I just heard a very disturbing rumor

[diesel4me]

no more manuals??

Hmm--the rumor I heard was not only are they not going to have manual transmissions in trucks anymore...but they are giving a free pink skirt to all the male truck buyers in 2007...

Whats this country coming too..its always been baseball,apple pie,and chevrolet's...with STANDARD transmissons as standard equipment!..I don't hate automatics by any means-but I feel America is all about choices!--and we should always have a choice as far as what kind of tranny we want to drive..

If this comes to pass at GM,you can bet Ford will be the #1 selling truck for many years to come,and Dodge will gain customers too...maybe GM feels the minority who would prefer a manual tranny isn't large enough to hurt sales to the degree that having the extra prodution lines and parts needed to produce trucks with both kinds of trannies is worthwhile.. ...at any rate,it wont be a popular decision if they DO go this route..

 

[jekbrown]

hey now, the GTO is pretty cool. ok, maybe its body isn't anything special... but it can haul ass with that 'vette engine in it...

j

 

[dyeager535]

No, theres nothing against the GTO per se, it's the fact that you can throw an LS1 in an Astro and make it fast, (and cool lol) but it's not in the same league as the Camaro/Firebird/Mustang.

Yes, great, if I had the desire I could go buy a really fast RWD mid-size SEDAN from GM. If I want a RWD "muscle car", my choice is the $50,000 Corvette(?price) or a Mustang. GM decided it was in their best interest to get rid of the Mustangs only direct competitor.

I don't care if you lose money on it or not, you make the losses up elsewhere to keep your loyal fans and bragging rights, and GM has done neither.

 

[NJBLZ]

Yep the General is making me mad too.... No Camaro/F-Bird, IFS crap, no D-Max in the 'Burb, the cheaped out ugly ass GTO, reacting to the market rather than trying to be a leader....

Totally missing out on the trend of the retro vehicles, with styling from the past....

How long did it take them to come up with a real diesel engine after getting spanked by the P-Stroke and Cummins?

Dropping the Impala SS, weenie motors in the Monte SS....

And how about the UGLY trucks and the UGLY Colorado, without a 4 cyl. diesel????

I dislike Furds, but at least they are trying to please AMERICAN CAR BUYERS....

I agree, GM is way behind today, ford and dodge make good looking rear wheel drive cars. almost every cop car today is a crown vic, because GM dropped the caprice/impala.

the SSR - wow what a great idea, its 50 grand and I cant tell if its a car or a truck. why wont they make a colorado with a 5.3 or 5.7 and a CHOICE of auto or manual?

 

[thor]

The duramaxes I drove with allisons, and over 500ftlbs torque, couldn't break the tires loose from the line. Talk about torque control.

Theres 200 feet of black marks at the end of my driveway that would disagree with that statement....

 

[jekbrown]

the SSR is bad ass... i don't care what you want to call it, whatever it is is cool.

j

 

[6.2Blazer]

I wouldn't be overly surprised if GM dropped the manual transmissions in some of their trucks. It's all about supply and demand! Only a small fraction of new truck buyers opt for the manual transmissions nowadays......and keep in mind that it cost GM a ton of money to offer multiple transmission options...

- design and development costs
- durability and performance prove-out
- setting up a plant for multiple configurations
- setting up the supply chain for multiple parts

Basically it costs GM just as much to develop a manual trans in the truck as it costs them to develop the auto, but it takes a lot longer for them to recoup the costs for the manual since they sell so few of them.

Also, with today's computer controlled auto transmissions that are integrated into the engine control, any fuel economy or emissions gains a manual trans used to have are pretty much negated.

 

[dyeager535]

Also, with today's computer controlled auto transmissions that are integrated into the engine control, any fuel economy or emissions gains a manual trans used to have are pretty much negated.

I'll have to disagree with this statement. I have yet to see any application where an auto trans exceeds a manual trans in economy when both are offered in the same vehicle. An automatic trans is always going to have less measured power output all things equal, for at least one reason, they must turn a pump to operate. More fuel=more emissions. Not to mention the weight difference which is yet another thing that hurts economy/emissions. How much does a 4L80E weigh compared to say a 465? I'd have to assume the Allison, compared to the NV4500 or NV5600, is heavier as well.

Large/powerful vehicles are a bit different in regards to transmission and felt power based solely on how much they put out power-wise, but it's clearly obvious in the underpowered 4 cylinders out there today. A manual trans and automatic back to back in those applications is no comparison in how well the vehicle performs.

