[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Did they ever bother to investigate whether people would be willing to pay extra to get a manual transmission? And if so, how much of a premium might people be willing to pay? This thought goes to a wider range of offerings (and mfrs) than just the C8 and Chevy.


Norm

Originally Posted by Number 3

That's an entirely different model. Pay MORE for what has pretty much been considered the base transmission.

I believe GM made some trade offs that made a manual more difficult to execute.

Also may be as simple as the money to tool up two all new transmissions was just cost prohibitive. And for low volume, spending (guessing) another $50 million plus development costs didn't make sense for 5,000 cars per year and with a DCT available, my guess is that 15% would drop much further.

So if my $50 Million is even in the ball park, that's $10,000 per car at 15% penetration...…………..to break even in the first year.

No need for me to add to that. There were some years with Corvette where the AT was a no-cost option. Not charging for the AT is the closest I’ve seen to charging for the manual. And as Number 3 has laid out, you couldn’t recover the cost to develop the manual.

[oldman]

and the car would be slower... problem solved

[z28deuce]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

No need for me to add to that. There were some years with Corvette where the AT was a no-cost option. Not charging for the AT is the closest I’ve seen to charging for the manual. And as Number 3 has laid out, you couldn’t recover the cost to develop the manual.

I agree with the points being made and understand the arguments, but would note that when I ordered my 1994 Z28 the 6-speed manual was an added cost option over the automatic. As I recall there was talk at the time that it was driven by a supply versus demand issue and the cost was relatively small. And of course in those days the 6-speed outperformed the available 4-speed auto.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[oldman]

Originally Posted by z28deuce

I agree with the points being made and understand the arguments, but would note that when I ordered my 1994 Z28 the 6-speed manual was an added cost option over the automatic. As I recall there was talk at the time that it was driven by a supply versus demand issue and the cost was relatively small. And of course in those days the 6-speed outperformed the available 4-speed auto.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I ordered my 98 LS1 with auto specifically because I was going to race the car. I was into the 12s stock with converter and stock GS-Cs (needed these to get the 3.23 and aluminum driveshaft). Only a few M6 in good air could cut into the 12s. At that point it was all autos and unlike the M6 guys I never had to change my 10 bolt. There must have been dunno 30% attrition to the M6 10 bolts especially if you put any steeper gear into them

I saw auto 2.73s get into the 11s with cam, heads, lid, headers and converter. I don't recall any M6 doing the same.... maybe after they got 12 bolts and a decent launch.

Nutshell the manual was not much faster and I did not find a single manual to equal a auto with converter. With a few bolt ons the M6's were 10 bolt breakage limited, the autos could do 11s. I bet there were some autos into the 10s with 10 bolts.. dunno I got a Challenger at that point.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by z28deuce

I agree with the points being made and understand the arguments, but would note that when I ordered my 1994 Z28 the 6-speed manual was an added cost option over the automatic. As I recall there was talk at the time that it was driven by a supply versus demand issue and the cost was relatively small. And of course in those days the 6-speed outperformed the available 4-speed auto.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Was there also a hp difference between the AT equipped car and the MT equipped car? I was gonna mention that as a point of exception to the “don’t charge for MT rule” but I could not remember examples. I know there were some. I think there were years, for example, where Camaro would use as Corvette engine (5.7L instead of 5.0L) but only with MT. But then you were passing for the package, not just the MT.

[SecondZ28]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

There were some years with Corvette where the AT was a no-cost option. Not charging for the AT is the closest I’ve seen to charging for the manual.

Chevrolet charged for the 6-speed manual transmission during the C5 years.

It was a $815 option on my 2001 Corvette, and went upto $915 on my 2003.

[craigss50]

Originally Posted by SecondZ28

Chevrolet charged for the 6-speed manual transmission during the C5 years.

It was a $815 option on my 2001 Corvette, and went upto $915 on my 2003.

Yes, I think I paid around $1000 for a manual 6 speed in my 2004 Corvette Coupe. Auto was standard in 2004.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

No need for me to add to that. There were some years with Corvette where the AT was a no-cost option. Not charging for the AT is the closest I’ve seen to charging for the manual.

I vaguely remember the no-cost choice, though I wasn't doing any car shopping that I didn't have to at the time, let alone for a toy.

