BREAKING: Chrysler C6X (CA) Electric SUV Development Suspended

Chrysler Airflow Concept Three years ago at CES 2022, Chrysler showed off a concept of a production-ready-looking mid-sized electric SUV called the Airflow. This vehicle was to be based on the variant of the upcoming STLA large platform underpinning the new Dodge Charger Daytona. A few months later in April, Chrysler showed off another version of the concept called the Airflow Graphite Concept. While not a super futuristic, outlandish design, the Airflow was a very handsome concept and looked to be production ready both interior, and exterior wise as soon as Stellantis had their STLA Large platform ready to go. … (read full article...)

 

[Jared B]

REACTIONARY MOPER FAN

"I hate Travares, Travares is an Idiot, How can we let Travares ruin the company? Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares, Travares,

I hate EVs, EVs are the devil, Hemi Hemi Hemi, EV stink, EV live rent free in my brain. Hemi, EV are the Devil, bring back the slow selling under margin sedan,

Travares and EV are the unholy alliance of Satan.

CHRYSLER

"We hear you, we will move to a new direction. We hear you Airflow isn't testing the well in clinics. We will move towards products you asked for."

Chrysler to do hybrid crossover, gasoline and hybrid minivan

The head of Chrysler, Christine Feuell, told CNBC that the 101-year-old marque’s future is safe, with new product in 2026 including a refreshed Chrysler Pacifica and a large crossover. Earlier statements about Chrysler suggested the marque would be fully battery-electric, but this plan seems to...

www.stellpower.com

REACTIONARY MOPER FAN

"DOOMED I say DOOMED, Canceling the Airflow show Chrysler is DOOMED (even though this was news like nearly a year ago) Chrysler is Doomed."

I've seen 0 of that in this thread.

As a general aside, (this isn't directed at anyone whatsoever), the way people talk to each other on this forum has gotten ridiculous. Admittedly I don't spend a lot of time on here, but when I do I see it in every thread. Everything seems to start off with a personal attack whenever two sides see things differently. I don't have the time and don't want to moderate the **** out of this place; I'd like to see it go back to a place people talk out their thoughts without personal attacks and without the sensationalism. I understand the passion for the brands and that it's been pretty rough for everyone with constant changes and poor decisions along the way regardless of who was or is thought to be responsible for them.

One reason we stopped posting things so far in advance is at the speed the industry is going, things get canceled, reimagined, or completely changed all the time. I could (but won't) post visual proof of some vehicles we never wrote about that would be considered as proof they were coming, which never saw the light of day.

I'll go first, here's what we know has been in the pipeline for Chrysler:
BEV Minivan
RU Pacifica Refresh
C6X "Airflow" BEV CUV - STLA Large based, so could spawn hybrid or ICE versions

Likely:
Hatchback sedan off Charger Daytona LB architecture - Intent shown by Halcyon concept

Possible:
2 Door coupe-styled hatchback off Charger Daytona LB architecture if they really want to make a personal luxury statement to say Chrysler is back - would be a low volume vehicle

Do I think they were going to do an RU refresh, all-new BEV minivan, 2 new CUVs, and possibly the two cars all within a span of a couple years? No , that's a whole lot all at once, especially for a brand with currently one vehicle.

My concern is that the Hybrid is part of the C9X program that we now know has been shelved (at least for now).

Alternatively, what if C9X (CA) is the BEV version, and C9X (??) is the hybrid version since C9X (CA) was specified in the email? This could be possible as the BEV Wagoneer S and upcoming Hybrid Cherokee are KM family on the STLA large architecture, but with different sub-platform codes. What worries me about this theory is I haven't seen a C9X platform code not appended CA which means if this theory is correct, it's still a few YEARS away.

What are everyone's thoughts?

 

[TripleT]

I've seen 0 of that in this thread.

As a general aside, (this isn't directed at anyone whatsoever), the way people talk to each other on this forum has gotten ridiculous. Admittedly I don't spend a lot of time on here, but when I do I see it in every thread. Everything seems to start off with a personal attack whenever two sides see things differently. I don't have the time and don't want to moderate the **** out of this place; I'd like to see it go back to a place people talk out their thoughts without personal attacks and without the sensationalism. I understand the passion for the brands and that it's been pretty rough for everyone with constant changes and poor decisions along the way regardless of who was or is thought to be responsible for them.