 

[6.2Blazer]

I'll have to disagree with this statement. I have yet to see any application where an auto trans exceeds a manual trans in economy when both are offered in the same vehicle. An automatic trans is always going to have less measured power output all things equal, for at least one reason, they must turn a pump to operate. More fuel=more emissions. Not to mention the weight difference which is yet another thing that hurts economy/emissions. How much does a 4L80E weigh compared to say a 465? I'd have to assume the Allison, compared to the NV4500 or NV5600, is heavier as well.

Large/powerful vehicles are a bit different in regards to transmission and felt power based solely on how much they put out power-wise, but it's clearly obvious in the underpowered 4 cylinders out there today. A manual trans and automatic back to back in those applications is no comparison in how well the vehicle performs.

Never said an auto would get better mileage, just that a manual typically doesn't get much if any better in a new truck. I also gave a quick overview as to why, and it has nothing to do with "turning a pump"!

Newer auto transmissions are much more efficient and when combined with computer controls they don't have nearly as much problem with the issue of "power robbing" as older autos do.

Also, have you ever seen an NV5600 sitting on the shop floor? I'm not sure what an Allison weighs, but an equivalent 6-speed manual is frickin' huge and makes an NV4500 look puny.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that autos are always better than manuals, but rather just trying to explain the reasoning why GM might do this.

 

[73k5blazer]

I totally understand how it costs more for development and all that. I just think that this move is spin on the numbers. Anyone can take a set of data and spin it to fit thier master plan. Take the 4.3l V6 in my 1986 chevy c10. In 1985, the 4.3lV6 debuted with an electric fuel pump. In 1986, it had mechanical. In 1987 it again had electric. Did that save GM money, designing, testing, switching each year. Probably not. Did some group of idiotic GM employees make a presentaion to show how it was going to save GM money if they switch, each time? obviously they would have had to.

I don't have the data, so I guess it's just my opinion, but I don't think this move is going to save GM any money.

 

[dyeager535]

Regardless of how little a difference there is that exists, (1MPG on a truck would be about 5% better economy in many truck apps) which there is, the fact remains that as a manufacturer, GM complained about how they would be hurt by fuel economy and emissions regulations, and then goes about making their economy worse. Don't bother trying to find MPG estimates from GM though, the 25-3500 are both not rated.

Not to mention the lone fact that if you want a manual, and this is true, a GM truck will simply not be in your future.

I guess a fair comparison is the NV4500 vs the Allison, (both 5 speeds) although I suspect the 4500 isn't rated as high as the allison.

I'd love to see some parasitic numbers for the Allison. We know the trend with the powerglide, TH350, 400, 4L80E. I really doubt an even heavier duty transmission is made that reduces parasitic drag over earlier ones that have smaller rotating parts and less weight. Especially so if there is a similar manual trans to compare.

Discussion on parasitic losses Crystalclear has a bunch of data posted. Obviously differences in design means different results.

Regardless, the end result is that by looking solely at production cost, one transmission will save GM money. What a brand loyal GM customer will do when presented with no transmission option, that's another story.

 

[leadfoot067]

ok so ive been looking for a durmax with a 6 speed...i have been to 4 different chevy or gmc dealers..they all had the same answer..nobody has one on the lot....i was told it was a special order truck and would hafta wait at least 6 months...then they tried to tell me why the allison was better....and bla bla bla.....it seems they are pre conditioning the buyers by not even having any available at all...forcing people to get an auto even if they dont want one....

 

[white-rhyno]

ok so ive been looking for a MAXIPAD with a 6 speed.

why?

why not put a 12v cummins with 5sp into your k30. Cost less, be way cooler, and have more power than a duramax (with hop-ups to the cummins) To each their own i guess.

 

[73k5blazer]

Heard that story before. My '97 k2500 w/nv4500 I bought I got the same story. "the auto's better now", "you don't want that", "nobody buys those anymore".
My buddies '04 DMax with 6sp he had to order too. Took about 4 months to order. The dealer kept screwing with him on the delivery after it was built (not really sure why, kept trying to push delivery a day after an incentive ended, not sure what the dealer would get from that though), my buddy at one point told that dealer to shove it and was going to order it from another dealer and wait another 4 months, the first dealer called him back and gave him an extra $500 off to "come back and get his truck", he told him he was afraid of getting "stuck" with a 6sp on the lot.
I personally think the dealers are part of the problem. They do push people into the autos. It seems to be a vicious circle, they sit there an tell you that you don't want an manual becuase you won't be able to sell it. Of course not, not if your steering these people. GM kinda of tells the dealers what "mix" to order for thier lots too, it includes very few, if any, manuals (they scrwed up on that one withe new GTO too, they originally told dealers 75% auto, 25% manual, well guess what, the autos were all sitting there and they had to give them away under incentives, the 6sp's all sold within a few months). Once theres a lot of full automatics, the dealers HATE ordering vehicles, they would much much rather push the stuff on their lot. You can bet your bottom dollar if there was one on the lot, and someone came in asking, it would suddenly be the strongest, most reliable vehicle on the lot.

