[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

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.

And THAT is where the forecasters hedge their bets. MTs have been declining for decades + the DCT will be a much better performer + 100% DCT means more predictable volume to amortize the cost. I can make an argument for not having an MT in Corvette. I can make an argument for having an MT in Corvette. That’s because it’s a tough call, but at the end of the day, it comes down to business case vs emotion. In this instance, business case wins. In the auto industry, business case wins 90+% of the time.

[Big Lebowski]

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.

Your explanation is well thought out and well said and I appreciate where you are coming from, but Tadges 15% quote was not a forecasting quote. It was a C7 hindsight quote.

I get that you were an insider at GM, but you don’t need to defend Tadge. He has done volumes for the Corvette brand and as NW-99SS said, a C8 manual is not happening. I’ve sat in several C8’s and my initial reaction to the layout from a design perspective is that a manual was never intended for that cockpit design. I have no doubt, eliminating a manual in the C8 was made a long time ago.

On that note, it’s possible that the decision to eliminate the manual was made so long ago, at the time he mentioned the 15% take rate, he may not have remembered the specifics of why the decision was made.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Big Lebowski

Your explanation is well thought out and well said and I appreciate where you are coming from, but Tadges 15% quote was not a forecasting quote. It was a C7 hindsight quote.

I get that you were an insider at GM, but you don’t need to defend Tadge. He has done volumes for the Corvette brand and as NW-99SS said, a C8 manual is not happening. I’ve sat in several C8’s and my initial reaction to the layout from a design perspective is that a manual was never intended for that cockpit design. I have no doubt, eliminating a manual in the C8 was made a long time ago.

On that note, it’s possible that the decision to eliminate the manual was made so long ago, at the time he mentioned the 15% take rate, he may not have remembered the specifics of why the decision was made.

Well, I put it like that because the nature of Tadge’s job, and Ed Piatek’s too for that matter, is to not be concerned or conversant on anything past model. They have people for that. They are focused on talking about current model and to a much much greater degree, developing what comes next. If he did say with any level of authority that past model take rates on MT was 15%, it may well have been because someone told him it was 15%. He would, however, be more aware of Forecasting telling him that the best he could hope for on C8 was 15%. Reason is, that is something that would drive a decision on his part. Past model take rate is an artifact. It needs more information for context and he would have people on his team to put it in context in terms of what to expect for the next gen.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

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.

The GT3 is 170,000. Not quite a fair comparison.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Big Lebowski

Your explanation is well thought out and well said and I appreciate where you are coming from, but Tadges 15% quote was not a forecasting quote. It was a C7 hindsight quote.

I get that you were an insider at GM, but you don’t need to defend Tadge. He has done volumes for the Corvette brand and as NW-99SS said, a C8 manual is not happening. I’ve sat in several C8’s and my initial reaction to the layout from a design perspective is that a manual was never intended for that cockpit design. I have no doubt, eliminating a manual in the C8 was made a long time ago.

On that note, it’s possible that the decision to eliminate the manual was made so long ago, at the time he mentioned the 15% take rate, he may not have remembered the specifics of why the decision was made.

My last day at GM was in March 2017 and I knew then there wasn’t gonna be a manual.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Well, I put it like that because the nature of Tadge’s job, and Ed Piatek’s too for that matter, is to not be concerned or conversant on anything past model. They have people for that. They are focused on talking about current model and to a much much greater degree, developing what comes next. If he did say with any level of authority that past model take rates on MT was 15%, it may well have been because someone told him it was 15%. He would, however, be more aware of Forecasting telling him that the best he could hope for on C8 was 15%. Reason is, that is something that would drive a decision on his part. Past model take rate is an artifact. It needs more information for context and he would have people on his team to put it in context in terms of what to expect for the next gen.

Interesting claim.

C4 manual take rate was the lowest in the C4 - C7 era. You claim that using the entire data of Corvette purchasing for the last 40 years bears no significance to projecting sales of your next generation? I would love to hear more about who in marketing can justify this position and how.