One reason we stopped posting things so far in advance is at the speed the industry is going, things get canceled, reimagined, or completely changed all the time. I could (but won't) post visual proof of some vehicles we never wrote about that would be considered as proof they were coming, which never saw the light of day.

I'll go first, here's what we know has been in the pipeline for Chrysler:
BEV Minivan
RU Pacifica Refresh
C6X "Airflow" BEV CUV - STLA Large based, so could spawn hybrid or ICE versions

Likely:
Hatchback sedan off Charger Daytona LB architecture - Intent shown by Halcyon concept

Possible:
2 Door coupe-styled hatchback off Charger Daytona LB architecture if they really want to make a personal luxury statement to say Chrysler is back - would be a low volume vehicle

Do I think they were going to do an RU refresh, all-new BEV minivan, 2 new CUVs, and possibly the two cars all within a span of a couple years? No , that's a whole lot all at once, especially for a brand with currently one vehicle.

My concern is that the Hybrid is part of the C9X program that we now know has been shelved (at least for now).

Alternatively, what if C9X (CA) is the BEV version, and C9X (??) is the hybrid version since C9X (CA) was specified in the email? This could be possible as the BEV Wagoneer S and upcoming Hybrid Cherokee are KM family on the STLA large architecture, but with different sub-platform codes. What worries me about this theory is I haven't seen a C9X platform code not appended CA which means if this theory is correct, it's still a few YEARS away.

What are everyone's thoughts?

Inside this thread there are people asking if this is the last nail in the coffin. I general we see wild swings .... Travares was pushing hard for one powertrain dominance .... Doesn't make sense, whatever is built need at least a put gas in it option.

I'd guess have a close but different product to the Airflow in the Wagoneer S doesn't make a lot of sense when you can do Coachwork versions of the K Jeeps.

 

[Jared B]

I'd guess have a close but different product to the Airflow in the Wagoneer S doesn't make a lot of sense when you can do Coachwork versions of the K Jeeps.

Which is another option, the Hybrid could just be a Chryslerized version of the upcoming Cherokee...

 

[TripleT]

Which is another option, the Hybrid could just be a Chryslerized version of the upcoming Cherokee...

We have the identical thought, why make a stand alone product when you can just coach work the Cherokee and Wagoneer S. Although I not a fan of the PSA based Hybrid, I prefer just a REEV with FCA based engine to run the generator, guess it too late for that.

 

[Jared B]

We have the identical thought, why make a stand alone product when you can just coach work the Cherokee and Wagoneer S. Although I not a fan of the PSA based Hybrid, I prefer just a REEV with FCA based engine to run the generator, guess it too late for that.

Agreed. I think they might have tried to overcomplicate things and possibly realized that and now be pulling back. I don't think Chrysler needs its own CUV variant of the STLA Large platform when Jeep has a variant of a STLA large platform as well. Just shrink or stretch (Whichever is applicable) the Chrysler CUV to fit on KM, instead of developing a different subset of the architecture. Give it a unique body/interior and suspension tuning and call it a day.

 

[TripleT]

Agreed. I think they might have tried to overcomplicate things and possibly realized that and now be pulling back. I don't think Chrysler needs its own CUV variant of the STLA Large platform when Jeep has a variant of a STLA large platform as well. Just shrink or stretch (Whichever is applicable) the Chrysler CUV to fit on KM, instead of developing a different subset of the architecture. Give it a unique body/interior and suspension tuning and call it a day.

Honest to god as Cheap as Pepe was that the C6X existed at all is confounding, In Europe there are going to be 2 cars and 1000 coachworks, he made the old K platform look bespoke.

 

[patfromigh]

What are everyone's thoughts?

In another thread RRB posted a video of the Wagoneer S at the Detroit auto show. That interior looks great. While screens seem to be inevitable, I personally loathe the tablet glued to the dash style started by Tesla, but which GM and the Korean brands are now following. The dash and controls of the Wagoneer S respect the Jeep heritage. In the same manner, a Chrysler brand product should respect the the brand's heritage. The latest Mustang has this long screen stuck onto the dash. The ambiance of the interior says virtual Mustang, not the real thing. When I saw the video of the Halcyon concept, I noticed the tablet-like screens right away. Such driver interfaces turn a motor vehicle into a soulless appliance. Worst case scenario is those newest GM products which share the same tablet like dash and controls. I expect such things on the vehicles GM imports from China, but finding the exact same parts on a number of other GM products made here and elsewhere is alarming.

BTW, the Airflow concept dashboard styling doesn't have that Chrysler essence to its instruments and controls. Just my opinion on that.

