically to the cab’s back wall on the driver’s side. Absent of removing seats, carpet, and a copious amount of trim, one would not know it is there. The case is insulated to dampen noise from the dual cooling fans. Cooling air is drawn from inside the truck and vented via the built-in cabin exhausters. Everything – underhood bits, new battery, the works of it – apparently add about 90 pounds to the truck.

Driving impressions? Well, for starters, the stated additional torque numbers (up to 90 lb-ft for the V6 unit and 130 lb-ft for the V8) cannot simply be added to existing torque ratings. Rather, those numbers are potential launch torque additions, extra units of twist available very early in the rev range. There are a gazillion variables (ambient air temperature is one) at play, so it is also incorrect to broadly state each engine receives that much extra torque off the line.

However, the eTorque does contribute to a feeling of more oomph when accelerating from rest. A drive in an V8 eTorque Ram proved the unit’s worth during start/stop instances, where the engine alit in jig time compared to other systems I experienced.

Helping the transition is a brake pedal sending signals from an incremental-type switch, rather than an on/off-style switch. Mike Raymond, Chief Engineer for Ram 1500, said this allows the truck to know when the driver is starting to release the brake pedal, signalling eTorque to get on the go and prepare for internal combustion. The start/stop is defeatable via a handy button mounted near the 4×4 controls.

On the road, the eTorque system in a truck with standard rear end gears offered more kick-in-the-pants under initial acceleration compared to a standard Hemi, an engine with whose power delivery I am endlessly familiar. This alertness is a bonus, considering the eTorque could’ve solely been a fuel economy play.

Ram expects a two or three mpg bump in fuel efficiency on the V6 (final EPA numbers aren’t in yet). The feds have rated the Hemi, though, to the tune of +2 mpg city and +2 mpg combined when compared to the non-electrified V8. Your author averaged an indicated 20.2 mpg on a two-hour drive over mixed surfaces. Diesel? Don’t expect that until at least next year. Math nerds will note spending $1,450 to get a 2 mpg gain will take seven years to pay for itself, assuming 15,000 miles of annual driving at an average fuel price of $3/gallon.

Hitching a V8-equipped Laramie Longhorn to a 6,000-pound horse trailer amplified the eTorque’s eagerness to shove the Ram off from a standing start with increased vigor. Prodding the throttle from rest elicited an initial briskness not found in the standard Hemi but the extra huff disappeared once up to speed.

Here’s another takeaway: what else will FCA do with this technology? And where else will it appear? A Ram exec said the system is not intended to provide more juice to, for example, line the bed with multiple 110V outlets (there are two in the cab and one in the RamBox already) but imagination dictates one could, just maybe, deploy electric power-adders. As for eTorque’s application elsewhere, there’s nothing stopping FCA from installing it on anything that’s powered by a Pentastar or 5.7L Hemi. Those in the know say that course of action is all but assured.

Fresh horses, then? Well, fresher, at least. It’s not an all-new powerplant, but an eTorque equipped Ram definitely makes better use of the existing engine’s available ponies. Like real-life fresh horses, the driver is provided a smoother and more energetic ride. The Ram’s bonus is that these steeds will also eat fewer oats.

[Images: Matthew Guy/TTAC]

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 101 comments
  • 427Cobra 427Cobra on Aug 24, 2018

    As an admitted Ford Fan-boy, I have to say that I just cannot warm up to the current Ford truck styling. To me, they look like a bad Chinese knockoff of an American truck. When it came time to replace my 2000 SuperDuty V10 4x4 supercab (which I loved), I looked at a leftover 2015 SuperDuty, but they just wouldn't deal on it. I instead bought a 2016 Ram 2500 crew cab short bed 4x4 with the 6.4L Hemi & 4.10 gears. Got a GREAT deal on it, & I've been extremely happy with it... no issues whatsoever, though the transmission programming could be better. I got over 19 mpg on a camping trip to Mammoth. I LOVE the styling on the '19 Rams... and hope it carries over to the heavy duties.

  • El scotto El scotto on Aug 24, 2018

    Has the Ozzie been banned? I kinda miss his missives about the chicken tax, Australia's far superior auto engineering, how evil the UAW is, and how the US of A artificially protects their domestic automotive market. It kinda gave me a sense of finality. New QOTD: Which two commenters should be paired together? To be fair, TTAC could make it an anti-something 5some. Rack and stack the top five anti/pro-Japanese, top five anti/pro-GM, top five anti-pro Ford, top five anti/pro CUVs/Trucks. We see (and sometimes read them) on a regular basis. I think that voting for the top five in any selected category would only be fair. Clear the air so to speak.

    • Lie2me Lie2me on Aug 24, 2018

      I'm guessing BAFO is on his annual vacation to the states to visit relatives. He always lies low when in the US, because I think he has a real fear that someone here will hunt him down ;-)

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next