The architect of the Hellcats returns and he’s not taking it easy this time. Stellantis faces a challenging environment and the automotive behemoth has just presented a grand turnaround strategy, betting $13 billion on the U.S. market as part of a broader plan that includes 60 new vehicles and 50 updates by 2030. It’s a remarkable rush.
In Detroit, Michigan, Tim Kuniskis, the Head of American Brands, Ram CEO, and leader of SRT, engaged in an exclusive conversation with The Drive in the latest edition of The Drivecast. Kuniskis thoroughly outlined and discussed the automaker’s product strategy for the United States, featuring the Dodge Copperhead, Jeep Scrambler, budget-friendly Chrysler models, Dodge GLH/Hornet, the Ramcharger, and more.
The newest episode of The Drivecast delves into Stellantis’ framework to regain lost market share, enhance showroom inventory, and restore their enthusiast reputation with standout models. Kuniskis addresses how the absence of vehicles priced under $40,000 currently impacts the automaker. Naturally, the introduction of the Ram Rumble Bee and its Hellcat-boosted SRT model is under discussion, revealing the reasoning and process behind it.
New to the series? The Drivecast is The Drive‘s weekly podcast that offers an in-depth look at the major controversies, narratives, and figures shaping the automotive landscape today. Driven by The Drive‘s exclusive access, original reporting, and insights, The Drivecast aims to bring everyone into the fold.
Tune in to The Drivecast via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Amazon Music. Alternatively, you can enjoy The Drivecast on The Drive through the Podcast tab at the top and explore all previous episodes. Enjoying it? Leave us a five-star review on your preferred streaming platform. It genuinely helps to boost The Drivecast visibility. Have a tip, request, or feedback? Contact us at [email protected]. We review every email, that’s my word.
Full Transcript
Joel: Welcome everyone to the Drivecast. I’m Joel Feder, Director of Content and Product at The Drive. The Drivecast is our weekly podcast providing an inside view into the biggest stories, controversies, and figures influencing the automotive industry. Today, we have a special episode for you. I assured you in episode one this would not be just another car podcast, and thus far, we’ve upheld all our promises. Today, we’re enhancing our insider access with you. The subject is Stellantis, and I’ll be joined by a special guest who likely needs no introduction to any enthusiast.
Known as the father of the Hellcats, he holds official positions as Ram CEO, Head of American Brands for Stellantis, and Head of SRT: Tim Kuniskis. Tim and I met in Detroit to discuss the turnaround strategies for the automotive titan. Stellantis has undergone significant challenges. The company built its current reputation on booming engines and quick times at the drag strip, all while producing thunderous sounds thanks to the Hemi and the iconic Hellcat V8 engine.
Then the excitement dwindled. It fell behind in the electric transition, and many of its electric vehicles were either delayed or simply did not perform well. SRT’s operations were halted, and the outlook was bleak again. The Chrysler 300 has been discontinued, leaving Chrysler to feature only one model, the Pacifica minivan. However, a dedicated and passionate community continues to support Mopar and these legendary brands. Their heritage is a vital aspect, but so is the modern image they have cultivated.
RAM trucks are known for the finest interiors among full-size trucks available today. The Hellcats—well, they made their mark in automotive history. And let’s not overlook the Durango, which appears to have longevity but offers buyers exceptional towing capabilities and a V8 engine in a market where that option is increasingly rare. Stellantis claims there is hope and a plan. Last year, Stellantis appointed Antonio Filosa as the new CEO, indicating a readiness to globalize, modernize, and revitalize Stellantis.
Additionally, a year and a half ago, Tim Kuniskis resumed his role after retirement, taking charge of Ram, Stellantis brands in North America, and reintroducing SRT last summer. If nothing else, this individual is fueled by passion, and passion drives sales. Reading about the Copperhead and Scrambler on The Drive, along with the return of the Rumble Bee featuring the Hellcat powertrain, illuminates precisely why these innovations are being introduced or brought back.
Joining me to dissect all of this and provide deeper insights from Detroit is Kuniskis himself. Today’s discussion focuses on Stellantis’s revival strategy and what’s next. By the way, if you enjoy what we are doing, please grant us a five-star rating on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. It truly helps increase the Drivecast’s visibility. Alright, let’s begin.
Joel: Alright, today we’re in Michigan, Detroit, with Tim Kuniskis, the Father of the Hellcat, American Brands Head, CEO of Ram, and SRT in charge. You’re handling the finances and keys for a lot of operations and serving as Filosa’s right hand for the Americas, right?
