There’s been a lot of questions as to whether the Chrysler brand had a future within Stellantis’ large bag of brands. Given the ever-accelerating momentum to EVs, it’s not surprising that Stellantis is announcing today that Chrysler will go all-EV by 2028, and this Airflow concept previews their first EV product.
Obviously nobody feels that the curse of the original 1934 Airflow still has any relevance. Why would it, almost a hundred years later? Who in the typical new car buying demographic even knows there was such a thing, and that it flopped?
Sadly, we’ve never done a proper homage to the 1934 Airflow, a very bold and advanced car, and not just because of its aerodynamics. It positioned the engine much further forward, between the front wheels, allowing for the cabin to move forward, resulting in a roomier and wider cabin as well as a better ride for rear seat passengers. It was the first legitimate 6-passenger car.
But folks were put off by its blunt front end; that was just too much of a change. The somewhat similar Lincoln Zephyr wisely kept its prow, and was not spurned like the Airflow.
The format of the Airflow is what is becoming increasingly commonly seen with big EVs; dubbed a “crossover”, it’s really more of a tall and extra-roomy sedan with large hatch. Whatever.
Obviously, the interior is high tech.
And the rear compartment is very roomy, just like in an original Airflow sedan. or better.
The 1934 Airflow’s interior was equally trendy, with those exposed chromed bars.
I’m a bit sorry that Chrysler didn’t find a way to use a waterfall theme in the front end, even in a watered-down version. Not just because of the heritage, but because I think it could be a distinctive styling element. But then if they had, the media would start screaming about the connections to the failed original Airflow. Can’t have that. I’m curious to see if the media does make any connections to the original.
Very attractive. I’m looking forward to seeing what happens to the rest of the Chrysler lineup. Maybe the 300 will become the 3EE (and then the Dodge Charger twin can naturally continue with a great EV name already baked in). I’m really curious what happens to the vans, can’t really see them being EV only although the PHEV Pacifica is very good as a start. All minivans will likely (or should) go at least hybrid in the next design cycle as I think Toyota is getting a lot attention with the current legit 30mpg hybrid-only Sienna.
The electric Silverado was shown today and looks appealing as well with the return of the midgate, perfect for many people and with 400 miles of range standard, which I think is now the sweet spot – or certainly what we’d ideally be looking for our next EV.
The original flopped because it was ugly by comparison to other streamlined cars. All modern “cars” are horrendously grotesque, and this one is not more horrendously grotesque than all the other “cars”. It’s identically grotesque. So it should do fine.
Get off my lawn!
I don’t think my Golf looks “horrendously grotesque” but to each their own.
I haven’t liked the evolution of most vehicle styling for at least 15 years, but for me VW and Audi are always the exceptions. Somehow they have remained a sharp suit and tie while others have become either giant I-pods or fighting alien insectoid robots, trying to out-aggressive-ify each other.
That said, I often like Nissan’s weirdness like the Versa, Cube and Quest. Not the Juke though. Ick.
“VW and Audi are always the exceptions. Somehow they have remained a sharp suit and tie”.
Great description. I agree. It’s why I like them.
I get the impression that VW/Audi stylists reached the correct conclusion that automotive styling was reaching a point of diminishing returns some time in the 90s and entrenched themselves in having the most tasteful and timeless form of it tied to their identity, knowing full well that fashion is cyclical, while their competitors struggle to cultivate global identities with ghastly predator faces, bucktoothed grilles, surface flames and all other gimmicks we’ve seen for the last quarter century. All Audi really did in the last 25 years that evolved their design language was incorporating LED DRL accents to bodies that aren’t a far cry from what they were in 1997, and every single make trying to “push the envelope” in their agressive styling soon showed their ass and hastily added them to add appeal to their designs. Even VW and Audi’s SUV designs are attractive, compared to Mercedes designs that I can say most complimentary resemble Jabba the Hutt
The Airflow also flopped because it was a good bit more expensive than the previous, standard Chrysler and DeSoto. Ate Up With Motor has a really excellent history of the design.
I like the vehicle, and when I heard they were using the “Airflow” name, I thought it was a neat homage to Chrysler history. I also doubt a 90-year-old failed product name will make much of a difference to the car’s market fortunes.
If I have one complaint, it’s that the styling is a little Lincoln-ish, especially with the full-width taillight panel.
Lots of Dodges have featured full width tail lights, but these are indeed too Lincolnish. Maybe they will have a look at Dodge history and adjust them for production.
Maybe something more like this.
Thanks for attaching that photo- it actually looks MORE Lincolnish than it did in my head…
I see a Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo when looking at the rear- including the rear roofline. Not a bad choice of vehicle to copy- I mean to be inspired by
I don’t think it’s particularly ugly nor pretty.
It looks like the new PlayStation, which it basically is.
It looks like a car the way those modern robots look like a creepy version of a human being.
Too bad they couldn’t have found a way to work in the suicide doors from the original Airflow. That would have really made it stand out. As it is, it is just another generic electric McSUV.
Had a 40-plus years old ’62 Lincoln. As I’ve pointed out before, besides being cool the rear suicide doors were necessary because of the roof intentionally echoing the two door hardtop Mark II. With regular doors you would have to crawl out of the back seat.
