[shaffe]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

The C8 is the first non-slushbox Corvette...

As for Porsche, the Corvette pricing is into well equipped 911 territory with base Stingray options. So they are more comparable than ever as for customer cross-shopping.

True the pricing may end up similar but the business strategy is different. Porsche allows for far more customization at the plant than GM does.

Originally Posted by Number 3

And for perspective, Porsche is nearly a flat out custom manufacturer. Look at the options and variants they allow in their plant. Years ago, GM mandated 5% penetration or it was out of the plant. That's why we lost the HHR SS and the Cobalt SS, both pretty decent performance cars.
.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

So FOREcasting is just an uneducated guess completely ignoring all historical data and previous customer base...I guess I should have know the weatherman could do this for cars as well.

Nope. Relevant past information is a part of the mix. Your statements seem to indicate that it should be THE factor. In actuality it is ONE sometimes significant, sometimes insignificant factor among hundreds of factors. Taking this to an extreme, if historical data was the primary factor we’d have never moved away from roll-up windows, because the take rate for power windows sucked for a long time, as did the warranty cost. But when other factors are given more weight than historical numbers, change happens.

Without context, past volumes is just a number. There are inputs wrt cost, price, competitive offering expectations, regulatory issues, financial climate expectations, synergistic technologies, etc that have to be considered. How much each of those gets weighted is a whole additional thing. Two companies looking at the same information (GM / Volkswagen Group) can come to completely different forecasts based on how they weight each of the elements used to build a forecast. GM most likely put less weight on past sales of MT and more weight on cost to develop a unique transmission for Corvette. VW, most likely put more weight on past sales and the ability to just continue on with the same transmission that they cancelled to keep a manual option for 911. Something GM could not do because the new platform for C8 required a completely different transmission configuration. There was no doubt a lot of discussion around “do we develop and integrate one all new transmission or two?”.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

C4 got both the Doug Nash 4+3 and a 6 speed in later years.

I agree it was a financial decision to not offer - what is really confusing is the rest of the media speak/excuses we were all given by various sources. Especially incorrect manual take rate assumptions. My position here is this: Whoever proposed the need for no manual in the C8 used incorrect and cherry picked data to support their argument to the decision makers at GM. They certainly didn't use over 1/4 of all Corvette customers as their projections for potential C8 manual sales, nor do I believe they thought of asking an option price for it, one many enthusiasts have outwardly spoken they would pay - which is also similarly proven by the number of highly optioned base C8s.

It is easy to make an argument with false data and false presumptions...how that plays out once the C8 supply meets demand in the next 2-3 years will tell the tale.

Sooooo because Tadge said 15%, and Piatek said 20% you think that they somehow made a bad decision?

As I've said the ONLY thing that matters was the business case for the C8. If Tadge said 25% would that make anyone feel better? We still aren't getting a manual C8. What does it matter if you can prove he stated a wrong number? That he has a bad memory? He was quoting forecasted number as if it was C7? Again, doesn't matter.

People are acting like "if Tadge had only known the right number we'd have a manual". No, because as he also stated, no one was willing to develop a manual for them at the volume forecast for the C8.

As Martinjim points out, the issue has zip to do with what was.

Here is how it works. You go to a clinic and you ask what the customer wants. You do benchmarking of other supercars and find out who offers a manual transmission.

What everyone is forgetting in this discussion is the C8 takes the Corvette into a completely new segment. So in the supercar segment who else offers a manual other than Porsche? Most supercars are using DCT.

Further, what we don't know is the impact to "forecasted" volumes when we get to the rumored EV (definitely not a manual) and the also rumored hybrid Zora. Those numbers are definitely not available in the rearview mirror. Neither of those exist so what was doesn't apply.

And what we absolutely don't know is the lifespan of the C8 and the migration to GM's stated goal of 100% EV. So even if there was a manual in the works, you might be tooling it up for low volume and for only 4 or 5 years completely killing any business case. That we will not know for many years. Maybe in 5 years we will allllllll remember this thread and go "ohhhhhhhh that's why a manual wasn't viable" LOL, I doubt that but we only know what is and that's a base C8.

Like most of this discussion, we don't see the data that GM has that led to the decision.

[Kemo Savy]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Rumor is it is the E Ray, and it won’t kill the ICE version, but ultimately enhance it for the 1,000 HP Zora.

Yes...it will be the Chevy E-Vette E-Ray.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Nope. Relevant past information is a part of the mix. Your statements seem to indicate that it should be THE factor. In actuality it is ONE sometimes significant, sometimes insignificant factor among hundreds of factors. Taking this to an extreme, if historical data was the primary factor we’d have never moved away from roll-up windows, because the take rate for power windows sucked for a long time, as did the warranty cost. But when other factors are given more weight than historical numbers, change happens.

