Why 7 speeds
#1
Why 7 speeds
Excuse me if this has been asked before, but why does the M7 transmission have 3 overdrive ratios? Wouldn't a 6 speed be more efficient from a mechanical standpoint, easier to shift and still meet fuel mileage goals?
Thanks
Thanks
#2
Le Mans Master
It wouldn't be there...if it didn't need to be there.
The EPA test to validate fuel mileage is a test engineers know well. AFM, CAGS, overdrive gears with a motor making a lot of torque...all games engineers have played to make the car do well on certification, which then meets the standards GM needs across the model lineup. In terms of drivetrain losses on chassis dyno's, versus the engine documented output, there is no indication the transmissions are "inefficient" in any way. There are essentially 2 overdrive gears, not 3. 5th is very much still a "performance" gear, with 6th and 7th being your cruise/mpg options.
Doubt this will get voted on but...you never know I guess.
The EPA test to validate fuel mileage is a test engineers know well. AFM, CAGS, overdrive gears with a motor making a lot of torque...all games engineers have played to make the car do well on certification, which then meets the standards GM needs across the model lineup. In terms of drivetrain losses on chassis dyno's, versus the engine documented output, there is no indication the transmissions are "inefficient" in any way. There are essentially 2 overdrive gears, not 3. 5th is very much still a "performance" gear, with 6th and 7th being your cruise/mpg options.
Doubt this will get voted on but...you never know I guess.
#3
It wouldn't be there...if it didn't need to be there.
The EPA test to validate fuel mileage is a test engineers know well. AFM, CAGS, overdrive gears with a motor making a lot of torque...all games engineers have played to make the car do well on certification, which then meets the standards GM needs across the model lineup. In terms of drivetrain losses on chassis dyno's, versus the engine documented output, there is no indication the transmissions are "inefficient" in any way. There are essentially 2 overdrive gears, not 3. 5th is very much still a "performance" gear, with 6th and 7th being your cruise/mpg options.
Doubt this will get voted on but...you never know I guess.
The EPA test to validate fuel mileage is a test engineers know well. AFM, CAGS, overdrive gears with a motor making a lot of torque...all games engineers have played to make the car do well on certification, which then meets the standards GM needs across the model lineup. In terms of drivetrain losses on chassis dyno's, versus the engine documented output, there is no indication the transmissions are "inefficient" in any way. There are essentially 2 overdrive gears, not 3. 5th is very much still a "performance" gear, with 6th and 7th being your cruise/mpg options.
Doubt this will get voted on but...you never know I guess.
#4
They did not need a 7th speeds. All they needed to do was make 6th taller to maximize gas mileage for the EPA. The 7th speed might be for marketing BS, but unfortunately it just adds more weight to an already over weight car which hurts performance and gas mileage. Very sad.
#5
Miller Time Wisconsin 🍺
Member Since: Oct 2012
Location: The only thing we have to beer is beer itself 🍺
Posts: 9,603
Received 1,440 Likes
on
940 Posts
2022 C7 of the Year Finalist - Modified
C7 of the Year - Modified Finalist 2021
Finalist 2020 C7 of the Year -- Modified
2018 C7 of Year Winner
2017 C7 of Year Finalist
St. Jude Donor '13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19-'20-'21-'22
I'm not certain that 5th is really a "peformance gear". With the GM hotshoe running full tilt at VIR in the Z06 i think he hit 5th once and that is a track with very long straights. I just am wondering if 7 gears is what the marketing guys felt the car needed compete with Porsche 911 which also has 7 speeds but a lot less torque. But it may be an EPA/gas mileage thing even though in the real world 6 gears would acccomplish the same mileage.
At Sebring, Road America, and PBIR I have never got higher than 4th although I have hit well into the 140s at those tracks. I also agree with thread consensus on both not needing 7th gear, and why GM had to build them with a 7th gear.
#6
Le Mans Master
I'm not certain that 5th is really a "peformance gear". With the GM hotshoe running full tilt at VIR in the Z06 i think he hit 5th once and that is a track with very long straights. I just am wondering if 7 gears is what the marketing guys felt the car needed compete with Porsche 911 which also has 7 speeds but a lot less torque. But it may be an EPA/gas mileage thing even though in the real world 6 gears would acccomplish the same mileage.
They did not need a 7th speeds. All they needed to do was make 6th taller to maximize gas mileage for the EPA. The 7th speed might be for marketing BS, but unfortunately it just adds more weight to an already over weight car which hurts performance and gas mileage. Very sad.
If you did a tall 6th, the transition from 5th to 6th would garbage, or you'd have to turn 5th into a semi overdrive gear. 6th is a midspeed highway gear...55mph type highways where 7th would be lugging too hard and couldn't climb hills, or 5th would be tach'ing enough to kill mpg.
You really think the GM engineers just stick things in there that don't need to be there? 7spds and 8spds are being revealed across the market in new vehicles...and it's not because of marketing...it's because they all need to meet the same universal standard.