Tim: You’re overestimating my role there. I’m simply an employee under Antonio and have the privilege of handling many exciting projects.
Joel: I would concur that it’s an honor to engage in fascinating projects. Honestly, we share a long history and relationship from the inception of Hellcats to their sunset and back again. I remember stories of you and your father at the drag strip—you are the quintessential car enthusiast. Growing up, you found yourself at the strip with your dad. I recall conversations about you and your father modifying shock absorbers before races, leading to dramatic changes in handling. Do you remember this particular story?
Tim: You’re somewhat right. My dad wasn’t heavily involved in that specific activity, but most of your recollection is accurate. We would arrive at the track and disconnect sway bar end links for weight transfer. After that, switching to slicks was essential. We would haul all this equipment in the trunk of our cars, and back then, trunks weren’t lined as they are today. So, making sharp turns would often result in everything sliding to one side and creating a large dent in the quarter panel.
When we launched the ’18 Demon, the thought process behind the foam insert that prevented things from shifting in the trunk came from “live and learn” experiences of a young Tim, whose actions resulted in quarter panels getting damaged. That’s where that idea originated.
Joel: I still recall an interview from nearly ten years ago. You are truly a car enthusiast and recently we witnessed a plethora of new products planned to hit the market within the next four years leading up to 2030. A significant investment is being made in technology and vehicles. Notably, in terms of enthusiast offerings, we discovered some exemplary innovations. I’d like to kick off our conversation by discussing the Copperhead.
When I laid eyes on it, I saw you glancing at me, and my excitement was tangible. It looks incredible. I’ve articulated on the site how it certainly recalls design aspects of the Charger, while also embodying elements reminiscent of the Viper with features such as the ducktail and sporty rear end. It appears to have a front-engine layout. Can we touch upon—there are indeed exhaust pipes on that car that I noticed today. Can we hint at what might be powering that vehicle?
Tim: Indeed, there are exhaust pipes, so it certainly has a combustion engine. However, I must clarify that it does not share the fundamental design of a Charger.
Joel: Not the foundational design of a Charger?
Tim: Not the foundational design of a Charger. You couldn’t obtain a Charger with those proportions and stance due to the multi-energy framework accommodating battery placement at the bottom of the car—without compromising. This isn’t just a show vehicle; it is equipped with real parameters and genuine production intent.
I’m not issuing an exclusive that states, “Hey, we’re definitely building this car for release.” I’m simply indicating that it’s not a conceptual model; it embodies feasible production capabilities. It’s confirmed to have a combustion engine, but as of now, we’re not certain what that engine will be.
We have several ideas and are considering options that may not even be known to the public yet. It’s easy to reference the current lineup and suggest a Hemi or similar. However, this is a commitment to be on the market between now and 2030, meaning there may be an engine in development that hasn’t yet been unveiled, perfectly suited for this model.
Whenever I mention this, people leap to the conclusion, “Oh, it will be a T6.” No, not necessarily. We’re exploring new technologies that will debut this summer. We intend to host an engineering innovation day just prior to Roadkill Nights—a full day showcasing some of the exciting tech we’re working on. Not a new vehicle, but genuinely compelling tech that will be integrated into some of the designs you saw today. When that day arrives, the light bulb will go off, and you’ll think, “Okay, I see it now.”
Joel: Are the basic design features of that car unrelated to anything else?
Tim: I won’t give you that hint, but there are some synergies incorporated into that vehicle. SRT thrives only when it can harness existing sunk investments from around the world. If you try to create high-performance flagship models from scratch, it seldom yields returns. It’s akin to racing just for the sake of it—often driven by ego. It’s essential to leverage already existing investments; hence, this vehicle has production elements borrowed from others.
Joel: And the powertrain? It appears we haven’t reached the point where hints will be revealed.
Tim: We know exactly what we want it to be, but we’re not prepared to disclose it yet.
Joel: Could a hybrid V8 be a possibility in such a platform?
Tim: Yes, it could work. However, a vehicle of that nature is not someone’s everyday driving option. This kind of vehicle would typically be a keeper car.
Joel: A collector’s car?
Tim: Not necessarily a collector’s car, but definitely a keeper’s car. Buying a vehicle like that is akin to purchasing a very unique watch. You might sell it later, but your initial intent should be, “I want this forever, perhaps for my children too.” If we get the equation right, that’s how it should work, correct? It needs to be accessible enough but also special enough that one must make a decision to own it, which is what makes it desirable. Ultimately, my job is to entice people to make poor choices.
