Dodge Has A New Sports Car Coming – But It’s Not A Viper







Dodge recently announced a new sports car. It will not be the second coming of the Viper, but it will be named after a different snake. Dodge will name its new sports car the Copperhead, which also happens to be the name of the car shown above, a concept car produced by Dodge for the 1997 Detroit Auto Show. While Dodge has not released any photos, the automotive press corps assembled for Stellantis’ 2026 Investor Day was permitted to see a styling prototype of the Copperhead and have described it as best they could. In the absence of any concrete facts about the Copperhead, there is a lot of wild speculation flying around.

The new Dodge Copperhead is expected to debut as a 2029 model. It will sit at the apex of the Dodge lineup, with a full-blown SRT model that could potentially be powered by a supercharged Hellcat Hemi V8, which currently makes 777 horsepower in the Ram SRT TRX. There is also the potential of a hybrid-based setup, incorporating electric motors that could increase the Copperhead’s performance even more. The Copperhead’s performance should improve on the Dodge Durango SRT Hellcat, a rare and guilty pleasure.

The Dodge Copperhead is not expected to be based on the current Dodge Charger, but it will exhibit much higher performance levels than those currently shown by the Charger, which does just fine with an inline-six. The Copperhead’s body has been described as a two-door that is both low and long, with narrow LED headlights setting off the front end. 

What else should you know about the 2029 Dodge Copperhead?

The Copperhead shown to the press was finished in light gray with blue racing stripes, with a huge wing gracing the back end. It is powered primarily by an internal combustion engine, as evidenced by many vents and grilles in the front, as well as dual exhausts. Other styling cues that promise high performance include the large brake cooling vents placed behind the front wheels, the power bulge in the hood, and the hood vent to bring outside air to the engine for additional cooling effect. According to Car and Driver, the Copperhead also displays a, “…cool snake logo that is definitely reminiscent of the Viper badge.”

Some other speculation has seen estimates of a starting price of “at least $100,000,” also according to Car and Driver. Tim Kuniskis, who is the head of Stellantis’ North American brands and leader of SRT, more recently told The Drive that the Copperhead isn’t built on the Charger platform, which requires space for a battery pack that has the effect of raising the floor for all versions of the platform. Instead, the Copperhead will share its platform with another Stellantis-branded vehicle from one of the company’s many brands – one that is already made somewhere else in the world. This is the only way to achieve the economies of scale required to make low-production “halo cars” that don’t lose massive amounts of money. Kuniskis’ more recent comments indicate that the Copperhead won’t have a hybridized V8, but that “…there could be another engine coming that nobody’s aware of…” Stay tuned. 





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


A recent decision from an Indiana federal court underscores that the principles behind what makes “clickwrap” assent enforceable are not limited to websites and apps found through smartphones and laptops. In Beckett v. Bitcoin Depot, Inc., No. 25-01450 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 26, 2026), the court granted a Bitcoin ATM operator’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff—who had fallen victim to a cryptocurrency scam—assented to the company’s clickwrap terms before completing the transactions.

The ruling is notable because most electronic “clickwrap” contracting cases focus on the issues involving websites or mobile apps. While there was no reason to expect a different analysis in the context of a kiosk, Beckett clarifies that those familiar principles extend into the physical world of kiosk screens and self-service terminals.

The takeaways are clear:

  • First, contracting rigor matters just as much in kiosk environments as it does online. Providers should implement thoughtfully designed user flows that mirror best practices from ecommerce: clear and uncluttered interfaces, conspicuous presentation of terms, affirmative assent mechanisms, and reliable audit logs.
  • Second, and specific to the fact that this was a crypto case, robust anti-fraud warnings can serve a dual purpose. Beyond helping protect consumers, they may also strengthen litigation defenses, particularly on issues of notice, assumption of risk and causation.

The Facts

Bitcoin ATMs (or “BTMs”) are kiosks that allow users to purchase—and sometimes sell—cryptocurrency. Rather than dispensing cash, they typically accept cash or debit card payments and transfer cryptocurrency to a wallet specified by the user, often via QR code.

The plaintiff, a retiree, was targeted in a “tech support” impersonation scam. He was persuaded to withdraw cash from his bank accounts on three separate occasions and use a BTM operated by Bitcoin Depot to transfer funds to a third-party digital wallet controlled by the scammers. This type of scam is common and was the subject of a September 2024 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consumer alert.

In the end, the funds could not be recovered, and the plaintiff brought suit asserting tort and consumer protection claims and alleging that Bitcoin Depot failed to implement adequate safeguards.

The Contracting Flow

Before completing each transaction, the plaintiff was required to accept Bitcoin Depot’s terms and conditions on-screen. The process included multiple layers of warning and verification:

  • A prominent red-text warning cautioned: “If someone else sent you to this machine and provided you with a QR Code or wallet ID to send funds to, it is most likely a scam.”
  • A follow-up text message warned against sending funds to purported government officials, law enforcement or tech support, and against using third-party QR codes.
  • The user was required to enter a PIN sent via text message.
  • The interface then presented a direct prompt: “ARE YOU BEING SCAMMED?” along with examples of common fraud scenarios and advising users that losses due to fraudulent transactions may not be recoverable.
  • Finally, the user had to confirm that the destination wallet belonged to them; selecting any other option would cancel the transaction.

Despite these warnings, the plaintiff confirmed—incorrectly—that the destination wallet was his own.

The Court’s Ruling

Bitcoin Depot moved to compel arbitration under its terms of service. The court granted the motion, emphasizing that the plaintiff did not dispute that he had assented to the arbitration agreement on three separate occasions. Arguments regarding unconscionability and other enforceability issues were left for the arbitrator to decide.

Final Thoughts

This case reinforces a straightforward but important point: enforceable digital contracting principles apply wherever transactions occur, including at physical kiosks.

At the same time, the case hints at future litigation risk. While Bitcoin Depot secured a procedural win, different facts could lead to closer scrutiny of a provider’s safeguards. Plaintiffs may increasingly attempt to move beyond contract formation and challenge the reasonableness and adequacy of provider’s risk controls and safety messaging. For example, the complaint in Beckett outlines several allegedly “inadequate safeguards,” such as claims that Bitcoin Depot failed to implement transaction limits for first time elderly users, monitor large sequential deposits, or flag certain scenarios like repeated maximum value deposits to the same digital wallet.



Source link