An "already overweight car" compared to what...it's former self 20 years ago that wouldn't pass standards today? In current standards the car weighs less than the majority of sports cars out there...lighter than lambo's, Ferrari's, Mustangs, Camaro's...you name it.
I've talked to plenty of GM drivetrain and random engineers...they are well aware these cars would be better with CAGS and drive by wire, etc...but what are you gonna do when your hands are tied?
#7
If you did a tall 6th, the transition from 5th to 6th would garbage, or you'd have to turn 5th into a semi overdrive gear. 6th is a midspeed highway gear...55mph type highways where 7th would be lugging too hard and couldn't climb hills, or 5th would be tach'ing enough to kill mpg.
We are talking manual transmissions and I do not know of any 8 speed manuals. So name any sports car that has a 8 speed manual transmission (excluding dual clutch transmissions).
The C7 Z06 gained 350 pounds compared to the C6 Z06 at the same time the ATS and CTS lost hundreds of pounds. I could see the C7 Z06 gain 50 to 100 pound for new standards and upgrades that people have been asking for, but 350 pounds is an embarrassment.
Last edited by grcor; 10-05-2015 at 08:23 PM.
#8
Le Mans Master
In a 6 speed transmission 5th gear is already an overdrive gear, so a taller 6th gear is not a big deal. 6th gear is not a performance gear, it is a highway gear so the transition can be steeper without being a problem.
Yes they do stick things in that do not need to be there. Z06 with seat heaters. Driving a car with Max Performance Summer tires in freezing weather makes no sense. Cylinder deactivation which adds 55.5 (35 engine parts +5.5 exhaust +15 steel toque torque) pounds should not be there. Its the wrong approach to increase gas mileage in a sports car. Name any other sports car in the world that uses cylinder deactivation.
We are talking manual transmissions and I do not know of any 8 speed manuals. So name any sports car that has a 8 speed manual transmission (excluding dual clutch transmissions).
The C7 Z06 gained 350 pounds compared to the C6 Z06 at the same time the ATS and CTS lost hundreds of pounds. I could see the C7 Z06 gain 50 to 100 pound for new standards and upgrades that people have been asking for, but 350 pounds is an embarrassment.
Yes they do stick things in that do not need to be there. Z06 with seat heaters. Driving a car with Max Performance Summer tires in freezing weather makes no sense. Cylinder deactivation which adds 55.5 (35 engine parts +5.5 exhaust +15 steel toque torque) pounds should not be there. Its the wrong approach to increase gas mileage in a sports car. Name any other sports car in the world that uses cylinder deactivation.
We are talking manual transmissions and I do not know of any 8 speed manuals. So name any sports car that has a 8 speed manual transmission (excluding dual clutch transmissions).
The C7 Z06 gained 350 pounds compared to the C6 Z06 at the same time the ATS and CTS lost hundreds of pounds. I could see the C7 Z06 gain 50 to 100 pound for new standards and upgrades that people have been asking for, but 350 pounds is an embarrassment.
Interior adds weight...the buyer demographics spoke...it's what they want...simple. The old guys write checks, and the old guys want seat warmers...period.
The 7th speed is necessary, get over it. Go do research on the EPA testing procedure for mileage standards. IT WOULDN'T BE THERE if it didn't need to BE THERE.
Cylinder deactivation is part of the architecture. No other manufacturers use it, because no other manufacturers make the torque an LT makes. This goes to spreading the cost across the lineup. You want a Corvette that matches Porsche at 40k less dollars, they need to use the entire lineup to spread cost. This is reality...reality of building these cars affordably...this isn't la la land.
Instead of spouting off what they should've done, how about you answer WHY THEY DID IT. If you're smart enough to fix the car so simply, then bestow upon us your reasoning as to why its all there. Love to hear it...proceed.
#9
Could you consider possibly pouring half as much effort into all this jabber to possibly reading a book? So you've got it all figured out...crazy all those engineers couldn't come up with your simple little principles and equations. Dont' you find that strange?
Interior adds weight...the buyer demographics spoke...it's what they want...simple. The old guys write checks, and the old guys want seat warmers...period.
The 7th speed is necessary, get over it. Go do research on the EPA testing procedure for mileage standards. IT WOULDN'T BE THERE if it didn't need to BE THERE.
Cylinder deactivation is part of the architecture. No other manufacturers use it, because no other manufacturers make the torque an LT makes. This goes to spreading the cost across the lineup. You want a Corvette that matches Porsche at 40k less dollars, they need to use the entire lineup to spread cost. This is reality...reality of building these cars affordably...this isn't la la land.
Instead of spouting off what they should've done, how about you answer WHY THEY DID IT. If you're smart enough to fix the car so simply, then bestow upon us your reasoning as to why its all there. Love to hear it...proceed.
Interior adds weight...the buyer demographics spoke...it's what they want...simple. The old guys write checks, and the old guys want seat warmers...period.
The 7th speed is necessary, get over it. Go do research on the EPA testing procedure for mileage standards. IT WOULDN'T BE THERE if it didn't need to BE THERE.