Regarding hybridization—sure, it can be done. But hypothetically inserting E-motors and lithium-ion batteries—what will that mean in 30 years? It may as well be an 8-track. You’d find yourself thinking, “I have this DVD, where do I play it?” No, you can’t. My aim is to craft something that can stand the test of time and is somewhat future-proofed.
Joel: So a Hellephant would lack that future-proofing.
Tim: I’ve provided a significant clue, and you can interpret it however you choose.
Joel: Alright. A 426 Hellephant would be intriguing.
Tim: I’ve given you a substantial clue; interpret it however you’d like. I bet when you come to Roadkill Nights, you’ll think, “I understand now.”
Joel: Interestingly, prior to seeing the Copperhead, one question I wanted to ask you pertained to whether there remains a place for a Viper. The reason I posed that question is we’re now in an era where C8 Corvettes are priced at around $220,000, featuring Bugatti levels of power. That’s a vastly different landscape compared to when the Viper was active and later discontinued. I wanted to inquire about the Viper and its relevance in the portfolio. I guess we can still address that, but—
Tim: I appreciate that question, thank you. I think about the C8 frequently. I’m incredibly impressed with the engineering behind that vehicle. While there are aspects I’m not fond of, obviously being biased, there are impressive components to it, and I’ve had the opportunity to engage with Tadge to discuss the engineering involved.
As I relayed to you long ago during the Charger and Challenger’s development, while we hold respect for the Mustang and Camaro, we weren’t striving to create direct competitors. They already exist. With this vehicle, we aren’t attempting to create a C8 competitor. Why would I? It’s in existence, and they perform exceedingly well, selling around 25,000 to 30,000 units. I have questions regarding their range; I wonder about their $65,000 to $250,000 price tags. But you know what? They’re succeeding, so kudos to them. I have no desire to replicate that; they’re sports cars. I’m distinctly defining this as a hyper-muscle car.
Joel: You emphasized that.
Tim: It’s a different classification.
Joel: As the Viper stands apart.
Tim: A Viper qualifies as a sports car. This vehicle qualifies as a hyper-muscle car.
Joel: Is there still a place for a Viper, or have those days passed?
Tim: The Gen 5 Viper represented one of the most stunning vehicles ever made.
Joel: I adore that car.
Tim: The performance capabilities of that car were indeed extraordinary. When you consider it—it was an analog vehicle with a manual transmission, able to compete against anything globally. It truly excelled. But it wasn’t without its flaws. I own one, so I’m granted the liberty to criticize it. If you don’t own one, you can’t; otherwise, we’d have a disagreement. But owning one permits criticism.
It wasn’t perfect, you know? When the new ejection mitigation rules kicked in, we had to discontinue the model because airbags would have to be placed directly over the driver’s ears, which is impractical.
Joel: That’s right next to your head.
Tim: Exactly. It was simply unfeasible. Furthermore, in today’s context, it would require automatic or dual-clutch transmissions to remain viable. It reached the conclusion of its life cycle. As much as that saddens me to admit, its time had come.
Joel: Understood. Now let’s discuss Scrambler. Today, you showcased a Gladiator with a 392 engine. We reviewed Wrangler and Gladiator refreshes and the unique feature of swivel rear seats in the Scrambler. Can you explain how the rear seats will rotate to face back and forth?
Tim: It’s quite well designed. We didn’t reveal a 392 Gladiator today. Ralph conducted a walk-around, transitioning from the Wrangler—I was right there—into the Gladiator and mentioned, “with the 392.” It wasn’t disclosed, written down, or announced. Was it a mistake? I’m unsure. However, I can confirm that a 392 Gladiator was not announced today.
Joel: I heard mention of a 392 Gladiator, but let’s revert to the rear seats in Scrambler.
Tim: Scrambler is exceptionally cool. Picture a Gladiator—now, envision a very military side profile and a low beltline contrasted with a high greenhouse. The proportions will present something purposeful in its design. However, with the Scrambler, we opted for a more muscular exterior while balancing fun—moving away from military ruggedness, as we’ve explored that direction sufficiently. Why introduce another similar design if we already have it? How many flavors of ice cream can we offer?
We decided to create a more muscular side profile and elevate the beltline significantly while lowering the greenhouse. This decision drastically alters the visual proportions and the overall appearance of the car, even though beneath it all, it remains a four-door Wrangler.