As far as exterior styling goes, that will be another post.

 

[cygnus]

According to my sources, no its was to retain its 5-passenger D-segment SUV status. Think Chrysler version of Wagoneer S.

So does that mean STLA large spans both D and E segments?

My understanding is that Recon, Charger/Challenger, and the upcoming Cherokee are all based on variants of STLA Large.

STLA Large is ICE and EV, for now. Upcoming Cherokee (KM) will be FWD STLA Large with an MHEV, from what other people have posted. I'm curious if they will expand PHEV to STLA Large, the 4xE system needs a refresh, it debuted before Covid.

 

[redriderbob]

So does that mean STLA large spans both D and E segments?

My understanding is that Recon, Charger/Challenger, and the upcoming Cherokee are all based on variants of STLA Large.

STLA Large is ICE and EV, for now. Upcoming Cherokee (KM) will be FWD STLA Large with an MHEV, from what other people have posted. I'm curious if they will expand PHEV to STLA Large, the 4xE system needs a refresh, it debuted before Covid.

Yes, the new Wagoneer S, Recon, and Cherokee are all D-segment vehicles. Charger and next-gen Durango will be E-segment.

 

[cygnus]

Recon is that small? Interesting.

 

[patfromigh]

I'm curious if they will expand PHEV to STLA Large, the 4xE system needs a refresh, it debuted before Covid.

I'm also curious about what happened to the next generation 8-speed transmissions from ZF and Kokomo. Added to that mystery is the Hurricane six was also supposed to have a hybrid variant, tuned and equipped specifically for hybrid service. Bili had posted in another thread that there was supposed to be a Miller Cycle version of the GME 2.0 liter four, but CT killed it. That would have really changed the hybrid game. Now instead, after the departure of CT, the Dundee, MI facility has probably finished installing the tooling for the PSA 1.6 liter four cylinder. Like it or not, that is the hand CDJR has been dealt with for a transversely installed hybrid engine. Hopefully the threat of tariffs will keep the French/Chinese hybrid transmission away from our market.

You think the 4Xe is getting stale, the Pacifica's PHEV system is even older, and seems to be ignored by Stellantis. Meanwhile Honda and Toyota seem to be in a space race to see how far they can advance hybrids.

 

[patfromigh]

It seems like this front page article was a long time ago, but it was posted just a little over a year ago. I'm very grateful to RRB for these reminders from the past.

Unfulfilled Promise: Chrysler's 2009 200C EV Concept

As Chrysler navigates its course toward an all-electric future, a reflective glance at the 2009 Chrysler 200C EV Concept reveals a compelling vision unfulfilled—a design masterpiece poised to redefine the brand's trajectory in the realm of electric mobility.

moparinsiders.com

Chrysler needs to build upon the 200C concept instead of the Halcyon concept. The interior and driver's controls are definitely much better than the unimaginative interfaces in the Halcyon concept. But before updating such a concept to production consideration, the interior designers should be required to watch a video of the Hyundai/Kia executive making a public apology, in answer to the flood of complaints from customers, concerning the lack of physical knobs and switches in their products. That speech happened at last year's NY auto show.

The 200C concept looks like a Chrysler. A production version will need some styling touches to make it look fresh. The four door pony car fad seems to be over. The Chrysler 200, which FCA debuted after this concept, proved that.

The 200C is based on a modified LX platform and could readily be moved to the STLA large. The REEV power train in the 200C concept was a FAIL, (Just ask BMW.) It failed in real world conditions because the ICE range extender was too small. Since the 2009 auto show season, when the 200C concept was shown, there have been significant advances in vehicle electrification. There now are in-house IC engines available which are capable of offering much better generating power in the same confined under hood space.

 

[Mopar426]

I think its a lack of leadership, she was recently "relieved" of running Ram and will soon be sent packing all together IMO. She can't commit to a product and has spent years bumbling around not being able to make tough decisions. Both of the concepts would be failures in production - the airflow is too low to the ground and would be bypassed by the CUV crowd and the model 3 rip off is just another Giulia. You can build a better BMW 3-series, but people still want the BMW badge. Same with people wanting the Tesla badge.

