I see a lot of another Delta platform-mate in there.

It looks a lot like an Ion 4 door on the side. That's not a good thing (though it is working for the Nissan Sentra)

Am I the only one that thinks this thing looks unforgivingly like a Hyundai?

Looked better in camo.

That's the uncamo'd chevy volt coming in 2010. Not bad for an electric car.

That's the uncamo'd chevy volt coming in 2010. Not bad for an electric car.

If true, I'm very disappointed.

That's the uncamo'd chevy volt coming in 2010. Not bad for an electric car.

I doubt this.

Have you forgotten these?

However, the Cobalt replacement and the Volt are both based around the basic Delta II architecture.

Edited June 14, 200817 yr by YellowJacket894

It's not the Volt.

it's boring. I anticipate the headlights will change a little upon full reveal since it looks like there's still tape on them, cloaking either direct descendence from Aveo 5 or Malibu.....I'd prefer Malibu. or maybe there's really almost no tape there and what you see is what you get. of course the final design including interior will matter, but Chevy isn't Honda or Toy where just sophistication and no fuss details sell....they need to go a step further than that.

there is definately still some camoing or oher funny business going on, I could swear that the outside edges don't matchup from one headlight to the other.

Am I the only one who LIKES what I've seen of it so far?

Hopefully it will be like so many other designs we've critiqued from grainy spy photos and it will turn out better than we think. If this 1.4L turbo engine is really all that and a bag of chips like Borger says, and if that interior shot is accurate, this "thing" (since we don't know what to call it yet) just might wash all the bad, old Daewoo out of our memories. At least it darn well better. Right now though, the exterior shots indicate a willingness at GM to once again relinquish their rightful place as design leaders... as it appears this is GM Design emulating the Korean brands... a ridiculously sad prospect.

Certainly looks Photoshopped and a rather crude attempt at that. Nonetheless the roof line looks attractive and if the actual Cobalt shares that with whatever this car is, then I am a happy camper.

I doubt the 1.4 turbo will be the powerplant of choice. The added cost of the turbocharger, intercooler assembly and additional maintenance intervals isn't worth the fuel savings over say a 1.8 liter engine of the same 140hp rating. If you ask me, I'll like to see a non-turbocharged 2.0 LNF derivative with around 170 hp as the base engine with the 2.0 liter turbo in the SS. Using the same engine with or without forced induction saves on parts inventory and supply chain costs. A 2.0 liter DI DVVT powerplant should be plenty efficient enough and still give the Cobalt a modest power advantage over the competition. It wouldn't be a step backwards from the 148 hp 2.2 in performance and the fuel consumption figures wouldn't be more than 1 MPG off that of the Civic or Corolla -- if that. The excellent 6T40 and 6T70 6-speed autos ought to be standard equipment. It'll buy the vehicle more efficiency gains than going to a smaller displacement and adding forced induction while sticking to an outmoded 4-speed auto. If Chevy wants to make a big splash with the greenies, make the BAS and the mild hybrid system standard on all Cobalts -- it is basically a fancy alternator and a 36V battery which doesn't cost much.

Contrary to popular believes engine displacement is not the biggest determinant of fuel consumption -- not even close. Weight is the leading cause, and things like gearing and drive train parasitic loss all account for more than displacement. Think about it for a second... The Honda Accord with a 3.5 liter 268hp V6 does 19 City / 28 Hwy MPG. A Corvette with a whopping 6.2 liters of LS3 power does a not too shabby 16 City / 26 Hwy! Why? Because the Corvette is a 3250 lbs car... very modest around the belly by today's standards.

Certainly looks Photoshopped and a rather crude attempt at that. Nonetheless the roof line looks attractive and if the actual Cobalt shares that with whatever this car is, then I am a happy camper.

I doubt the 1.4 turbo will be the powerplant of choice. The added cost of the turbocharger, intercooler assembly and additional maintenance intervals isn't worth the fuel savings over say a 1.8 liter engine of the same 140hp rating. If you ask me, I'll like to see a non-turbocharged 2.0 LNF derivative with around 170 hp as the base engine with the 2.0 liter turbo in the SS. Using the same engine with or without forced induction saves on parts inventory and supply chain costs. A 2.0 liter DI DVVT powerplant should be plenty efficient enough and still give the Cobalt a modest power advantage over the competition. It wouldn't be a step backwards from the 148 hp 2.2 in performance and the fuel consumption figures wouldn't be more than 1 MPG off that of the Civic or Corolla -- if that. The excellent 6T40 and 6T70 6-speed autos ought to be standard equipment. It'll buy the vehicle more efficiency gains than going to a smaller displacement and adding forced induction while sticking to an outmoded 4-speed auto. If Chevy wants to make a big splash with the greenies, make the BAS and the mild hybrid system standard on all Cobalts -- it is basically a fancy alternator and a 36V battery which doesn't cost much.

