Ego is the word I am comfortable using because people generally understand and connect it with something excluding. Nietzsche rarely used the word, but he liked to call some instincts 'excluding' or the 'ones that like to finish'.
Every drive is an instinct, what I call 'ego' is relationship of that instinct with the other ones. There is a lack of totality in acting, always a split in personality, the goal is not to castrate the drive, but to integrate it and put it to some use. 'Ego' is made to trace causality and calculate how and when are we going to experience things, problem is we forgot that it evolved out of instinct. Nietzsche even calls it instinct of causality. We replace the last with the first, putting the causal instinct as cause, like dog chasing it's tail infinitely. An error.
So hunger is an instinct. In a body the superior or dominant forces are known as active and the inferior or dominated are known as reactive. There is no moral value here, but being reactive is being failed, generally. Why do I connect 'ego' with reactive, because that's how we generally view egotistical people, like walking bombs, just waiting for something to make them resentful and ruin their day.
I don't know your inner intentions. I don't know why you are asking this, how is your life looking nor anything about you. This could be very much active or reactive.

It is no doubt more difficult to characterize these active forces for,
by nature, they escape consciousness, "The great activity is unconscious" as Nietzsche said. Consciousness merely expresses the relation of
certain reactive forces to the active forces which dominate them.
Consciousness is essentially reactive, this is why we do not know what
a body can do, or what activity it is capable of . And what is
said of consciousness must also be said of memory and habit. Furthermore we must also say it of nutrition, reproduction, conservation
and adaptation. These are reactive functions, reactive specializations,
expressions of particular reactive forces. It is inevitable that consciousness sees the organism from its own point of view and understands it in its own way; that
is to say, reactively. What happens is that science follows the paths of
consciousness, relying entirely on other reactive forces, the organism
is always seen from the petty side, from the side of its reactions.