Originally Posted by Number 3

The GT3 is 170,000. Not quite a fair comparison.

C8 Base Stingrays are optioning into the 100+K range. You expect the C8 Z06 and ZR1/Zora to not be optioned to 150K+? I said approaching GT3 values, not quite the same as saying as much as a GT3.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Interesting claim.

C4 manual take rate was the lowest in the C4 - C7 era. You claim that using the entire data of Corvette purchasing for the last 40 years bears no significance to projecting sales of your next generation? I would love to hear more about who in marketing can justify this position and how.



C8 Base Stingrays are optioning into the 100+K range. You expect the C8 Z06 and ZR1/Zora to not be optioned to 150K+? I said approaching GT3 values, not quite the same as saying as much as a GT3.

On your first point, the only thing I could argue in your C4 example, is that automatic transmissions back then were still slushboxes lol, so they knew a manual had to be offered as there was no superior alternative like a DCT.

To your second point. I get what you are saying, and I know the Corvette gets compared to Porsche all the time but the companies operate totally different. IIRC Porsche still lets you order a car up a la carte if you got the coin and are willing to spend it.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by shaffe

On your first point, the only thing I could argue in your C4 example, is that automatic transmissions back then were still slushboxes lol, so they knew a manual had to be offered as there was no superior alternative like a DCT.

To your second point. I get what you are saying, and I know the Corvette gets compared to Porsche all the time but the companies operate totally different. IIRC Porsche still lets you order a car up a la carte if you got the coin and are willing to spend it.

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.

[Seniorrs]

I bought a new 21 RS v6 manual first of January.I know gave up some speed and mpg to the 10 spd. But it is the only way I would have it and the only way to get a limited slip in a v6 or 4.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Interesting claim.

C4 manual take rate was the lowest in the C4 - C7 era. You claim that using the entire data of Corvette purchasing for the last 40 years bears no significance to projecting sales of your next generation? I would love to hear more about who in marketing can justify this position and how.



C8 Base Stingrays are optioning into the 100+K range. You expect the C8 Z06 and ZR1/Zora to not be optioned to 150K+? I said approaching GT3 values, not quite the same as saying as much as a GT3.

As I recall the manual in the C4 was the POS 4+3. Not sure anyone would by a dual range manual.....unless you are driving a Class 8 truck. So not a good comparison.

And again compare volumes, not just cost. The Z06 and ZR1 buyers will want the BEST performing car, and yes a few will want a manual simply for the manual. But GM has projections on what those volumes are. You don't just add a manual, invest 100s of millions of $ and see what happens. That's a losing proposition that GM has done too many times to their detriment.

It's a business case decision and GM clearly elected to make other choices. It's the same as visibility, trunk space blah blah blah on the Camaro. Choices were made that are very hard to undo.

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.

In the end, maybe everyone wanting a manual will be correct and GM will correct it. I doubt it, though as it's nearly like fixing visibility in the Camaro.

There is ZERO doubt if GM offered a manual in the C8 some people would have bought it. It's just a simple question of whether GM could have offered it profitably and they have told us they couldn't.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Number 3

As I recall the manual in the C4 was the POS 4+3. Not sure anyone would by a dual range manual.....unless you are driving a Class 8 truck. So not a good comparison.

And again compare volumes, not just cost. The Z06 and ZR1 buyers will want the BEST performing car, and yes a few will want a manual simply for the manual. But GM has projections on what those volumes are. You don't just add a manual, invest 100s of millions of $ and see what happens. That's a losing proposition that GM has done too many times to their detriment.

It's a business case decision and GM clearly elected to make other choices. It's the same as visibility, trunk space blah blah blah on the Camaro. Choices were made that are very hard to undo.

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.

In the end, maybe everyone wanting a manual will be correct and GM will correct it. I doubt it, though as it's nearly like fixing visibility in the Camaro.

There is ZERO doubt if GM offered a manual in the C8 some people would have bought it. It's just a simple question of whether GM could have offered it profitably and they have told us they couldn't.

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.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Interesting claim.

