[Martinjlm]

Just to explain my thinking on this I am approaching it as if I am still at GM and still involved in product portfolio planning. So I look at technical feasibility, impact on volume of vehicles sold, impact on total revenue generation, or more specifically, gross margin.

Technical feasibility seems mostly solid. The main issue that made me say 0% at the very beginning is the fact that the C8 center tunnel is a structural element in the car. I was still at GM when it was determined that running transmission linkage through the tunnel was a non-starter. The original and non-negotiable reason for no MT. Period. So the only question wrt feasibility today is has GM learned enough with C8 to have developed a way to either drive-by-wire an MT or to package cabling parallel to but not through the tunnel. Either would support a C9 implementation.

Impact on volume is a question of "how many more Corvettes could be sold if an MT is added?" Do NOT confuse this with "how many Corvettes are typically sold with an MT?". The questions are related but not identical. We should not assume that every person who bought an MT would have walked away instead of buying a DCT. Especially considering how good that DCT is. C8 is not really hurting for sales. So, for C7, about 26.5% bought MT. When C8 launched without MT, sales did not magically drop by 26.55%. In fact, they increased significantly and continue to grow with the addition of new trims. 2023 and 2024 both saw Corvette sales greater than 40,000 units per year. That only happened once during C7 (2016). More would be nice, but they have to pay for themselves by at least offsetting the additional cost to add the option.

Which brings us to revenue impact. Total Revenue is the [total number of units sold] X [price per unit]. Gross Margin is [Total Revenue] - [Total Cost]. Total Cost would include any modifications required by GM to add the option. That would include cost of any additional equipment and/or processing required. It would also include any piece cost difference between the currently available option (8DCT) and the newly added option (6MT). It would also include any engineering costs, including validation testing, to make it all work. This is probably a good news story for GM, since Tremec has already stated that the 6MT can fit in the exact location with the exact connect points as the DCT. If the piece costs are similar, then it all comes down to engineering a solution that puts a shifter in the passenger compartment. GM has had at least 8 years to work on that problem. Maybe they have a solution, maybe they don't. If they do, it would make sense to implement the solution in the overall engineering costs appropriated to develop C9.

Looking at it from Tremec's side, the question is "Is this a production ready product or is it a proof of concept?". In other words, are they shopping this based on prototype shop builds that show that it CAN be done or have they already gotten commitment from an OEM to use it and are now only talking about it publicly to get more users on board to help thin out the costs of installing the capacity? If this is proof of concept, without a bought in customer the likelihood of it happening are significantly reduced. If they don't get an OEM signed up, the project goes back on the shelf. But if they already have an OEM signed up <cough> GM </cough> then it's game on. This is the biggest wild card right now. Is Tremec committed to production because they have a committed customer or are they fishing? The good news here is that at a component level, DCTs are not all that much different than manual transmissions. They both use a layshaft design with input / output gear pairings for each gear range, as opposed to automatic transmissions that are based more on planetary gearsets and hydraulic engineering / powerflow dynamics. It is possible that most of the manufacturing equipment and processes to produce the 6MT are already installed and running.

So summing it all up, I'd say fairly high potential for this to happen.