Without context, past volumes is just a number. There are inputs wrt cost, price, competitive offering expectations, regulatory issues, financial climate expectations, synergistic technologies, etc that have to be considered. How much each of those gets weighted is a whole additional thing. Two companies looking at the same information (GM / Volkswagen Group) can come to completely different forecasts based on how they weight each of the elements used to build a forecast. GM most likely put less weight on past sales of MT and more weight on cost to develop a unique transmission for Corvette. VW, most likely put more weight on past sales and the ability to just continue on with the same transmission that they cancelled to keep a manual option for 911. Something GM could not do because the new platform for C8 required a completely different transmission configuration. There was no doubt a lot of discussion around “do we develop and integrate one all new transmission or two?”.

Great post Jim.

My comment was directed at a significant miss on the forecasting team, but I never meant it as the only factor in assessing C8 purchase trends.

The reason it has been focused on, including by myself, is that Tadge's 15% statement has been used and published by many - including some larger publishers like MT, C&D, etc. This bothers me as there is clear evidence that the worst manual take rate data is the 23% you posted here prior, which is closer to 25% than even 20%, making 15% just a made up number.

At any rate, I fully agree with your post above. What will be interesting for you and me is the success of the CT5-V Blackwing manual sales or not...should be telling for what the "could have been" but never will for a manual C8.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Sooooo because Tadge said 15%, and Piatek said 20% you think that they somehow made a bad decision?

As I've said the ONLY thing that matters was the business case for the C8. If Tadge said 25% would that make anyone feel better? We still aren't getting a manual C8. What does it matter if you can prove he stated a wrong number? That he has a bad memory? He was quoting forecasted number as if it was C7? Again, doesn't matter.

People are acting like "if Tadge had only known the right number we'd have a manual". No, because as he also stated, no one was willing to develop a manual for them at the volume forecast for the C8.

As Martinjim points out, the issue has zip to do with what was.

Here is how it works. You go to a clinic and you ask what the customer wants. You do benchmarking of other supercars and find out who offers a manual transmission.

What everyone is forgetting in this discussion is the C8 takes the Corvette into a completely new segment. So in the supercar segment who else offers a manual other than Porsche? Most supercars are using DCT.

Further, what we don't know is the impact to "forecasted" volumes when we get to the rumored EV (definitely not a manual) and the also rumored hybrid Zora. Those numbers are definitely not available in the rearview mirror. Neither of those exist so what was doesn't apply.

And what we absolutely don't know is the lifespan of the C8 and the migration to GM's stated goal of 100% EV. So even if there was a manual in the works, you might be tooling it up for low volume and for only 4 or 5 years completely killing any business case. That we will not know for many years. Maybe in 5 years we will allllllll remember this thread and go "ohhhhhhhh that's why a manual wasn't viable" LOL, I doubt that but we only know what is and that's a base C8.

Like most of this discussion, we don't see the data that GM has that led to the decision.

I've already stated multiple times why I have an issue with people using incorrect numbers as partial or full justification for a decision. It's even worse when it is repeated...this is an extremely hot topic in the world today in all other facets of life.

I would have been much happier with the most likely reason:

GM had a budget for a manual, and no supplier wanted to deliver on that set budget point. Easy to understand, fully understandable with a totally new ME Corvette.

I will NEVER celebrate the death of a transmission option based on false information however.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

I've already stated multiple times why I have an issue with people using incorrect numbers as partial or full justification for a decision. It's even worse when it is repeated...this is an extremely hot topic in the world today in all other facets of life.

I would have been much happier with the most likely reason:

GM had a budget for a manual, and no supplier wanted to deliver on that set budget point. Easy to understand, fully understandable with a totally new ME Corvette.

I will NEVER celebrate the death of a transmission option based on false information however.

Well the reason they probably went public with the declining take rate is most people wouldn't question it, as take rates for manual is dropping industry wide. Basically it was the easiest thing to say at the time probably.

I also think had they said it the way you said, people would be able to/ try to spin that in a negative way. IE Oh GM couldn't get this done on a budget, what else did they skimp on or cheat on etc etc. Look at the firestorm in the GT500 thread where it was simply a quote by a magazine editor that it costs more to develop a 200MPH car than a 180 MPH car....

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

So FOREcasting is just a guess completely ignoring all historical data and previous customer base...I guess I should have know the weatherman could do this for cars as well - lol.

How on earth did you get that out of Jim’s post?

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by shaffe

Well the reason they probably went public with the declining take rate is most people wouldn't question it, as take rates for manual is dropping industry wide. Basically it was the easiest thing to say at the time probably.

I also think had they said it the way you said, people would be able to/ try to spin that in a negative way. IE Oh GM couldn't get this done on a budget, what else did they skimp on or cheat on etc etc. Look at the firestorm in the GT500 thread where it was simply a quote by a magazine editor that it costs more to develop a 200MPH car than a 180 MPH car....