A modern and attractive hybrid of what the Chrysler Pacifica use to be is where I'd be starting, EV with EV power and benefits but with a 4 cyl generator like the Scout and then expand on that

 

[cygnus]

I'm also curious about what happened to the next generation 8-speed transmissions from ZF and Kokomo. Added to that mystery is the Hurricane six was also supposed to have a hybrid variant, tuned and equipped specifically for hybrid service. Bili had posted in another thread that there was supposed to be a Miller Cycle version of the GME 2.0 liter four, but CT killed it. That would have really changed the hybrid game. Now instead, after the departure of CT, the Dundee, MI facility has probably finished installing the tooling for the PSA 1.6 liter four cylinder. Like it or not, that is the hand CDJR has been dealt with for a transversely installed hybrid engine. Hopefully the threat of tariffs will keep the French/Chinese hybrid transmission away from our market.

You think the 4Xe is getting stale, the Pacifica's PHEV system is even older, and seems to be ignored by Stellantis. Meanwhile Honda and Toyota seem to be in a space race to see how far they can advance hybrids.

They did say last week that Pacifica was getting another refresh for the 2026 MY - https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a...refreshed-pacifica-new-crossover-coming-2026/

 

[autorundown.com]

This is good news, I saw both airflows in person at auto shows and no one was checking them out. The airflow looked like a model y phone in job and not a design leader. Chrysler simply needs to sell jeep suvs as hybrids/gas etc as a luxury brand version of jeep. Lincoln to jeep's ford if you will. The minivan needs to become it's own sub caravan brand like how ram was spun off and/or be a ram caravan and let chrysler as a luxury brand grow. The new jeep evs coming out are both pointless models. The outgoing stellantis ceo was chasing the stock market and tesla's stock trend of just pushing out evs when people want hybrids/gas. The fiat 500 should be offered in a gas or hybrid version asap. The ram 100% ev is pointless, while the ram charger is perfect. The most powerful thing they can do is cut stupid ideas and act fast vs not admitting it's wrong. This whole airflow concept and ev was pointless and a forced product by fake market demand. Why go through with it?

 

[autorundown.com]

They did say last week that Pacifica was getting another refresh for the 2026 MY - https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a...refreshed-pacifica-new-crossover-coming-2026/

In the netflix doc with Ralph Giles they were working on a van and my understanding is that the pacifica van replacement was going to be a complete overhaul of the way the platform is engineered for that segment to remain a leader. So the only way you can change the van to be a living room is to use an ev chassis to create more space on a flatboard space. This matches the articles over time with hints to what's coming and the news came out around the time that tesla stock took off and all car companies was chasing the ev movement to raise their stock price and not for the tech. So my guess is that the only ev coming out now for chrysler would be a new minivan ev or hybrid and that pacifica is getting a refresh to buy time.

The jeep wagoneer business plan didn't work out the way they wanted by grouping basically the mainstream suv full size segment with the full size luxury segment version under one brand. Jeep's upmarket push hasn't worked out for them and jeep is their global mainstream brand due to suvs being the main draw now. So they need chrysler brand at least here to be a buick a lincoln so that they can ask higher margins of the same suv models. On the marketing and branding side it would benefit them to publicly say this is the luxury brand of jeep and let the dice roll. So I could see a new town and country branded wagoneer to take on caddy and lincoln. They could very quickly grow chrysler if they allowed the brand to sell luxury versions of models based on jeeps. Internationally they would need a brand to serve the same role as well.

My day job is running a luxury brand that's national in another industry and I truely believe that stellantis has the brands and platforms to be a giant in the industry but they have to both move fast and make common sense moves with product. Allowing chrysler to be the luxury jeep while allowing it creative freedom is the modern version of the past. Chasing a failed airflow concept, the helicon concept, keep selling vans which is holding the brand down is not the direction chrysler needs to go in. The answer for Chrysler is very simple it's to be a luxury brand once again but this time of suvs.

 

[patfromigh]

Buick, Cadillac, and Lincoln latest models are either made in China or assembled in other countries with Chinese parts. The exceptions are the Navigator and Escalade SUVs, which the Grand Wagoneer vainly tries to compete against. Chrysler doesn't need to go where Lincoln is presently failing with the collapse of Navigator sales.

Once again, Chrysler as a brand should be chasing Lexus, which just finished an all time record sales year.

 

[TripleT]

Buick, Cadillac, and Lincoln latest models are either made in China or assembled in other countries with Chinese parts. The exceptions are the Navigator and Escalade SUVs, which the Grand Wagoneer vainly tries to compete against. Chrysler doesn't need to go where Lincoln is presently failing with the collapse of Navigator sales.

Once again, Chrysler as a brand should be chasing Lexus, which just finished an all time record sales year.