MT as the extra cost transmission choice has been crossing my mind for at least 15 years.

We seem to have arrived at the point where automatics of some sort have become the near-universal fitment (read: today's "standard transmission") and not having your shifting automated in any manner has become the new luxury . . . where an upcharge would be not only reasonable from the mfrs' point of view but acceptable to those serious enough to actively want a MT.

Considered in a 'luxury-item' light or just as a matter of daring to be different, the performance hit might not mean all that much . . .


Norm

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Considered in a 'luxury-item' light or just as a matter of daring to be different, the performance hit might not mean all that much . . .


Norm

Bout right, and it would be a 6 speed probably and the demand would be so low vs the cost of design it would be a $5000 option and cut 1/2 the performance gain of the C8 in total.

So the math would be $5000 cost and cut the performance gain in acceleration over the C7 by 1/2..

Or I could see just designing a "fake" clutch and shifter... that just dumbs down the DCT.... but not going to happen without a whole lot of nannies stopping the "fun". Like no way it going to let you do 7000 clutch dumps, no way your NLS is going to be as fast as under DCT control, it would be programed to be slower and more abrupt, to make you fell like you are doing it yourself.... I guess it could really be done, in fact the shifter could be made so shift like butter (cause that is what it would be doing). Yep can see it. Complete poser clutch and shifter that pretends to be a manual in everyway, complete with errors like fake grinding noises if you let out the clutch too soon, or that jerky jerky at low speed with too little throttle... Then one day soon, it would just be switched off....be left inside the car like an appendix.

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Was there also a hp difference between the AT equipped car and the MT equipped car? I was gonna mention that as a point of exception to the “don’t charge for MT rule” but I could not remember examples. I know there were some. I think there were years, for example, where Camaro would use as Corvette engine (5.7L instead of 5.0L) but only with MT. But then you were passing for the package, not just the MT.

I wish I could remember what years in the C5 Corvette GM charged for manuals but they did do that for a few years.. no difference in HP.

Auto was the base package

Here is some good GM marketing.. when the Camaro was discontinued GM came out with a FRC (Fixed Roof Coupe) Corvette that had a much lower price to fill the no Camaro market, didn't sale.. GM couldn’t give them away. What GM do? Dropped a 405HP motor in with a 6 speed manual, better track suspension and called it the Z06.. couldn’t keep them on the lot. LOL

[oldman]

I was wrong and surprised at the sub 60K, GM is NOT going to come out with a cheaper version, the manual would require an expensive one off transmission. So it would be MORE expensive than the current base model by a good chunk of change. So it would be a club sport manual at 72K... and even with summer tires and the Z51 would still blow its doors...

[z28deuce]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Was there also a hp difference between the AT equipped car and the MT equipped car? I was gonna mention that as a point of exception to the “don’t charge for MT rule” but I could not remember examples. I know there were some. I think there were years, for example, where Camaro would use as Corvette engine (5.7L instead of 5.0L) but only with MT. But then you were passing for the package, not just the MT.

In 1994 they were both 275 hp LT-1s; seems like the manual cost somewhere between $500 and $1,000 extra. Stock for stock the manual was slightly faster in the quarter mile according to GM and the magazine tests as I recall. Oldman is right that the 10-bolt was the limiting factor, though the horsepower levels were also climbing pretty quickly once the LS1 came along, and with simple bolt-ons large amounts of power could easily be added.

I think there were some manual-only 5.7 liter engine options late in the Gen 3 years; like very late '80s/early '90s.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[oldman]

For the most part, the 5.7 came only in the auto, the 5.0 is what you got with the manual. My 1976 Firebird was ordered with a 4bbl and manual. We waited and waited and waited and it was suppose to have a 400 cid Pontiac engine in it, but NOPE it was a Chevy 5.7. The dealer said it is either this or you get an Auto. I was working in Silicon Valley at the time and evidently is was a 50 state smog deal that CA, HI and a few other states had. So yeh the 5.7 was for SURE a manual that year in a Firebird...

[oldman]

So i’m Thinking, maybe gym should make a pretend 6 speed from the dct. I can see a very precision shifter and nice feel clutch all setup, and the software takes care of the rest. Say it would be 1.5k option. Still could go into full auto when needed. Don’t see why that can’t be implemented.... not for me, will have to keep Camaro for the m6