Chrysler Going Electric By 2028, Airflow EV Introduced

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
chrysler going electric by 2028 airflow ev introduced

Stellantis has announced plans to shift the Chrysler brand to an all-electric lineup by 2028, presumably because it doesn’t know what else to do with it anymore. Though, considering the make’s long and storied history, the change almost seems fitting.

When the French bought up Fiat Chrysler Automobiles from the Italians in 2021, the namesake brand had already been losing steam under the Germans. But they were adopting the company after years of mismanagement from Americans, who had taken the marque from being arguably the most luxurious and technologically advanced the United States had to one that had to be saved from bankruptcy by government intervention on more than one occasion. Suffice it to say, Chrysler has enjoyed some of the sweetest highs and pathetic lows imaginable. But it always seems to rise from the ashes thanks to some innovative decision that ultimately helps redefine the industry — which is why Stellantis is leading its own EV offensive by reviving the Airflow name.

Introduced by the Chrysler Corporation in 1934, the Airflow represented a technological leap forward for automotive manufacturing by being among the first vehicles to incorporate air resistance in its design. Sadly, the resulting bodywork left the model and its DeSoto twin less-than popular with motorists of the day. But the groundwork had been laid for the industry and the technology-focused nature that defined the Chrysler brand for the next few decades.

Obviously, that couldn’t last forever and the overriding corporate structure found itself hemorrhaging cash throughout the late 1970s. But new, easy to produce and compact designs began emerging (sometimes with motors on loan from Mitsubishi) to cater to the needs of the day. By the 1980s, the business has a rosier outlook and was introducing entirely new and very successful body styles via the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager minivans.

Since then, the manufacturing group has gone through numerous name changes and a host of foreign investors. Some years have been good, while others were exceptionally bad. But the one constant has been the dwindling market share of the standalone Chrysler brand. Its annual sales for the U.S. market went from 641,406 in 2006 (under Daimler-Chrysler) to just 110,285 in 2020 (under FCA). When PSA Group bought the company to form Stellantis, Chrysler was little more than a purveyor of luxury minivans and the classier alternative to Dodge’s Charger thrown in as part of the deal to get ahold of Jeep.

Leadership is now tapping the Chrysler name to spearhead electrification while it decides how to best modernize the rest of its properties. Frankly, I’m less than enthusiastic about Dodge abandoning V8 powertrains for turbocharged V6s and nearly cried when the venerable Caravan was discontinued in 2020. But transitioning Chrysler over to EVs hasn’t gotten my Mopar-embroidered panties in a twist, likely due to its already spartan lineup and prolonged history of rolling with the punches. Besides, if there was ever an automaker that needed some reinvention and deserved a second chance — it’s this one.

While the Airflow has not been confirmed for production, Chrysler CEO Christine Feuell indicated that the concept was a physical acknowledgment of what Stellantis has planned for the brand moving forward. The first official EV on the production docket is an (as of yet) unnamed crossover in 2025, with a planned all-electric minivan and at least one other vehicle taking the stage by 2028.

“When we sought to redefine and revitalize the Chrysler brand, we needed to make sure that we were creating differentiation within the Stellantis portfolio as well as compared to competition,” she told CNBC during a virtual interview held ahead of CES 2022. “We will be adding one new product per year once we launch our first new product … and expanding that lineup between then and 2028.”

“[Technology] is so important with what consumers are looking for in terms of that seamless connectivity and integrating their personal digital life with their mobile digital life,” Feuell continued. “ that easy and intuitive with the ability to personalize every space within the vehicle regardless of whether it’s a driver or a passenger.”

That presumably means adopting all of the double-edged connectivity features other manufacturers are leaning into. As things currently stand, it’s actually harder for automakers to make money on EVs that lack exceptionally high price tags without sizable government-backed incentives. However, industry trends and government intervention are effectively forcing electrification at an inorganic pace. One solution to this conundrum — made easier by the digitization of automobiles — is to offer subscription-based features, services, and customization using the preeminently embedded internet. We gripe about the related privacy concerns and the potential for disgustingly predatory business tactics all the time. But there remains an opportunity for the industry to make money from it and companies cannot wait to see how their implementation plays out.

For better or worse, the Chrysler Airflow concept also has all the hallmarks of a modern connected EV. The interior is dominated by large screens encompassing the entirety of the dashboard, the grille lights up unnecessarily, and it uses the latest AI-supported software (STLA SmartCockpit) Stellantis has at its disposal.