This design transformation allows us to enlarge the front door, akin to the evolution from two-door Chargers to four-door Chargers. The front door will be larger, allowing easy access to the front seat and facilitating effortless ingress/egress to the rear seat, akin to older two-door vehicles.
Moreover, the canopy, the “back cap” if you will, akin to a truck’s camper shell, can be removed, similar to classic K5 Blazers. When taken off, the rear seats will be capable of flipping to face backward. That’s precisely why we designed a step on the side—to enable easy access directly to the rear seats without opening the door. That’s nifty, but there’s a deeper purpose: when the top is off and the rear seat is in place, you can convert it flat, producing a truck bed effect. In that configuration, the bed area exceeds that of a Gladiator.
Joel: It’s longer because a Gladiator features a short bed.
Tim: Exactly, you essentially end up with a Swiss Army knife vehicle. It truly is a fantastic concept.
Joel: I’ve heard someone refer to this endeavor as a “love letter to enthusiasts.” Would you agree with that description?
Tim: Over the years, we’ve created various Moab concepts for Easter Jeep Safari—an undefined number of years and a whopping amount of investment has gone into these projects. We’ve generated numerous incredible ideas, absorbing lessons that we’ve integrated into current models.
Yet, we haven’t entirely harnessed those fan-favorite ideas—rather than merely noting what elements are popular and embedding them into existing cars, we decided, “Why not distill all the elements enthusiasts admire and craft an actual vehicle?” Thus, this car embodies the amalgamation of favorite aspects that fans have voiced over the years.
Joel: Understood. Shifting gears to Jeep—specifically the Wrangler—it’s clear you’ve invested heavily. Ralph mentioned the year-long Jeep initiative, featuring different releases monthly; popular models could enter production, while others may only be produced in limited batches.
Last year, there was a period when the Bronco closely challenged the Wrangler, after which the Wrangler surged ahead, outselling the Bronco. This year began with another strong contest between Bronco and Wrangler. I’m curious—who do you see as the leading Jeep brand competitor—not limited to the Wrangler, but as a complete brand, including the Bronco rivalry? Hearing you say, “we may have lost our way, we’re refocusing and doubling down,” strongly resonated with me.
Tim: We view the Jeep brand as two distinct vehicles. While it might seem we have five, six, or seven models on paper—no, we classify it into two categories: “legendary off-road” and “legendary lifestyle.” The off-road family falls under Wranglers. You have the Wrangler, Wrangler Unlimited (four-door), Wrangler Gladiator, and eventually Wrangler Scrambler as our legendary off-road collection.
The lifestyle collection would encompass models like the Recon, Compass, and Cherokee. While they all must embody Jeep qualities, they don’t require the Trail Rated features that a Wrangler does. They still need to be highly capable but with a different approach than how we handle Wranglers. The rationale behind this division is clear: I firmly believe that every Jeep owner envisions taking their vehicle off-road.
When I assert this, journalists often react skeptically, citing data that claims, “That’s absurd; I’ve seen the statistics; Jeep owners don’t really take their Wagoneers off-road,” and so forth. Yet, 100% of them believe they have that potential. That’s the essence; it’s cultivating a spirit of “I love being outdoors, and I relish the possibility of going off-road,” whether or not they ever engage in it.
As for primary competitors? Honestly, I don’t precisely identify a distinct rival; however, I notice many brands attempting to infiltrate that market segment. It seems every manufacturer now offers an off-road variant, though most of these models hardly possess real off-road capability—merely cosmetic enhancements like decals and rugged tires. In terms of notable competitors who’ve distinguished themselves effectively, I’d mention Subaru.
Joel: I wholeheartedly agree. Subaru has indeed carved out a niche, with their vehicles being far more competent than most users require, aligning with your previous point. Do you believe Bronco sales have exerted any pressure on Wrangler—whether slight or otherwise?
Tim: Certainly. We thrived alone for a considerable time. Some customers have repeatedly purchased Wranglers, and many consider them as secondary vehicles. Trying something new is appealing. While some individuals have ventured to purchase Broncos and returned to Wranglers, others have left and still preferred Broncos. However, I view this as a positive phenomenon. It may sound counterintuitive, but competition promotes progress—it’s pushing us to innovate further. The sole winner emerges as the consumer.
Joel: I agree with that sentiment. What are your thoughts on Rivian? I ask because initial reports indicated their previous sales at 40,000 units, targeting price ranges of $80,000 to $130,000, which positioned them in a hugely different market. They were quite significant. However, they recently started production on the R2, aimed at the vital sub-$65,000 market segment, which is arguably the most crucial in America. Do you view them as a challenger to the Cherokee?
