[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Based on registrations of C7 Corvettes since they originally went on sale the second half of 2013 until Dec 31, 2020...

So, a couple observations...

• I don't know the full context of Tadge's statement(s) about what MT take rate was, but it is trending downward towards 15%
• In conversations I've been privy to, Tadge's main reason stated for no MT is the structural integrity of the platform, and the fact that the center tunnel is part of that structure. Adding an MT would compromise the structural integrity because of holes that would have to be placed to accommodate the shifter and cables.
• The volume of MT was significantly reduced from a high of 11,015 in 2014 to 4,437 in 2019. 2020 was only 741, but that was new old stock. 2019 models sold in 2020. GM isn't about to tool up a new MT for 5,000 units. Porsche might. But they operate on a completely different business model.

So the center tunnel is a structural item that would be compromised with holes and a manual trans....ok, then the take rate of manuals and no one willing to make a manual trans in a small volume were pointless excuses to not offer a manual trans in the first place.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Big Lebowski

Agree!



The numbers are what they are. 26% or 29% over the LIFE of the C7 is nothing to sneeze at regardless of trending. I could argue that the trend was influenced due to a higher % of later C7 model years were dealer ordered, as opposed to consumer/owner built which would explain the downward trajectory ...but I won't go there.

My point is Tadge repeatedly used a 15% manual transmission take rate on the C7 as justification for the elimination of the Manual trans on the C8. Not 26 or 29%. Why? Because doing so fit the narrative. This is flatly wrong and intentionally misleading, and I'm still not sure why.

Quote the correct take rate and say a manual doesn't fit where we are taking the brand. Done.



Yes, my argument has been "over the life" of the C7. I never said otherwise. I'm not skipping anything or trying to build a "business case" for anything. Again, you are regurgitating GM talking points that do not change my original point; Tadge intentionally misquoted the C7 manual trans take rate.

When creating the business case for C8, "over the life of" is pretty much meaningless if you have a distinct downward trend. In this case there clearly is one from the data MartinJim showed us. So whether Tadge said 15 or was trending toward 15, it doesn't really matter other than someone thinking it important to prove the mis or incorrect statement. What value does that add?

Here is an article where Ed Piatek quotes 20%. Regardless it's going down.

In this article it cites having the hole in the tunnel (true) which is a structural member as well as just the performance improvement with the DCT.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2...-transmission/

You keep referring to "marching orders" and executive speak. If there were a business case for a manual there would be one. There are only 2 people above Tadge in this process so do you think Mark Reuss commanded "no manual transmission!!!!" The same guy that single handedly gave us the Gen5 Z/28? Doubt it very much. Mary? Again, if it were profitable, she would have directed it to be so. In her case it's slightly possible that she simply said no because the team couldn't deliver it profitably, but again I doubt it.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Not sure what this has to do with anything. C8 is its own platform design and draws nothing from C1-7 in terms of the elements of its platform design. If Tadge and Ed tell me the tunnel under the center console is structural, I’m gonna believe it’s structural. They have both told me that directly. No need for me to argue otherwise.

...


Just to be clear, these are C7 volumes only. It’s registration data, so the numbers that appear in 2020 are 2019 models purchased and registered in 2020.

Originally Posted by 90503

So the center tunnel is a structural item that would be compromised with holes and a manual trans....ok, then the take rate of manuals and no one willing to make a manual trans in a small volume were pointless excuses to not offer a manual trans in the first place.

You are both missing the point and clearly ignored my torque tube comment...

C5-C7 had a torque tube which is an integral part of the chassis and powertrain. It never had any shift linkage or holes placed in it either for the manual transaxle cars.

Look at how Porsche handles their manuals with cables - route them along the tunnel, but not in or through it. The shifter can sit above the tunnel no different than the current C8. The tunnel section structurally sits well below the interior center console trim.

And just to be clear - even at the 23% you specified. That is the LOWEST take rate on all years of C7 and only found in the last year of production and ONLY on the base Stingray. If manual take rates are dropping so badly, why cherry pick this one stat and then falsely claim its trending toward 15% when it is still well above 20%?

Originally Posted by Number 3

When creating the business case for C8, "over the life of" is pretty much meaningless if you have a distinct downward trend. In this case there clearly is one from the data MartinJim showed us. So whether Tadge said 15 or was trending toward 15, it doesn't really matter other than someone thinking it important to prove the mis or incorrect statement. What value does that add?

Here is an article where Ed Piatek quotes 20%. Regardless it's going down.

In this article it cites having the hole in the tunnel (true) which is a structural member as well as just the performance improvement with the DCT.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2...-transmission/

You keep referring to "marching orders" and executive speak. If there were a business case for a manual there would be one. There are only 2 people above Tadge in this process so do you think Mark Reuss commanded "no manual transmission!!!!" The same guy that single handedly gave us the Gen5 Z/28? Doubt it very much. Mary? Again, if it were profitable, she would have directed it to be so. In her case it's slightly possible that she simply said no because the team couldn't deliver it profitably, but again I doubt it.

All of these "distinct downward trends" occur within every base Corvette generation (C5 and C6). The only difference with the C7 is the top models got the wildly problematic A8 as well as the base cars.