Visually, the crossover is a conglomerate of the Chrysler Pacifica, Lincoln Corsair, and Tesla Model X — resulting in some handsome, but ultimately derivative, minimalism. We’re hoping the subsequent production model keeps the Airflow name while taking a few liberties with the concept’s bodywork. On the upside, Stellantis has said that both should boast all-electric ranges somewhere between 350 and 400 miles on a single charge.

But this will be a win only if the prospective model can undercut the typically lofty MSRPs associated with luxury EVs without sacrificing comfort or features. For now, leadership has only confirmed that it doesn’t want any of its electrified models straying far from the “sweet spot,” which CEO Feuell identified as between $35,000 and $60,000.

In the interim, we’ve heard plans that Chrysler will end production of the 300 sedan by the end of 2023 — leaving a massive hole in its already svelte lineup. The Airflow (or whatever name they end up using) is assumed to fill the void in the summer of 2024 after the Belvidere plant in Illinois has been retooled. Though this is speculative, with our having no way of determining how much of Stellantis’ $35.5 billion electric vehicle investment will be going toward the project.

[Images: Stellantis]

Join the conversation
4 of 43 comments
  • ToolGuy ToolGuy on Jan 06, 2022

    "if there was ever an automaker that needed some reinvention and deserved a second chance — it’s this one" Whoa, hold up a second - a blanket statement like this is going to need some justification. (Or at least a QOTD if we still did those which I suppose we don't and by we I mean you and by you I mean the collective you but not Soviet style collective)

  • Watersketch Watersketch on Jan 06, 2022

    What about an EV minivan? Chrysler is still close to owning the minivan space. Nobody has a mini EV van unless you count the Transit. The PHEV Pacifica is not great from the owners I know. If you want to be cute you can call it the minEVan.

    • See 1 previous
    • RHD RHD on Jan 12, 2022

      Watersketch, you are right on the money. A minivan that recharges to 100% overnight and never needs gas, is quiet, spacious and hopefully has some inspired styling would be an excellent family vehicle. Its success would be entirely based on getting suburban moms with fancy fingernails, highlighted hair and oversized eyelashes to think it's cool.

  • Lou_BC "Owners of affected Wrangles" Does a missing "r" cancel an extra stud?
  • Slavuta One can put a secret breaker that will disable the starter or spark plug supply. Even disabling headlights or all lights will bring more trouble to thieves than they wish for. With no brake lights, someone will hit from behind, they will leave fingerprints inside. Or if they steal at night, they will have to drive with no lights. Any of these things definitely will bring attention.I remember people removing rotor from under distributor cup.
  • Slavuta Government Motors + Government big tech + government + Federal police = fascist surveillance state. USSR surveillance pales...
  • Johnster Another quibble, this time about the contextualization of the Thunderbird and Cougar, and their relationship to the prestigious Continental Mark. (I know. It's confusing.) The Thunderbird/Mark IV platform introduced for the 1971 model year was apparently derived from the mid-sized Torino/Montego platform (also introduced for the 1971 model year), but should probably be considered different from it.As we all know, the Cougar shared its platform with the Ford Mustang up through the 1973 model year, moving to the mid-sized Torino/Montego platform for the 1974 model year. This platform was also shared with the failed Ford Gran Torino Elite, (introduced in February of 1974, the "Gran Torino" part of the name was dropped for the 1975 and 1976 model years).The Thunderbird/Mark series duo's separation occurred with the 1977 model year when the Thunderbird was downsized to share a platform with the LTD II/Cougar. The 1977 model year saw Mercury drop the "Montego" name and adopt the "Cougar" name for all of their mid-sized cars, including plain 2-doors, 4-doors and and 4-door station wagons. Meanwhile, the Cougar PLC was sold as the "Cougar XR-7." The Cougar wagon was dropped for the 1978 model year (arguably replaced by the new Zephyr wagon) while the (plain) 2-door and 4-door models remained in production for the 1978 and 1979 model years. It was a major prestige blow for the Thunderbird. Underneath, the Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7 for 1977 were warmed-over versions of the failed Ford Elite (1974-1976), while the Mark V was a warmed-over version of the previous Mark IV.
  • Stuart de Baker This is depressing, and I don't own one of these.