Tim: I don’t have insight into their financials, so I can’t gauge whether they’re profitable at that pricing tier. As for competition against the Cherokee? Almost anything can be a competitor to the Cherokee. That segment is fiercely contested and highly price-sensitive. Currently, our Cherokee represents only the hybrid option. We aspire to add a non-hybrid variant when practical; most competitors don’t have just a hybrid offering, yet we took that route. With current gas prices, I’m glad we did; it reflects strategic foresight, albeit it may have felt less favorable at the time of launch.
Joel: Rising gas prices certainly put hybrid advantages into perspective.
Tim: Indeed, I’ll confidently claim responsibility for that concept—it was my idea, actually.
Joel: Yet earlier, I recall you downplaying your influence within Filosa’s team. When you mention aspirations for different powertrains for that vehicle, could you elaborate?
Tim: You mean the Cherokee?
Joel: Yes.
Tim: A traditional internal combustion engine.
Joel: Understood. I wondered if you were contemplating a Hellcat variant or—
Tim: No, this exists within the realm of cost recovery. If all you’re doing is breaking even, where is the advantage? You’d merely occupy a small slice of the market—
Joel: The profit margin.
Tim: Indeed, confining yourself to a limited market without extracting any profit doesn’t make sense. If you’re going into a niche market and can still generate profits, then you’ve made a prudent decision. It’s no different than the Hemi approach. When we initiated the Rumble Bee, I humorously remarked that we didn’t want to overtly declare, “Hey, we’ve transitioned the Hemi to mild hybrid,” as many would interpret it negatively. Hence, I said, “It only has one battery.” It was essentially—“If you know, you know.”
Those familiar with the implications would appreciate my point, while those not in the loop might feel offended by my statement of “Hey, we’ve removed the hybrid.” However, the removal of that system provides tremendous benefit. When we revitalized the Hemi for light-duty trucks, we were able to monetize it. We charged an additional $1,200 for the Hemi. By eliminating the mild hybrid, customers applauded the change, leading to positive profitability trends.
What does this result in? It prompts the question, “How does this impact our company’s margins?” However, customers may not prioritize that concern; rather, it enables us to delve deeper into express trims. I can produce a black express truck for $50,000 net of incentives, equipped with the Hemi engine, sans mild hybrid systems, significantly benefiting the customer. That’s the goal.
Joel: I anticipated you would connect that to expediency in delivering the Copperhead. But what do I know? Let’s discuss the Recon. We learned it’s projected to receive an internal combustion engine, followed by a BEV launch, correct?
Tim: Well, I see no reason to alter it. I believe the Recon’s design is a grand slam. Let’s hope you never play this back after launch and say, “It fell short.” I believe it will succeed. However, launching solely as battery-electric might constrain its potential amidst evolving consumer preferences. That said, I believe it will perform admirably as a battery-electric. Nonetheless, as an ICE vehicle, I consider it a hit.
Joel: What type of engine are we anticipating for that model?
Tim: Since we manufacture vehicles, we can fit anything. However, I cannot yet disclose what will be included.
Joel: A Hellcat Recon is a possibility, correct? That’s the SRT version?
Tim: Mm.
Joel: It’s still in consideration. Originally, it was geared toward an EREV, as that system for the Wagoneer S platform was viable. I wasn’t sure whether pursuing a Pentastar would be wiser or if a hybrid option from the Cherokee would be more prudent. I’m merely speculating.
Tim: We’ll see. We’ll see.
Joel: Now, shifting focus to the Ramcharger. We saw it today. You and I have extensively discussed this. It will differ from the Wagoneer, right?
Tim: You found it impressive, didn’t you?
Joel: I genuinely believe it’s going to perform exceptionally well.
Tim: You’re being cautious. It’s pretty remarkable. Just admit it.
Joel: It appears to be as you envisioned. It resembles a Wagoneer but showcases the Ram face—it aligns with expectations. However, I didn’t get a view of the interior as we were moving quickly today, with the Copperhead particularly diverting my attention. My query is whether there’s any differentiation in engines. I heard it will feature a V8 focus, with a towing emphasis—a more “truck-oriented” design compared to the Wagoneer, right? The Wagoneer targets a lifestyle market.