Car enthusiasts aren't the blind public...most of us enjoy researching engine spec, ratings, handling metrics, and spend a large portion of our lives filling our brains with this info.

I can understand Ford saying it costs more, because it's true. The firestorm ensues by charging the most amount of money ever for a Mustang, and then making a statement like that. This also indirectly applies to the C8 - that said, the base, no option C8, is still a killer price and very well accomplished by GM.

The buyers of cars in the C8, GT500, and up range are a lot more invested and educated in the product they are buying than say a base Camaro or Mustang.

The reason for the downfall of manuals has as much to do with dealers only ordering autos for the showroom vs having to spec a manual yourself within a personal order. Like Jim said, it's a multi-faceted issue. I have further theory that requires the removal of manuals so everyone adopts and accepts "auto" transmissions as the market is forced to move from ICE to EV (a whole other topic which Jim, yourself, and I have posted before).

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Great post Jim.

My comment was directed at a significant miss on the forecasting team, but I never meant it as the only factor in assessing C8 purchase trends.

The reason it has been focused on, including by myself, is that Tadge's 15% statement has been used and published by many - including some larger publishers like MT, C&D, etc. This bothers me as there is clear evidence that the worst manual take rate data is the 23% you posted here prior, which is closer to 25% than even 20%, making 15% just a made up number.

At any rate, I fully agree with your post above. What will be interesting for you and me is the success of the CT5-V Blackwing manual sales or not...should be telling for what the "could have been" but never will for a manual C8.

How do you get that there was a significant miss by the forecasting team? That ethereal are. Dozen people on an enthusiast website that although not buying a C8 think GM should have offered a manual?

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Number 3

How on earth did you get that out of Jim’s post?

Was a bit of humor about the lack of importance of the entire customer base's relevance to a future car of the same name.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Number 3

How do you get that there was a significant miss by the forecasting team? That ethereal are. Dozen people on an enthusiast website that although not buying a C8 think GM should have offered a manual?

You haven't had any dealings with marketing have you?

10% miss on targeted group is a significant miss, 20% is that much more...

Why do you keep defending false information?

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Car enthusiasts aren't the blind public...most of us enjoy researching engine spec, ratings, handling metrics, and spend a large portion of our lives filling our brains with this info.

I can understand Ford saying it costs more, because it's true. The firestorm ensues by charging the most amount of money ever for a Mustang, and then making a statement like that. This also indirectly applies to the C8 - that said, the base, no option C8, is still a killer price and very well accomplished by GM.

The buyers of cars in the C8, GT500, and up range are a lot more invested and educated in the product they are buying than say a base Camaro or Mustang.

The reason for the downfall of manuals has as much to do with dealers only ordering autos for the showroom vs having to spec a manual yourself within a personal order. Like Jim said, it's a multi-faceted issue. I have further theory that requires the removal of manuals so everyone adopts and accepts "auto" transmissions as the market is forced to move from ICE to EV (a whole other topic which Jim, yourself, and I have posted before).

You just made my point for me lol. It was not Ford that made that comment about cost, but the author of the article and look how that spread. You even repeated Ford said it cost more after I said it wasn't ford that said it lol.

"The cost associated with engineering a 200-mph car versus a 180-mph car is not insignificant, and it likely allowed for the wiggle room to include such performance-enhancing features as a dual-clutch automatic transmission and a rear wing borrowed from the Mustang GT4 racer."

That is the exact quote, no where does it say according to Ford, Ford stated, Ford said we did this so we could do this. It says likely allowed them to do this and that, which means it is the author making a guess. Now he may have been 100% correct, but the point is the statement did not come from Ford yet once it was out there everyone treated it like Ford said it.

Which is why I think GM was smart not to say it didn't fit our budget.

I would also wager a large portion of Corvette buyers aren't enthusiasts lol at least from the Corvette owners I have known

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by shaffe

You just made my point for me lol. It was not Ford that made that comment about cost, but the author of the article and look how that spread. You even repeated Ford said it cost more after I said it wasn't ford that said it lol.

"The cost associated with engineering a 200-mph car versus a 180-mph car is not insignificant, and it likely allowed for the wiggle room to include such performance-enhancing features as a dual-clutch automatic transmission and a rear wing borrowed from the Mustang GT4 racer."

That is the exact quote, no where does it say according to Ford, Ford stated, Ford said we did this so we could do this. It says likely allowed them to do this and that, which means it is the author making a guess. Now he may have been 100% correct, but the point is the statement did not come from Ford yet once it was out there everyone treated it like Ford said it.

Which is why I think GM was smart not to say it didn't fit our budget.

I would also wager a large portion of Corvette buyers aren't enthusiasts lol at least from the Corvette owners I have known

My own Corvette ownership, including my own local FB group with over 1200 members gives me a different impression than what you are saying. Not that you aren't correct in your experience, mine is just different.