Mustang Mach E

[Bhobbs]

Sure, if you ignore the fact that Porsche is putting manuals back in its cars. The PDK is the gold standard and they still think it’s worth building manual cars. But then again, I’m sure the average Porsche buyer doesn’t have a hip replacement and care more about fitting golf clubs in the trunk.

[Hops]

sorry to get back on topic.... but i had a few thoughts on MachE and the 'sporty' cuv or whatever they want to be called. After watching a review on the MachE, and then one of the Taycan, it occurred to me the horrible, dorky tall SUV/CUV look might be harder to justify with BEV packaging. Yes, you are placed a little higher because of the flat battery pack, but there's no reason to have a squarish big volume of space up front. I saw a Taycan in the wild yesterday, and dang! that thing looks awesome! The front of that car is great, no trying to figure out what to do with a grill because there is none!

[Big Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Number 3

So you are saying the Chief Engineer for Corvette is full of???? LOL that is hilarious.

Yes, I literally am. You’ve never heard corporate upper management spew bs because they’ve got their marching orders? Nothing against the guy, he’s done a lot of good for the Corvette brand, but the reasons given for eliminating a manual trans, have been debunked. Regardless of the reasons, there will not be a manual trans in the C8 & after 9 Corvettes I’m at peace with it.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Basically, a DCT is an MT that shifts itself. It evolved from AMTs that were automated manual transmissions sold in South America and ....

Excellent break down but you proved my point. I get where you are coming from, but if it shifts itself automatically without human interaction / input; it is an automatic. If it requires human input to change gears; it’s a manual.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Number 3

The only issue is there are fewer of people like you. I am exactly the same way with one exception, given the choice of auto, manual or automated manual, I'm taking the DCT. I've enjoyed driving a DCT more than either of the other two.

And GM used to charge more for the manual several many years ago if memory serves. But in this case, you would be tooling up a unique transmission. If it existed it would likely have been done. So tooling up a new transmission is maybe $100 million dollars, and I think that's on the low side. If you sell 20,000 manuals a year (way on the high side I think) that's $5,000 you need in the first year per car, with no profit and no consideration for piece price, although I'd agree it's lower than a DCT. Based on my Mach 3 flyby numbers you'd have to charge $10,000 for a manual that only goes in the Corvette. You might pay that along with a few more, but it would drive the volumes so low you might never recoup your investment. And in reality, GM would only make that investment if it was their transmission.

The way it works is you have to have someone willing to pay that investment for a new transmission and believe they have a business case to invest that money. Tadge said there wasn't anyone. If a company had one "off the shelf and the tooling was done" used on multiple models for multiple companies, it's a very different discussion.

That's one thing that puzzles me, the development cost of a manual.

The C8 isn't using a torque converter auto; if it is, then I would be a bit more convinced about the development cost of a manual as it has to be from ground up again. This is a dual clutch unit. You said it yourself that it's basically a manual that can shift itself. So remove the self-shifting bits and you have a manual transmission.

Look at Porsche. Their PDK and manual share 90% of the internal parts. Sure, there are other parts and bits you need to develop for a manual trans, but you have the main obstacle out of the way.

Sorry, I don't buy that argument at all. You really shot yourself in the foot when you said that a DCT is an MT that shifts itself.

As much as I make fun of German engineering at times, you have to give props to BMW, VW and Porsche on not abandoning manual trans. VW said the new Golf R will offer a manual trans. They know what's up, beyond "aUtOmAtIcS aRe FaStEr".

And again, don't tell me they can't do a manual for a Corvette when the new CT4-V BW and CT5-V BW will come in manual.

Sent from toaster or something

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Big Lebowski

....
Excellent break down but you proved my point. I get where you are coming from, but if it shifts itself automatically without human interaction / input; it is an automatic. If it requires human input to change gears; it’s a manual.

FWIW, I wasn’t trying to prove you wrong. Just pointing out where some people may have been coming from in equating a DCT with an MT. A DCT is basically an MT that shifts itself. So, yes it is an automatic. It just got there down a completely different path than planetary transmissions. Doesn’t matter to people who don’t even know how many speeds there car has.

[Big Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Number 3

What is your take rate number if you take out Z06 and ZR1?

Also, I realize it's the internet but it sounds like a LOT of people went to a LOT of trouble to prove Tadge was wrong. Not sure why.

For the life of the C7 (this includes, the Stingray, Grand Sport, Z06 & ZR1) the take rate was approx. 29%. Not sure what the point of removing the Z06 & ZR1 would be, other than to fit a narrative.

Tadge repeated a 15% take rate on multiple occasions, which was debunked. The reason to eliminate the manual were easily justified by simply saying it wasn’t financially viable. Instead, he listed take rates, vague footwell ergonomics, and tunnel penetration as the reasons. C’mon. Really? These weren’t things that GM engineers could overcome? Of course they could.

Meanwhile GM patented a clutch by wire system, so there’s that.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...te-mid-engine/

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Big Lebowski

For the life of the C7 (this includes, the Stingray, Grand Sport, Z06 & ZR1) the take rate was approx. 29%. Not sure what the point of removing the Z06 & ZR1 would be, other than to fit a narrative.

Tadge repeated a 15% take rate on multiple occasions, which was debunked. The reason to eliminate the manual were easily justified by simply saying it wasn’t financially viable. Instead, he listed take rates, vague footwell ergonomics, and tunnel penetration as the reasons. C’mon. Really? These weren’t things that GM engineers could overcome? Of course they could.

Meanwhile GM patented a clutch by wire system, so there’s that.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...te-mid-engine/

So your 29% is “over the life of”? You have to look at the trend and where it would be to develop the business case. You are coming across as all that matters is yo7 can prove Tadge wrong. No idea where the value is in that.