Tim: Examining that segment reveals a promising opportunity in our industry. If we look at how Ford approaches this with separate entries for Ford and Lincoln, involving distinct showrooms, and GM engaging with Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac across three separate spaces, we find ourselves with two models—Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer—within the same showroom. The introduction of a second vehicle in this space will also occupy the same showroom.
Our aim is to creatively analyze how competing brands have expanded their offerings, allowing us to differentiate these two models when displayed side-by-side. Consumers should be able to discern variance between them, rather than just seeing “Hey, one is a Jeep and the other is a Ram.” They must look, feel, and operate differently. When you compare them side-by-side, they present contrasting appearances.
There will be individuals who prefer the Jeep, exclaiming, “That’s the one I want,” while others will look at the Ram and exclaim, “That’s what I prefer.” I draw parallels to our Charger and 300 model lineup when they shared the showroom.
Joel: Those two were essentially the same car.
Tim: Indeed, they were essentially the same model, to be honest.
Joel: They appealed to distinctly different audiences.
Tim: Absolutely. That’s precisely what we’re aiming for with this venture. We want to ensure one appeals significantly to the Ram demographic, while the other attracts the Jeep buyers. Powertrains matter; our strategy remains to retain the existing powertrain architecture for the Jeep, with potential for varied versions or power levels. But the fundamental architecture remains intact. In contrast, the Ram architecture will lean more heavily towards V8 configurations.
Joel: Understood. I appreciate you making that connection. A strong segue! The presentation you shared today, which is accessible for anyone interested, features photos already published on our website. We’ve authored several articles already, potentially even more by the time this is out. Obviously, SRT variations are in the pipeline. You previously mentioned how SRT must utilize sunk costs. The Gran Wagoneer and Ramcharger featured SRT identification in your presentation. They’re getting SRT trims; this is confirmed.
Tim: And your next thought may be, “But that one has a V8 and that one doesn’t.”
Joel: That’s not where I was headed, but feel free to continue if you wish.
Tim: No, go ahead, continue.
Joel: Alright, I’ll proceed. You might have overlooked my point. Both vehicles rely on the DT platform—the underpinning of the Ram—and we just unveiled multiple engines, including the Rumble Bee. We have the 5.7, 6.4, and the 6.2 supercharged options—these engines are all suitable for this platform. So, A) how can we distinguish the SRT versions of these vehicles when placed across from each other based on powertrains? The differences in design are obvious; they’ll look distinct. B) Do they need to have different powertrains, or would the design alone suffice? Does that make sense?
Tim: It isn’t sufficient because we have established criteria for SRT, relating to powertrains, interiors, suspension, and user experiences. Everything concerning SRT abides by a strict process. While some inquire, “Are you crafting a Pacifica SRT?” the answer is no. It wouldn’t align with SRT’s expectations.
Our evaluation process involves reviewing all products and their components—can this vehicle deliver on the SRT promise? If we dilute that promise, it undermines the vehicle’s intended impact and branding. That’s why SRT isn’t a distinct brand. Instead, it’s embedded within Dodge, Ram, or Jeep. It takes what each respective brand stands for and amplifies it significantly. As you know, the aura eventually permeates down through the lineup. We’ve predominantly focused on SRTs, Hellcats, Demons, Redeyes, and so on while recognizing that 50% of sales are Pentastars. This strategy is successful, contingent on caution, and aligns with the pillars of the SRT brand. What I haven’t specified is—while it must be mission-driven for powertrain specifications, it doesn’t mean SRT is inherently synonymous with V8.
Joel: I didn’t claim that association.
Tim: I understand. Yet your commentary implied, “How do we generate a T6 architecture SRT and a V8 architecture SRT?” I’ll assure you that you hold that thought until Roadkill Nights at our engineering event, and we’ll showcase something truly impressive.
Joel: Understood. I remember a discussion from months ago regarding the return of a V8 for the Grand Cherokee, which prompted the notion to “hold tight.” My inquiry focused not on the supercharged engine for the Trackhawk, but a potential return of the 5.7—
Tim: That idea doesn’t hold up.
Joel: It doesn’t hold up?
Tim: No, it doesn’t. I’m situated within a showroom hosting four brands, each with distinct identities. We concentrate primarily on a V8 offering for Durango. However, we occasionally breach that plan with Pentastars due to V8 shortages. Nonetheless, our intention is that once we have sufficient V8 supply, Durango will exclusively offer 5.7, 6.4, or 6.2 engines.
Joel: No V6 options.
