Alright I know some people are going to scream and yell when they read this topic but read a little before yelling.

Comparing the Cobalt Delta to the SAAB 9-3 you get some interesting numbers (all numbers from Edmunds.com):

Handling Cobalt 9-3
Turning Circle 33.5 ft. 35.4 ft.
Max. Cargo Capacity 14 cu. ft. 57 cu. ft
Length 180.3 in. 182.5 in.
Width 67.9 in. 69 in.
Height 57.1 in. 56.8 in.
Weight 3216 lbs. 3175 lbs.
Wheel Base 103.3 in. 105.3 in.

Interior
Front Headroom 38.5 in. 38.9 in.
Rear Headroom 37.7 in. 37 in.
Front Shoulder Room 53 in. 56.3 in.
Rear Shoulder Room 51.4 in. 55.1 in.
Front Hip Room 49.6 in. Not Published
Rear Hip Room 46.4 in. Not Published
Front Leg Room 41.8 in. 42.3 in.
Rear Leg Room 33.7 in. 35.1 in.
Maximum Luggage Capacity 13.9 cu.ft. 15 cu.ft.

Now I see the two as being EXTREMELY close in size. Yes the 9-3 is a little larger but is still considered a compact. The main complaints I have heard about Delta are the solid beam rear, although it doesn't seem to effect handing or ride comfort, and rear drum brakes.

Now I know that Delta is most likely cheaper to produce but when you factor in development costs of an entirely new platform like Delta, it doesn't really make sense to have both. The difference in production costs could easliy be made up with shared lines and assemblies.

So why was Delta used instead of the small Epsilon?

Another argument is why was the short Epsilon used for the 9-3 instead of Delta?

I think that the Product Strategy Board should definately take a look at this the next time the chassis are redone.

Any other thoughts?

 

From what I have read, the next generation Epsilon will be larger and a long wheelbase version may be used to replace the W body. So even though the current Epsilon is only a bit larger than the Delta, that probably won't be the case in a few years, so GM was correct to develop Delta.

 

When you ask questions about why companies do things; there are two answers you should look at.

1.) Money

2.) Pride

btw, my cobalt has rear disc breaks. And the ones with drums still had best in class breaking numbers.

 

oh.....trust me on this one..........the costs per unit are SUBSTANTIALLY higher for Epsilon versus Delta..............SUBSTANTIALLY......

believe me......GM and Ford and Chrysler make some bad decisions.....but something this glaring is not one of them.

you can be assured that if Epsilon was anywhere NEAR where Delta is in cost, we would have done it in a heartbeat. We know down to the penny what the costs are......trust me on this one.

Good thought.....but there are usually very good (and many) reasons for why something does or does not occur.

 

So why didn't the 9-3 get made on Delta if costs were that dramatically less?

 

Probably because a Saab-badged car deserved a better platform.

 

did you factor in development costs as well?

 

of course.