However, if you pulled into a parking lot space between other cars everyone can’t get out at the same time or they will all be trapped next to the car.
The Airflow did sort of live on into my childhood.
I saw this earlier, but except for the name, it is really very forgettable. Wouldn’t it be nice to see something that appeared completely different from all the rest? The design is far too safe to be effective, in my opinion.
Oh, I’m definitely interested, and really like the looks of the car. Hopefully we’re not talking $50k plus when it debuts (then again, given that the ‘average’ new car is somewhere in the $40k range now, I may be dreaming), and I’ll actually be able to afford it.
Have heard quite a bit good about the Pacifica (plug-in) hybrid, to the point that one of those is earmarked for my Sedona’s replacement. Unfortunately, given the current state of the used car market, I’m realistically looking and trying to get two more years out of the Kia, in the hopes that market prices get a bit saner.
Being a 2025 model you can count on it being above $50K.
The interior looks cozy, but the outside is not distinctive. It looks like several existing cars. That may be the point, though.
Styling is about as distinctive and appealing as the late 200, only in a crossoverish format.
Why is the steering wheel square?
Why not Electronflow?
Odd way to mount the seats in the original Airflow. Could those seats even be adjusted fore and aft? It seems they covered up the exposed metal by 1937, or maybe that was a feature only on the top of the line Imperial.
An original Airflow is on my fantasy garage list. Chrysler or DeSoto. The new one, not so much. Wonder what it will be badged across its step sibling divisions.
It look like it’s a rebadged Citroen, or at least take most of it’s parts from the Citroen.
https://www.citroen.co.uk/models/new-c4-e-c4.html
Vaguely similar silhouette aside, these share nothing. This is larger, on a different platform, and will have much more power.
I wonder how long this fastback theme on new cars/SUVs/whatever will continue.
My 2010 CUV is easily spotted in a parking lot because it’s shaped like a square brick compared to newer cars today. A lot of utility comes with square shapes, and is sacrificed with sharp angles.
The taillights do look a bit like they came from the Lincoln parts bin, as was said above. The front seems to harken a Chevy Malibu to me.
An interesting development will be what factories they will use to build all these new products.
This CBC article says it will be built in the Belvidere, Illinois plant https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/chrysler-stellantis-electric-1.6304587
I’m not a Chrysler guy and likely never will be but… I think this looks great for a Chrysler product. The interior seems like it would cost a lot more than what the target buyer would be willing to pay. They could have carried over the original front quarter panel gill streaks as a nice nod to the original. As far as the rear tail lights how about a stretched out version of the stylized front grill logo. Here’s a crappy screen shot that stretched horizontally.
I just realized Chrysler’s doing the tiny-slit headlight-thing here again.
They just can’t help themselves.
I seem to notice headlamp designs a lot more these days.
I wonder why that is…😀
Chrysler are doing it because all the popular kids are doing it.
See: Dodge Intrepid
Good to know the brand will live on, I always thought Chrysler was a great name for a car.
Sadly the badge has just exited Australia for the 2nd time in history.
I was reading about this earlier on a couple of the motoring apps, and the overwhelming feedback is it looks great. Maybe I’m in a world of my own, as although it’s nice-looking I find it underwhelming, especially for something wearing the Airflow nameplate, and moreso when the production version mightn’t be here until 2025. To me it’s bland and lacks passion and fine detail design. Maybe it’s just the colour.
It looks very much like the modern rendition of a car, which I guess is a good thing. Which car it is… could be many of them, which I guess is a good thing. The only thing I really don’t like is the eleventy-two inch wheels with 7/8 inch of sidewall, but I’m a bit of an outlier. And the “grille” badge looks sort of like a squashed Lyft moustache.
Hanging the Chrysler brand out as an EV only going forward, doesn’t seem to be a huge stakes risk. Kind of makes me sad to say that, but I actually had to look up what models were still in production under the Chrysler name. I do hope it sells well… 2025 feels a long way off.
This is the first I’ve heard of the ’25 Chrysler Airflow, and I’m thrilled they’re bringing back the name. The vehicle itself is attractive, and as others have pointed out, not the most distinctive-looking thing. Agree with others that incorporating the Chrysler-signature waterfall grille would have been a good move.
I’ll say this, though – it may not be that unique looking as it is in these pictures, but at least Stellantis didn’t go the other way and make it hideous on purpose to make it stand out. I’m just glad the Chrysler brand gets to live to see another day.
I had seen an original Airflow at the Revs Institute / Museum in Naples, Florida a few years ago, and I surprised myself with the emotional reaction I had to seeing this car that was intended to be so groundbreaking and yet flopped in the marketplace.
Love that Steering Wheel, Hey’ (It’s Suddenly 1960)!
They oughta do a Town & Country version with fake wood paneling and wire wheel covers. Maybe even offer it with a turbo 2.2 mated to a 3 speed automatic.
I like it a lot. Not as much the interior because of how the screen looks, but the rest of the interior looks great. Love the name instead of numbers.
Chrysler Air Crap
With the return of the Chrysler Airflow now official, when can we expect the DeSoto version?