Tim: Exactly. Once the supply is consistent. These are working effectively; they’re selling and turning around promptly—it’s a robust strategy. We sometimes utilize Pentastars due to shortages. The Grand Cherokee should not mirror the Durango’s offerings. The Hemi 5.7 doesn’t belong in such a refined vehicle as the Grand Cherokee.
Joel: So, a turbo-6 would be suitable for the Grand Cherokee?
Tim: Certainly, it could be great. I’m not asserting we’re pursuing that option, but it could fit perfectly.
Joel: Would you pursue it?
Tim: I would love to. However, that doesn’t guarantee it will happen; it’s simply something I’d be excited about.
Joel: We witnessed the GLH today.
Tim: We’re likely to name it the Hornet while the GLH will position as its premium variant. We mistakenly referred to it as GLH on the slides during our presentation because we were moving quickly. It’ll probably be labeled the Hornet. Some may think, “The prior Hornet wasn’t performance-centric,” and so forth—but that doesn’t diminish the name. I find the name fitting, and we could still see a GLH emerge, given our intention to develop a GLH version of the original Hornet. Time constraints hindered that goal.
Joel: So, the upcoming Hornet is—
Tim: I said “probably”—I didn’t assert it definitively.
Joel: A prospective new Hornet could yield a GLH. On another note, today we—
Tim: It’s a hatchback, not a crossover; I’ve heard people label it as a crossover. It’s a hatchback. A hot hatch.
Joel: I believe Ralph classified it as a “fat hot hatch.” I think that’s an accurate description—it’s a robust hatch.
Tim: Yes, it’s a bold hatch. I appreciate the term. However, someone termed it a crossover, and I thought, “This is incorrect; it’s a fat hatch.”
Joel: The fat hatch. He indicated it’s based on the Stella-1 platform and can accommodate the full range of powertrains, including the Hurricane—allowing for electric and other configurations. So, the Hurricane—
Tim: Remember the old days when you blacked out during debate prep? I think Ralph was on a roll today.
Joel: Yes. He was fully in the moment. Did a Hurricane fit, or was he simply caught up in the excitement of it all?
Tim: How could you create a front-wheel-drive Hurricane? It would need to be well over 120 inches wide.
Joel: You do have a Hurricane turbo-4—essentially a mini-Hurricane.
Tim: Okay. You’ve made your point. Alright, checkmate, you win.
Joel: So, a turbo-6 wouldn’t fit either, then.
Tim: No.
Joel: Got it. Just checking. Even in the GLH variant?
Tim: A straight-6?!
Joel: I’m well aware of that. So, no Hellcat options.
Tim: It’s this long, if only you could see me—I’m spreading my arms to the width of my shoulders.
Joel: It’s just like fishing. It was this big.
Tim: I need to add a transmission, followed by an axle, and then hubs and knuckles. Wow. It could turn into a three-wheeler with two fronts. It would become one of those little Can-Am vehicles.
Joel: It looks cool. I must admit—it looks cool. Can you shed light on the Chrysler Aero? Where will they be produced? Ralph made a thought-provoking statement about “utilizing our global footprint” and “these are Fiats we have the rights to, requiring minimal investment to enter the $25,000 to $35,000 price bracket”—that was intriguing. Where will they be manufactured for us?
Tim: We haven’t disclosed the production location yet. A simple Google search would quickly reveal where we produce Fiats; however—
Joel: But I’m curious about where ours will be built.
Tim: I’m uncertain. You could Google it and find the Fiat production sites. But I find these little Chryslers incredibly exciting. Seriously. We lack anything in our inventory priced sub-$40,000. I’m not saying I desire numerous low-priced cars, but I’m keen on attracting a buyer that would eventually move up in our offerings. With four brands needing future growth, if I could present a model starting at $25,000, it could draw in customers who currently don’t step into our showrooms.
Placing them in that vehicle could create future opportunities; perhaps after several years they will upgrade to another offering. This has been evident for years—
Joel: Like a Pacifica.
Tim: Yes. I can’t believe you predicted that, as you were reading my mind. Consider how Honda and Toyota minivans nurture customers—growing them from Civics, Corollas, and Camrys. Upon having a third child, they often transition—do they go directly to Chrysler? No, they default to the brand they’re familiar with based on previous purchases.
Joel: You want to groom these new buyers toward the Pacifica offerings.
Tim: Absolutely—not solely for the Pacifica, but for any of our offerings.
Joel: What about the Pacifica variants we discussed earlier?
Tim: Yes, I mentioned we’re exploring different variants—that’s all I’ll disclose.