Contrary to popular believes engine displacement is not the biggest determinant of fuel consumption -- not even close. Weight is the leading cause, and things like gearing and drive train parasitic loss all account for more than displacement. Think about it for a second... The Honda Accord with a 3.5 liter 268hp V6 does 19 City / 28 Hwy MPG. A Corvette with a whopping 6.2 liters of LS3 power does a not too shabby 16 City / 26 Hwy! Why? Because the Corvette is a 3250 lbs car... very modest around the belly by today's standards.

I would think one of the 6T automatics is a given. Having a NA 2.0 DI is also a good idea, but a smaller engine - maybe a 1.6 DI? - in base models would not hurt.

However, adding the hybrid tech is probably a bit much - GM is already having problems with battery supplies, so there's no need to aggravate that further until things stabilize in that regard.

Finally, has anyone heard anything about a two-door version of this car? All I've heard and seen relates to the four-door...I'll be sad if the coupe disappears.

Am I the only one who LIKES what I've seen of it so far?

Until I see more of it anyways...

Looks good go me so far... finally a compact car that doesn't look like a cartoon charactor. Well, the current Cobalt doens't look to bad. I like the more aggresive look in the front.

It certainly has lost that friendly Chevy compact car face, a Chevrolet tradition since... oh wow... 1960 Corvair? ChevyII/Nova/Vega/chrome bumper Monza/original Cavalier/Cobalt... all friendly faces.

About what I ecpected. Blander, more bloated, slab sided and a more Malibu front end grafted on. So typical of todays gen cars. If the mileage reaches 40, it should be a resounding success though.

It certainly has lost that friendly Chevy compact car face, a Chevrolet tradition since... oh wow... 1960 Corvair? ChevyII/Nova/Vega/chrome bumper Monza/original Cavalier/Cobalt... all friendly faces.

Interesting observation... well, it looks like the new car will have an aggro face appropriate for these mean, nasty 'f*ck you' times...

I kind of like this new Cobalt. remember this car will be sold around the world and will be assembled in atleast 3 assembly plants. Ramos Mexico, Lordstown Ohio and south Korea. this car will be out sooner than you think. Lordstown doesnt start production on it until the 2nd quarter of 2010 because they will still be assembing the current Cobalt. but Ramos Arizpe Mexico will start building this car in the 4th quarter of 2009. the plan is for to sell both cars at the same time until production ramps up.

I just looked at some camouflaged pictures of this car at The Car Connection. The more I looked at them, the more I liked the looks of this car. The overall shape looks much sportier than the current Cobalt. The taillights were revealed; they have much more character than the current Cobalt. The only thing that bothered me was the black plastic slab on the C-pillar. If they were to remove it, I think this would be one nice looking compact car. That hideous slab ruins the shape and cheapens the appearance of the car (Please remove them GM, it's not too late to do this!). I can't wait to see clearer pictures of the production version of this car.

It certainly has lost that friendly Chevy compact car face, a Chevrolet tradition since... oh wow... 1960 Corvair? ChevyII/Nova/Vega/chrome bumper Monza/original Cavalier/Cobalt... all friendly faces.

I didn't even notice that, maybe that's a pinpoint on why I don't like it.

It certainly has lost that friendly Chevy compact car face, a Chevrolet tradition since... oh wow... 1960 Corvair? ChevyII/Nova/Vega/chrome bumper Monza/original Cavalier/Cobalt... all friendly faces.

Market shift my friend. Which of the new compacts have friendly faces? Except probably Mazda3. The rest are pit bulls ready to charge in a dog fight at Vick's home.

Market shift my friend. Which of the new compacts have friendly faces? Except probably Mazda3. The rest are pit bulls ready to charge in a dog fight at Vick's home.

Personally I think it looks like ass. I don't like the way the grill cuts into the hood. I think the majority of Chevy fans are dissapointed in what we see so far.

Go here and let GM know that we won't accept anything less than a homerun:

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/...a_little_1.html