Ram’s New 777-HP Hellcat V8 Is Secretly a Redeye 50%

By Byron Hurd44%

7/9/2026, 9:53:11 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Optimism Bias, and Recency Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 25.5% saturation with 140 hits. Analysis detected 914 faulty-reasoning hits from 548 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of 50% (11,103 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.70% of the article peer group.

It was only last December that Ram CEO Tim Kuniskis was called out of retirement to right Mopar’s sinking pickup brand. 
The  Father of Hemis  came back with a pretty simple simple mission: Give the customers what they want. 
And Ram customers? 
They want V8s—even if they don’t actually end up buying them . 
Don’t try to parse it, but if you somehow still needed evidence that cars are highly emotional purchases, look no further. 
Fortunately for Ram, the company was still building some Hemis to supply its heavy-duty truck line, so bringing production back online was more a matter of scaling back up than rebuilding the whole thing from scratch. 
Still, the fact that Ram managed to get the Hemi Ram back into production inside a year is pretty impressive. 
It’s even more impressive that we’re here, at roughly the 18-month mark, and now we’re talking about not one engine, but four: the mild-hybrid 5.7-liter, the 6.4-liter 392, the 6.2-liter Hellcat, and now the de-hybridized 5.7 (returning for both the Rumble Bee and the standard 1500). 
It helps that Ram had a head start on the de-regulatory push. 
Several months ago, when asked during a media event whether presidential politics played into the V8 revival, Kuniskis said it was the changes in leadership within Stellantis , rather than in America, that made all the difference. 
Trump’s election and subsequent gutting of CAFE regulations certainly softened the landing, but when asked whether it was the deciding factor, Kuniskis responded stoically and succinctly: 
“I was gonna do it anyway.” 
The 2027 Ram 1500 TRX SRT. 
Byron Hurd 
That didn’t make the job itself any easier, of course, but at least Ram hit the ground running. 
When the newly reconstituted SRT was given the go-ahead to bring TRX back, the team knew it had to be more than a simple continuation of the old truck, especially since Ford snatched the most-powerful-gas-truck title with its updated Raptor R . 
So, the number had to be higher than 720. 
That meant SRT’s engineers needed to scare up at least 19 horsepower. 
After a sticking their arms shoulder-deep in the parts bin, they came back with 75. 
And since the TRX is a pretty old-school truck, it probably won’t surprise you that they found that power the old-fashioned way: throwing more air and fuel at it, and then spinning it a little faster. 
That’s where the Redeye comes in. 
The old TRX’s power curve was quite pretty, and its top end was limited only by its ability to breathe. 
By swapping in the valvetrain from the Redeye, SRT freed the Hellcat to rev a little higher—just 300 RPM—and keep riding that curve upward. 
The 2.4-liter, twin-screw supercharger was massaged and fitted with a slightly smaller pulley (3.17 inches; down from 3.43 on the previous TRX), and the whole works is fed by a new cold-air intake system. 
A new fueling setup increased pressure from 5 bar to 7 bar to keep the 6.2-liter well-fed. 
The result is 777 horsepower. 
And yep, it’s quite a giggle . 
Got a news tip? 
Let us know at tips@thedrive.com! 
The post Ram’s New 777-HP Hellcat V8 Is Secretly a Redeye appeared first on The Drive . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.9%Byron Hurd: 3.9%The Drive: 3.0%Confirmation Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 1.3%The Drive: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Byron Hurd: 4.9%The Drive: 4.0%Availability Heuristic10.4%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 1.9%The Drive: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.9%The Drive: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Byron Hurd: 2.6%The Drive: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias3.1%This article: 3.6%Byron Hurd: 7.3%The Drive: 4.6%Framing Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 1.3%The Drive: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.6%Byron Hurd: 1.1%The Drive: 0.7%Status Quo Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.3%The Drive: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.9%Byron Hurd: 3.9%The Drive: 3.6%Optimism Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 1.8%The Drive: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Byron Hurd: 6.5%The Drive: 6.7%Negativity Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 2.6%The Drive: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.8%The Drive: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.8%The Drive: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.2%The Drive: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Byron Hurd: 1.9%The Drive: 2.6%Halo Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.1%The Drive: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.5%Byron Hurd: 1.1%The Drive: 1.3%Recency Bias11.5%This article: 8.4%Byron Hurd: 0.6%The Drive: 0.4%Primacy Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.6%The Drive: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 4.0%The Drive: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.7%Byron Hurd: 1.9%The Drive: 1.9%False Dilemma4.7%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 1.9%The Drive: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.2%The Drive: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.9%Byron Hurd: 7.4%The Drive: 6.6%Hasty Generalization4.9%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.7%The Drive: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.7%Byron Hurd: 1.3%The Drive: 0.9%Bandwagon7.7%This article: 25.5%Byron Hurd: 3.6%The Drive: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion25.5%This article: 3.8%Byron Hurd: 1.1%The Drive: 0.7%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 16.4%Byron Hurd: 3.2%The Drive: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.4%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.2%The Drive: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.7%The Drive: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Byron Hurd: 3.1%The Drive: 3.5%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 6.6%Byron Hurd: 0.2%The Drive: 0.2%No True Scotsman6.6%This article: 1.1%Byron Hurd: 2.0%The Drive: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.1%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.3%The Drive: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.6%Byron Hurd: 0.3%The Drive: 0.3%Personal Incredulity6.6%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.1%The Drive: 0.4%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.1%Byron Hurd: 3.4%The Drive: 2.1%Unattributed Quote1.1%This article: 1.1%Byron Hurd: 0.9%The Drive: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection1.1%This article: 3.8%Byron Hurd: 9.4%The Drive: 11.3%Biased Writer Voice3.8%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 1.1%The Drive: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.3%The Drive: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Byron Hurd: 0.1%The Drive: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Byron Hurd: 1.5%The Drive: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.9%

548 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.8%attributed speech505writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTim Kuniskis • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageTim Kuniskis • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tim Kuniskis

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words100% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote+14.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tim Kuniskis: 14.0%14.0%Quote-first Misdirection+14.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tim Kuniskis: 14.0%14.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Tim Kuniskis: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Tim Kuniskis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.