Joel: Could we develop a Grizzly variant with 31-inch tires?
Tim: I find the Grizzly intriguing; it’s quite an interesting concept. I’m not claiming we will produce it, but it’s certainly one that piques my interest. And I might’ve just winked while saying that.
Joel: I appreciate your willingness to share your insights today. I realize we should respect your time, especially since you’ve graciously set aside a meeting for me.
Tim: It genuinely is a pleasure.
Joel: I’m a fun guy, and this is enjoyable.
Tim: And humble too.
Joel: Sometimes. Regarding the GLH, how can we confirm it’s a gasoline variant?
Tim: Yes, the GL—indeed.
Joel: It’ll essentially feature a turbo-4, with the GLH facet representing a performance-oriented version of the Hornet—or whatever designation we embrace for it will introduce a turbo-4 that becomes quite a pocket rocket.
Tim: An internal combustion pocket rocket, indeed.
Joel: Turbo-4?
Tim: Yes, internal combustion, pocket rocket confirmed.
Joel: Understood. Apropos, the Neon SRT-4 was—
Tim: It was indeed impressive.
Joel: A true favorite. Finally, I would like to know about SRT as a whole. While we joked about the Pacifica, there are numerous products moving towards SRT. What are the criteria—what does one need in order to qualify as an SRT?
Tim: The simplest way to visualize it: you must have the capacity to transform a product—no matter the initial vehicle—enabling you to enhance it into an SRT and generate a vehicle that also contributes to promoting other similar vehicles. To elaborate, if you took a water bottle and aspired to turn it into an SRT, if that transformation completely redefined its appearance and functionality—making it no longer resemble or facilitate selling similar water bottles—then it defeats the purpose. In simpler terms, I wouldn’t take a Hornet with a standard internal combustion engine and declare, “I’m going to convert it to rear-wheel drive, placing a V10 in it, and it’s going to be spectacular.” Although it might indeed be enjoyable, there’s no practical value. It contributes nothing to helping sell other Hornets. It needs to create a ripple effect; otherwise, it won’t work. An SRT version of a Pacifica wouldn’t catalyze any ripple effect.
Joel: I have a contractor who once told me, “I can do anything for the right price.” From that perspective, I figure anything could be built—wasn’t it Ralph Gilles who built a 5.7 powered Dodge Caravan or Chrysler Town & Country—some one-off model? I think I recall it being sold.
Tim: He took a Pacifica; he modified it completely but didn’t adjust the powertrain. It was a striking vehicle, sleek and low-to-the-ground. I’m not aware of a transition to a performance setup.
Joel: Must be an industry rumor.
Tim: Yes, it’s an urban legend.
Joel: Right, an urban legend.
Tim: During a press event years ago, there was this unusual session with both media and consumers present. A consumer posed an inquiry, stating, “I really want a Pacifica SRT!” or instead, a Hellcat. “Would you consider it?” I jokingly replied, “Absolutely, we’ll produce that! Let’s announce it!” Obviously, I was kidding.
Joel: That spurred an article!
Tim: Oh my goodness, it became a buzz for months and still resurfaces occasionally even now. It truly is amusing.
Joel: So, you want to clarify that no SRT Hellcat Pacifica is in the works—okay, just verifying.
Tim: No plans for an SRT Pacifica.
Joel: What a way to cap off our discussion. Can we finish with a more uplifting note?
Tim: Let’s spin those concluding thoughts. Today, we unveiled our commitment to delivering eight SRT products over the next four years across three distinct brands—returning to our heritage. This marks the most ambitious SRT product strategy ever devised since the inception of the first Viper concept back in 1989 before even adopting the SRT name. It’s the most robust product plan to date. So, for enthusiasts tuned into this podcast, recognize that we’ve been granted company backing to utilize SRT in expanding our other brands.
Joel: The creator of the Hellcats is set to fulfill your desires—that’s the takeaway I gained. Whatever it is you seek, expect it to be delivered. Thank you for your time.
Tim: Thank you for having me.
Joel: That wraps up this week’s Drivecast episode. Huge appreciation to Stellantis for their hospitality, and to Tim for his insights. Gratitude is due to our editor Tyler Murk, and we thank you for tuning in. We’ll return next Wednesday. Be sure to check out thedrive.com for our complete coverage of everything related to Stellantis. Subscribe to one of our fabulous newsletters—they’re free, by the way. Follow us on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok, and of course, subscribe to our YouTube channel, where more exciting videos are forthcoming. Until next week, goodbye everyone.