Talk:General Motors Delta platform

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Opel Astra#Astra K (2015–present)|Opel Astra K]] The anchor (#Astra K (2015–present)) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Merger proposal

I don't know why the previous one that was submitted almost a year ago was denied or never got going or what, but this is absolutely essential. Almost every other GM platform article is like this. Avisron (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astra-based Saab 9-2

I think an Astra-based Saab 9-2 is still in the works... -- stewacide

The Saab 9-2 was a GM/Subaru joint venture and their relationship ended in 2005. Saab 9-2 (aka 9-2X) production ended with the 2006 model year. You may be thinking of the Saab 9-1 (aka 9-1X) which is scheduled to debut in 2010 and is based on the Delta platform (or is it Delta II?). JimScott (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta II merger

YES to a merger. Merging the Delta II article into this article seems reasonable. In fact, other platforms (eg, Epsilon and Gamma) are already structured this way. JimScott (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta History

Apparently, GM's plan to consolidate platforms began as early as 1995. [1] VX1NG (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delta incorporates alot of modular assembly. [2] [3][4] VX1NG (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Delta and Epsilon's modular assembly technique are closely related under the "Yellowstone Assembly plan". [5][6]

Yellowstone dropped? [7]

Astra H not Delta based?

[8] [9] [10]VX1NG (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GM Delta platform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errata

>>"This suspension is usually described as semi-independent, meaning that the two wheels can move relative to each other, but their motion is still somewhat inter-linked, to a greater extent than in a true independent rear suspension (IRS). This can mildly compromise the handling and ride quality of the vehicle. For this reason, some manufacturers have changed to different linkage designs. As an example, Volkswagen dropped the torsion beam in favour of a true IRS for the Volkswagen Golf Mk5, possibly in response to the Ford Focus' Control Blade rear suspension. Opel/Vauxhall have continued to use twist or torsion beam suspension. This is at a cost saving of €100 per car compared to multi-link rear suspension.[1] Their latest version as used in the 2009-on Opel Astra uses a Watts linkage at a cost of €20 to address the drawbacks and provide a competitive and cost effective rear suspension.[1] The Renault Megane and Citroen C4 also have stayed with the twist beam.[2] The twist beam has been shown to suffer less from bush wear, than fully independent multi-link suspension, thus resulting in a virtually maintenance free rear suspension.">>

Its not really independent at all. The term "semi-independent" is really a marketing term to distinguish it from Hotchkiss drive. Volkswagen - which invented torsion beam suspension btw in the 1974 Golf - still uses it on pedestrian models.

Torsion beam suspension overcame the problems of oversteer that plagued the early front wheel drive cars with independent systems like the hydrolastic systems on British Leyland vehicles. But with higher performance engines, it can cause understeer, as the the front wheels have insufficient camber as its held back by the torsion beam at low speeds. With a Watts link, a more aggressive camber is permitted as it holds the camber angle progressively.

There are also cost advantages in terms of servicing as the torsion beam design requires less maintenance and is less likely to scrub tyres than independent systems, which is why its preferred for fleet cars.101.178.163.92 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]