The only problem that besides Mopar faithful(very small segment), and folks I know this is going to hurt, No one puts Chrysler in the same range and Cadillac, Lincoln, or Lexus. It became Plymouth when Daimler canceled that brand.

Yes it had lightening in the bottle with 2 retro-models, but retro models are very limited as where they can go next.

It's going to take baby steps..... it is frustrating when people say copy the Asian car in box model, when they don't realize they are Asian cars in a box.

Baby steps to re-establish it as a "Luxury" brand but they need the mini-van to anchor that, Voyager and Pacifica may be the best start. Issue is that if your going to be Value Luxury competing against value luxury, your either going to have to eat margin or Asian source.

Chinese LOVE vans so working that angle is good strat with the EV model coming.

 

[patfromigh]

The only problem that besides Mopar faithful(very small segment), and folks I know this is going to hurt, No one puts Chrysler in the same range and Cadillac, Lincoln, or Lexus. It became Plymouth when Daimler canceled that brand.

Yes it had lightening in the bottle with 2 retro-models, but retro models are very limited as where they can go next.

It's going to take baby steps..... it is frustrating when people say copy the Asian car in box model, when they don't realize they are Asian cars in a box.

Baby steps to re-establish it as a "Luxury" brand but they need the mini-van to anchor that, Voyager and Pacifica may be the best start. Issue is that if your going to be Value Luxury competing against value luxury, your either going to have to eat margin or Asian source.

Chinese LOVE vans so working that angle is good strat with the EV model coming.

Christine Feuell with her talk of bold new strategy and direction scares me, because abandoning customers didn't work for Bud Light and will now bring Jaguar to a sad end. Chrysler branded vehicles have to be recognizable as Chryslers, not as Tesla wannabes.

I think the best way forward would be for Chrysler as a brand to adopt the Leap platform for a sedan and crossover. Such vehicles can be manufactured here in North America. That I know of, there aren't any tariffs on blueprints. The larger vehicles Leap produces are the right size for our market. Chrysler could adopt the Leap strategy of EV or EREV power train. (Leap uses the term extended range while Auburn Hills uses range extended.) The Leap battery cradle design is lighter than what Stellantis is doing for the Charger. Parts such as the EDMs, IC range extender, exterior and interior pieces can all be sourced from here.

The instrument cluster on many of the new 2025 GM products are a generic tablet design along with a common column shifter. The same parts show up on various GM products no matter what the price point or brand of vehicle is. Stellantis can not afford to do this with their brands and products, the cost savings are not worth the loss of brand identity. For all the angst caused by the battery electric problems in the Charger leading to suspicions about the Wagoneer S, the Wagoneer S instrument cluster gets it right. It doesn't look like it was lifted from an econobox.

 

[TripleT]

Christine Feuell with her talk of bold new strategy and direction scares me, because abandoning customers didn't work for Bud Light and will now bring Jaguar to a sad end. Chrysler branded vehicles have to be recognizable as Chryslers, not as Tesla wannabes.

I think the best way forward would be for Chrysler as a brand to adopt the Leap platform for a sedan and crossover. Such vehicles can be manufactured here in North America. That I know of, there aren't any tariffs on blueprints. The larger vehicles Leap produces are the right size for our market. Chrysler could adopt the Leap strategy of EV or EREV power train. (Leap uses the term extended range while Auburn Hills uses range extended.) The Leap battery cradle design is lighter than what Stellantis is doing for the Charger. Parts such as the EDMs, IC range extender, exterior and interior pieces can all be sourced from here.

The instrument cluster on many of the new 2025 GM products are a generic tablet design along with a common column shifter. The same parts show up on various GM products no matter what the price point or brand of vehicle is. Stellantis can not afford to do this with their brands and products, the cost savings are not worth the loss of brand identity. For all the angst caused by the battery electric problems in the Charger leading to suspicions about the Wagoneer S, the Wagoneer S instrument cluster gets it right. It doesn't look like it was lifted from an econobox.

What customers? Bud Light was the best selling beer when it abandoned it market position, remove Minivan customers who are MiniVan customers, who are these Chyrsler custmers, 2 per month per dealership customer?

No disagree with partnering with Leap or another Chinese brand, Leap isn't that well thought of in China BTW, support is horrible.

Most people are not inside issue with the Charge startup, Hell the last Explorers had months of inventory until they sorted it? Don't externalize this sort of things. Until they are sold and on the road most consumer don't care.