C4 manual take rate was the lowest in the C4 - C7 era. You claim that using the entire data of Corvette purchasing for the last 40 years bears no significance to projecting sales of your next generation? I would love to hear more about who in marketing can justify this position and how.

That is totally irrelevant in deciding what the transmission content for C8 is. Different times, different transmissions, different cars, different available technologies, different pricing schemes. Some years were pick your trans, same price. Some years were AT cost extra. Some years were MT cost extra. Unless you have all the other relevant factors involved, comparing them is like comparing apples and raisins.

Forecasting is called FOREcasting because it looks FORward, not backward. Past take rates are, as I said, an artifact. When I say “artifact” I simply mean that it is what it is. A datapoint input amongst hundreds of factors and data points to be considered in developing a forecast. It is not the primary basis for anything. It’s just information that is probably less relevant than other information used to form a strategy.

Marketing does not do forecasting. Forecasting does forecasting. Forecasting is typically aligned with Product Planning which is, again, forward looking, not historically focused. Marketing does use Forecasting data. They are aligned sort of like Olympic Rings. If Marketing was responsible for forecasting product content, that would be a first order cluster£¥$k. Sorta like asking your fry cook to bake a cake. They know their way around the kitchen, but they’re more comfortable on the top surface, not in the oven.

Marketing (among other things) requests and packages content and measures expected consumer acceptance of the content and whether the content is priceable and at what level. Forecasting (among other things) looks at how likely consumers are to ask for specific content, given the functionality, performance, price and other choices the consumer could make. Forecasting also projects how many vehicles are likely to be consumed by consumers and helps the product team (Tadge’s people) accurately scope their business plans.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

As I recall the manual in the C4 was the POS 4+3. Not sure anyone would by a dual range manual.....unless you are driving a Class 8 truck. So not a good comparison.

And again compare volumes, not just cost. The Z06 and ZR1 buyers will want the BEST performing car, and yes a few will want a manual simply for the manual. But GM has projections on what those volumes are. You don't just add a manual, invest 100s of millions of $ and see what happens. That's a losing proposition that GM has done too many times to their detriment.

It's a business case decision and GM clearly elected to make other choices. It's the same as visibility, trunk space blah blah blah on the Camaro. Choices were made that are very hard to undo.

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.

In the end, maybe everyone wanting a manual will be correct and GM will correct it. I doubt it, though as it's nearly like fixing visibility in the Camaro.

There is ZERO doubt if GM offered a manual in the C8 some people would have bought it. It's just a simple question of whether GM could have offered it profitably and they have told us they couldn't.

I remember well, but not fondly, my turn at the wheel as “complexity police”. Nothing fun about that at all.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

That is totally irrelevant in deciding what the transmission content for C8 is. Different times, different transmissions, different cars, different available technologies, different pricing schemes. Some years were pick your trans, same price. Some years were AT cost extra. Some years were MT cost extra. Unless you have all the other relevant factors involved, comparing them is like comparing apples and raisins.

Forecasting is called FOREcasting because it looks FORward, not backward. Past take rates are, as I said, an artifact. When I say “artifact” I simply mean that it is what it is. A datapoint input amongst hundreds of factors and data points to be considered in developing a forecast. It is not the primary basis for anything. It’s just information that is probably less relevant than other information used to form a strategy.

Marketing does not do forecasting. Forecasting does forecasting. Forecasting is typically aligned with Product Planning which is, again, forward looking, not historically focused. Marketing does use Forecasting data. They are aligned sort of like Olympic Rings. If Marketing was responsible for forecasting product content, that would be a first order cluster£¥$k. Sorta like asking your fry cook to bake a cake. They know their way around the kitchen, but they’re more comfortable on the top surface, not in the oven.

Marketing (among other things) requests and packages content and measures expected consumer acceptance of the content and whether the content is priceable and at what level. Forecasting (among other things) looks at how likely consumers are to ask for specific content, given the functionality, performance, price and other choices the consumer could make. Forecasting also projects how many vehicles are likely to be consumed by consumers and helps the product team (Tadge’s people) accurately scope their business plans.

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.