One can just here this market speak and accept it, or if you are diligent, you could reference the historical trend of previous generations and see that nothing is really surprising here at the end of the C7 life cycle, but it makes for a good excuse to go DCT only.

Again - I have already said that DCTs are great. I am glad the C8 finally got one. But removing an option of 26% of your entire previous owner base chose, is a gamble. There are countless people with DCT experience, who, like myself, prefer manuals for the experience.

[Number 3]

Oh, and if you need a conspiracy theory, there WAS a manual transmission and it tore the center tunnel apart and had to be abandoned. Remember the rumors in the press a couple of years ago that the program was delayed because the highest HP variants destroyed the body. Maybe noise isn't the only reason the backlight is 10mm thick.

[Number 3]

This hole in the tunnel

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

So the center tunnel is a structural item that would be compromised with holes and a manual trans....ok, then the take rate of manuals and no one willing to make a manual trans in a small volume were pointless excuses to not offer a manual trans in the first place.

Nope, I’m not saying that. Decisions are made over periods of time. When it became apparent that there wouldn’t be an MT because of not having a manufacturer willing to commit to a low volume offering, there is no motivation from the development team to “package protect” that area for a manual transmission to go in there.

I lived this dream a thousand times in my time in GM Powertrain Planning. It was often my responsibility at the start of a new platform development to work with the development team to confirm that they would “package protect” the platform for use of a new engine or transmission program that we expected to begin after the platform had launched.

A perfect example of NOT package protecting is the development of the Blackwing V8 that fits in Omega platform but not Alpha or T1XX platforms. So now Omega is gone and there’s not an adequate platform to use Blackwing.

So, once the decision was made “no MT”, there was no need to package protect for one, allowing for decisions that improved structural rigidity without adding extra mass through supportive bracing.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Big Lebowski

Agree!



The numbers are what they are. 26% or 29% over the LIFE of the C7 is nothing to sneeze at regardless of trending. I could argue that the trend was influenced due to a higher % of later C7 model years were dealer ordered, as opposed to consumer/owner built which would explain the downward trajectory ...but I won't go there.

My point is Tadge repeatedly used a 15% manual transmission take rate on the C7 as justification for the elimination of the Manual trans on the C8. Not 26 or 29%. Why? Because doing so fit the narrative. This is flatly wrong and intentionally misleading, and I'm still not sure why.

Quote the correct take rate and say a manual doesn't fit where we are taking the brand. Done.



Yes, my argument has been "over the life" of the C7. I never said otherwise. I'm not skipping anything or trying to build a "business case" for anything. Again, you are regurgitating GM talking points that do not change my original point; Tadge intentionally misquoted the C7 manual trans take rate.

If Tadge was using a 15% number he was most likely not looking at what current sales or registration was at the time, he was looking at what Product Forecasting was telling him they would be in 2021, ‘22, ‘23....

And Forecasting would be taking into account the general expectation of where transmission types were expected to be in that time frame, based on the knowledge that C8 would have a top notch DCT. The forecasters would certainly reduce their outlook for an MT. Also to be considered... in the timeframe that this decision was being made, Porsche, Ferrari, McLaren and others were moving away from MT. Sure, Porsche backtracked on the decision, but they were the only ones to do so.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Number 3

This hole in the tunnel

Not required for a C8 as in Porsche design. And not at all the torque tube I was referring to.

A manual C8 is NOT happening. I'm not arguing that it will. What I am saying is the media speak was misleading and as per new social media speak..."partly false information."

I understand what Jim also posted about not being able to secure a manufacturer for a manual. I believe GM wasn't able to secure one for the cost/return they set. Obviously a bespoke manual would cost a considerable amount of money, and decided the return on investment wouldn't be there. None of us, except Jim, know whether that included the potential of adding a cost option to the C8 for a manual to offset it, or if corporate used their cost limit decision as an excuse to quickly move away from a manual altogether.

I will maintain that over 1/4 of your customer base, and 1/3 of Z06s, and 29% of C7 ZR1 owners is A LOT of potential money to give up in hopes they buy a DCT and never want to go back.

As for cost comparisons to Porsche, plenty of Base C8s are into well equipped 911 territory, and I think we all expect the Z models to approach the higher end GT3 market placement as well.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

If Tadge was using a 15% number he was most likely not looking at what current sales or registration was at the time, he was looking at what Product Forecasting was telling him they would be in 2021, ‘22, ‘23....

And Forecasting would be taking into account the general expectation of where transmission types were expected to be in that time frame, based on the knowledge that C8 would have a top notch DCT. The forecasters would certainly reduce their outlook for an MT. Also to be considered... in the timeframe that this decision was being made, Porsche, Ferrari, McLaren and others were moving away from MT. Sure, Porsche backtracked on the decision, but they were the only ones to do so.

As I have already said, that is extremely poor product forecasting then...and I would fire anyone who argued that end of life cycle base model manual take rates are indicative of a brand new generation of Corvette, let alone a ME one. Completely apples to oranges statistics, and cherry picked with total ignorance to historical data of the initial year or even first two years of Corvette sales in the modern generations (C5+).