 

[dyeager535]

Hey, look at it this way. Less and less car thiefs will know how to drive a manual trans vehicle. Way to go GM. Keep it up I say!

 

[6.2Blazer]

I totally understand how it costs more for development and all that. I just think that this move is spin on the numbers. Anyone can take a set of data and spin it to fit thier master plan. Take the 4.3l V6 in my 1986 chevy c10. In 1985, the 4.3lV6 debuted with an electric fuel pump. In 1986, it had mechanical. In 1987 it again had electric. Did that save GM money, designing, testing, switching each year. Probably not. Did some group of idiotic GM employees make a presentaion to show how it was going to save GM money if they switch, each time? obviously they would have had to.

I don't have the data, so I guess it's just my opinion, but I don't think this move is going to save GM any money.

I completely agree that the idea of a "spin on numbers" happens rather frequently in the automotive industry. However, I can guarantee that GM could easily save at least a million dollars just in the durability testing by not offering a manual transmission in just one truck line for each engine offering (ie. 1500 series, for example). That does not include design, development, prototyping, parts sourcing, or the cost of building pre-production test vehicles which will easily add up to several more millions of dollars.

 

[6.2Blazer]

I guess a fair comparison is the NV4500 vs the Allison, (both 5 speeds) although I suspect the 4500 isn't rated as high as the allison.

Not really............a fair comparison would be the NV5600 vs. the Allison. The NV4500 does not have the torque capacity, and is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the 5600.

 

[dyeager535]

And the more of one item they build, the less the per unit cost.

 

[73k5blazer]

They can save money by commonizing sheet metal and underbodies, even whole cars! (we found out how well that worked in the 80's when nobody bought GM because they all looked the same, can you can Cadillac Cimmeron?). They could dump an engine and "save money" too. How about just one seat type. Just one tire type. You can play that game forever. They will loose money in the end, because 3-5% market share is what they will loose, that's a whole lot more than a cool mill. The people that buy manuals now buy because they want it, period. They're not sitting on the lots being pushed, people are ordering them specifically. They want it, and are probably not going to settle without it. Bottom line, that 3-5% market share is basically going to all go elsewhere.
I think they think they have more brand loyalty than they do. I think they can count on loosing all that business. Can you imagine the bonus someone would get if they had and idea on how to gain 3-5% market share instantly.
Here's some quick math I found from general figures doing google searches:
GMT800 (current prod.) pu US sales is approx 800-900k units /year
GMT800 pickup manual trans eq. vehicles varies from 3-5% per year. (this was pretty hard to dig up, and is a compilation of several different places I found)
Avg. profit on GM full size pickup in US is 24-33% (this is classified obviously, the sources even stated they were best estimates, but from what I hear around town here in the motor city, it's about right)
Avg. sale price of GM full size pickup: $27,000
Using those rough numbers, here's what I come up with (erroring on the low side):
800,000*0.03=24,000 trucks with manual trannies/year
24,000*27,000=648million in sales revenue for manual tranny trucks/year
648*0.24=155million in profit from manual tranny equipped trucks/year
At 5% market share its 259million.

They will loose probably every penny of it.

 

[dyeager535]

I think GM has been playing the "reduce the overhead" game for years.

The rare occasions where GM has gone the other direction, I imagine is to try and get some market share rather than keep loyal customers. I mean, the F-bodies started off in the 60's sharing the same platform (I'm sure there were others) Pontiac engines were replaced, Olds engines were gone, then Olds itself was gone.

Once in awhile after the 80's Cadillac or Olds came up with something special engine-wise, but that was just more for marketing hype than brand loyalty. GM hasn't cared about that for awhile. Either that or they are complete morons and think that no matter what they do to a customer, they will keep coming back.

Your are right, I'd special order a manual trans vehicle even if I had to wait quite some time. If GM didn't offer it, not sure what I'd end up in, but it probably wouldn't be theirs. I love my older GM vehicles, the new GM I could care less about, save Corvette.