Skipping completely by the point NO ONE WANTED TO WORK WITH GM AT THE LOW VOLUMES TO DEVELOP A MANUAL TRANSMISSION FOR THE C8.

Oh and is anyone in the world offering a manual with a hybrid and EV propulsion system? Asking for a friend.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

That's one thing that puzzles me, the development cost of a manual.

The C8 isn't using a torque converter auto; if it is, then I would be a bit more convinced about the development cost of a manual as it has to be from ground up again. This is a dual clutch unit. You said it yourself that it's basically a manual that can shift itself. So remove the self-shifting bits and you have a manual transmission.

Look at Porsche. Their PDK and manual share 90% of the internal parts. Sure, there are other parts and bits you need to develop for a manual trans, but you have the main obstacle out of the way.

Sorry, I don't buy that argument at all. You really shot yourself in the foot when you said that a DCT is an MT that shifts itself.

As much as I make fun of German engineering at times, you have to give props to BMW, VW and Porsche on not abandoning manual trans. VW said the new Golf R will offer a manual trans. They know what's up, beyond "aUtOmAtIcS aRe FaStEr".

And again, don't tell me they can't do a manual for a Corvette when the new CT4-V BW and CT5-V BW will come in manual.

Sent from toaster or something

Lol cuz a DCT is an automated manual. Hats why. It has 2 clutches allowing it to be faster but like a manual you have to disengage the clutch to change gears.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Sure, if you ignore the fact that Porsche is putting manuals back in its cars. The PDK is the gold standard and they still think it’s worth building manual cars. But then again, I’m sure the average Porsche buyer doesn’t have a hip replacement and care more about fitting golf clubs in the trunk.

Cost of a Porsche vs cost of the Corvette?

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Lol cuz a DCT is an automated manual. Hats why. It has 2 clutches allowing it to be faster but like a manual you have to disengage the clutch to change gears.

So take out a clutch, delete all the self shifting stuff, maybe regear it a bit, and voila, a manual transmission.

Again, that's literally what Porsche does, and that's why the whole "manual would have cost more than NASA sending a satellite to space" argument makes zero sense.

If GM has the money to clean sheet design a bunch of engines, I think bit being able to adapt a DCT into a manual isn't nearly as hard.

Sent from toaster or something

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Big Lebowski

For the life of the C7 (this includes, the Stingray, Grand Sport, Z06 & ZR1) the take rate was approx. 29%. Not sure what the point of removing the Z06 & ZR1 would be, other than to fit a narrative.

Tadge repeated a 15% take rate on multiple occasions, which was debunked. The reason to eliminate the manual were easily justified by simply saying it wasn’t financially viable. Instead, he listed take rates, vague footwell ergonomics, and tunnel penetration as the reasons. C’mon. Really? These weren’t things that GM engineers could overcome? Of course they could.

Meanwhile GM patented a clutch by wire system, so there’s that.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...te-mid-engine/

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.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

So take out a clutch, delete all the self shifting stuff, maybe regear it a bit, and voila, a manual transmission.

Again, that's literally what Porsche does, and that's why the whole "manual would have cost more than NASA sending a satellite to space" argument makes zero sense.

If GM has the money to clean sheet design a bunch of engines, I think bit being able to adapt a DCT into a manual isn't nearly as hard.

Sent from toaster or something

You also have to completely remove an input shaft (DCTs have two) and realign the input gears on one single shaft. That will, of course, make the transmission significantly longer than a DCT with the same gear count. Even though the gears are common in manufacture, and the shafts use the same manufacturing process, the need to combine all the input gears on the same shaft changes the physical layout enough to make it a big deal if the chassis is designed with more compact DCT arrangement.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

You also have to completely remove an input shaft (DCTs have two) and realign the input gears on one single shaft. That will, of course, make the transmission significantly longer than a DCT with the same gear count. Even though the gears are common in manufacture, and the shafts use the same manufacturing process, the need to combine all the input gears on the same shaft changes the physical layout enough to make it a big deal if the chassis is designed with more compact DCT arrangement.

Well I know it's definitely more complicated than I made it sound, but at the same time, making a manual out of a DCT is not a clean sheet design, like it would be if the car has a torque converter planetary automatic.

And again, Porsche made the PDK and manual work. I don't think there is a significant size difference between the two transmissions.

Sent from toaster or something

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

So take out a clutch, delete all the self shifting stuff, maybe regear it a bit, and voila, a manual transmission.

Again, that's literally what Porsche does, and that's why the whole "manual would have cost more than NASA sending a satellite to space" argument makes zero sense.

If GM has the money to clean sheet design a bunch of engines, I think bit being able to adapt a DCT into a manual isn't nearly as hard.

Sent from toaster or something

It's simply about the volume and the payback. Yes, GM could have self funded the capital and development costs for a unique manual transmission. But the potential payback based on the take rate (Martinjims post) and the concerns for pass throughs in the tunnel for shift lever and clutch cable (Martinjims other post) the cost would be too high.

Too your other point, just pass that cost on to the diehards? Well that simply drops the volume even further as the cost for a manual would easily go into the thousands.

Look at why GM and Ford did JVs for transmission development. Years ago on the FWD 6 speed and more recently on a 10 speed RWD. It's to save millions on tooling and development costs. And those were on high volume products.

It's sad, but overall penetration in cars and trucks was 2.6% last year.

Oh and not quite the same point, but in my industry, manual transmissions are dying very quickly. The old image of truckers shifting an 18 speed manual without synchronizers are all but gone due to Fuel Economy and performance improvements that the driver simply can't match compared to a computer controlled automated manual or automatic.