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Based on registrations of C7 Corvettes since they originally went on sale the second half of 2013 until Dec 31, 2020...

So, a couple observations...

• I don't know the full context of Tadge's statement(s) about what MT take rate was, but it is trending downward towards 15%
• In conversations I've been privy to, Tadge's main reason stated for no MT is the structural integrity of the platform, and the fact that the center tunnel is part of that structure. Adding an MT would compromise the structural integrity because of holes that would have to be placed to accommodate the shifter and cables.
• The volume of MT was significantly reduced from a high of 11,015 in 2014 to 4,437 in 2019. 2020 was only 741, but that was new old stock. 2019 models sold in 2020. GM isn't about to tool up a new MT for 5,000 units. Porsche might. But they operate on a completely different business model.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Nope, I’m not saying that. Decisions are made over periods of time. When it became apparent that there wouldn’t be an MT because of not having a manufacturer willing to commit to a low volume offering, there is no motivation from the development team to “package protect” that area for a manual transmission to go in there.

I lived this dream a thousand times in my time in GM Powertrain Planning. It was often my responsibility at the start of a new platform development to work with the development team to confirm that they would “package protect” the platform for use of a new engine or transmission program that we expected to begin after the platform had launched.

A perfect example of NOT package protecting is the development of the Blackwing V8 that fits in Omega platform but not Alpha or T1XX platforms. So now Omega is gone and there’s not an adequate platform to use Blackwing.

So, once the decision was made “no MT”, there was no need to package protect for one, allowing for decisions that improved structural rigidity without adding extra mass through supportive bracing.

Why would Tadge's main reason for no MT be structural integrity compromised (not the take rate) when you stated the MT was never to be package protected due to low volume and low take rate of a manual trans? How would he know this if no trans was available and if the decision to build the platform had already been baked in for no MT due to take rate, not structural issues? It sounds like the take rate rationale is a CYA afterthought.

[Red Chief]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

It seems like every other manufacturer is capable of doing what it wants but GM can’t.

5.2 FPC V8, DCT and 760 horsepower in Mustangs.

High performance full size trucks.

Bringing back their historic nameplates and actually honoring their history.

Multiple engines making 700+ horsepower across the lineup.

Offering transmission options people actually want.

There is no manual option for the GT 500.

People who buy a brand new 2-seat RWD for the price of a Corvette are a different breed from the target audience of the Camaro anyway.

The Camaro trim levels and pricing have always targeted younger buyers and we know these days there's a growing generational gap between people who can drive a manual and those who can't(and never will). The most reliable way to get a steal on a new Camaro is to buy a manual.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

As I have already said, that is extremely poor product forecasting then...and I would fire anyone who argued that end of life cycle base model manual take rates are indicative of a brand new generation of Corvette, let alone a ME one. Completely apples to oranges statistics, and cherry picked with total ignorance to historical data of the initial year or even first two years of Corvette sales in the modern generations (C5+).

But heh somehow there will be enough people who will buy a manual CT4-V BW and CT5-V BW manual to justify their existence, down to 3D-printed shifter caps.

Seriously, the promotion videos for the manual Cadillac Blackwings are actually very good, but every time I think that there is no manual Corvette, that enthusiastic, serious female voice in the video just seems less sincere.

Nothing makes sense anymore. I think it's best that I give up trying to understand GM anymore. The more I try, the more my brain hurts.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by Red Chief

There is no manual option for the GT 500.

People who buy a brand new 2-seat RWD for the price of a Corvette are a different breed from the target audience of the Camaro anyway.

The Camaro trim levels and pricing have always targeted younger buyers and we know these days there's a growing generational gap between people who can drive a manual and those who can't(and never will). The most reliable way to get a steal on a new Camaro is to buy a manual.

http://www.miamilakesautomall.com/do...%20years%20old.

The average purchaser is in their 50's. Which tracks, since most younger people either dont have the money for a 35-40 thousand dollar purchase or can't justify buying a 2 seater 2 door car when there are more practical options that are still plenty fast.

Yet these 50 year olds aren't buying manuals. Nobody but a tiny niche of drivers want manual transmissions and that niche shrinks and has nothing to do with generational gaps. It's been going on for decades.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

Why would Tadge's main reason for no MT be structural integrity compromised (not the take rate) when you stated the MT was never to be package protected due to low volume and low take rate of a manual trans? How would he know this if no trans was available and if the decision to build the platform had already been baked in for no MT due to take rate, not structural issues? It sounds like the take rate rationale is a CYA afterthought.

I’ll try an analogy. Suppose you were at the supermarket and you were trying to decide whether or not to buy tuna to make a tuna salad. You decided that rather than tuna salad, you’re gonna make cole slaw. You buy the cole slaw fixings and leave the store, just before it closes. You’re in the car and your spouse calls you and says “I had my heart set on your delicious tuna salad”. You think about going back in the store for tuna, but the store is closed.

So...what’s the reason you aren’t making tuna salad? Because you decided to make cole slaw or because the store is closed and you can’t buy tuna?

Not package protecting = closing the store. It was possible until it wasn’t.