Cylinder deactivation is part of the architecture. No other manufacturers use it, because no other manufacturers make the torque an LT makes. This goes to spreading the cost across the lineup. You want a Corvette that matches Porsche at 40k less dollars, they need to use the entire lineup to spread cost. This is reality...reality of building these cars affordably...this isn't la la land.
Instead of spouting off what they should've done, how about you answer WHY THEY DID IT. If you're smart enough to fix the car so simply, then bestow upon us your reasoning as to why its all there. Love to hear it...proceed.
#10
I do not see any Sports Cars that are currently being made or coming in the future from Mercedes or Audi that have cylinder deactivation. What models are you referring to, remember they have to be sports cars.
#11
Cylinder deactivation is part of the architecture. No other manufacturers use it, because no other manufacturers make the torque an LT makes. This goes to spreading the cost across the lineup. You want a Corvette that matches Porsche at 40k less dollars, they need to use the entire lineup to spread cost. This is reality...reality of building these cars affordably...this isn't la la land.
#12
Le Mans Master
You guys are killing me. Let me tell you, I work off of actual knowledge, not with a google screen set up beside. I've been in the automotive industry my whole life...you know how many people I see come and go like you...know it all from the recliner.
You're talking about peak torque numbers, exotics...get your head out of your ***. Can't you think more broad versus so focused. You're talking about marquee brands, you're talking about cars who can't spread the development cost over a very broad spectrum. Your comparisons are apples and oranges....hell apples and donuts. I can't invest more than an absolute MINIMUM of brain activity responding to you because the time is simply so wasteful.
These systems are available for TESTING PURPOSES, to validate the car via govt mandated and lineup mandated standards. I've spoken with these engineers AT LENGTH...have you??? No...guaranteed not. All car companies have employed multiple forms of fuel savings "technologies", most of which aggravate the owners of the cars. I have BMW's that have **** slow throttle response, Sti's have sport sharp and intelligent modes that make them suck...this is REALITY. You want to get away from it, buy non federally certified automobiles...simple. My friend owns Superlite Cars, he'll sell you a Z06 annihilator for 65k. You can put a plate on it, drive it daily then go to thunderhill and win the unlimited category...this exists.
You guys wear me out.
Again, how about you educate us all and instead of telling us why it shouldn't be there, tell us why it is. Why would a company, in business selling cars 100 years, invest countless hours and millions of dollars to put invalidated technologies on engines if they served absolutely no purpose. Do you even take a moment to listen to how absurd you sound? These engineers don't want to put CAGS on a car, nor do they want to put an eco mode there. Thank them for the fact you can deactivate all this so easily.
You guys are the classic folks who would come in my restaurant and tell me why a jack and coke shouldn't cost 5.00. The guys who would come in my shop and say fabrication shouldn't be so expensive when the same part is available on ebay and "looks amazing". The guys who have no global sense of business, no understanding of costs and regulatory measures, just a sense of your own household demands, and a crude sense at that. TRY TO THINK A LITTLE HARDER about the absurd claims your making.
See you at SEMA, I'm sure you won't be there.
You're talking about peak torque numbers, exotics...get your head out of your ***. Can't you think more broad versus so focused. You're talking about marquee brands, you're talking about cars who can't spread the development cost over a very broad spectrum. Your comparisons are apples and oranges....hell apples and donuts. I can't invest more than an absolute MINIMUM of brain activity responding to you because the time is simply so wasteful.
These systems are available for TESTING PURPOSES, to validate the car via govt mandated and lineup mandated standards. I've spoken with these engineers AT LENGTH...have you??? No...guaranteed not. All car companies have employed multiple forms of fuel savings "technologies", most of which aggravate the owners of the cars. I have BMW's that have **** slow throttle response, Sti's have sport sharp and intelligent modes that make them suck...this is REALITY. You want to get away from it, buy non federally certified automobiles...simple. My friend owns Superlite Cars, he'll sell you a Z06 annihilator for 65k. You can put a plate on it, drive it daily then go to thunderhill and win the unlimited category...this exists.
You guys wear me out.
Again, how about you educate us all and instead of telling us why it shouldn't be there, tell us why it is. Why would a company, in business selling cars 100 years, invest countless hours and millions of dollars to put invalidated technologies on engines if they served absolutely no purpose. Do you even take a moment to listen to how absurd you sound? These engineers don't want to put CAGS on a car, nor do they want to put an eco mode there. Thank them for the fact you can deactivate all this so easily.
You guys are the classic folks who would come in my restaurant and tell me why a jack and coke shouldn't cost 5.00. The guys who would come in my shop and say fabrication shouldn't be so expensive when the same part is available on ebay and "looks amazing". The guys who have no global sense of business, no understanding of costs and regulatory measures, just a sense of your own household demands, and a crude sense at that. TRY TO THINK A LITTLE HARDER about the absurd claims your making.
See you at SEMA, I'm sure you won't be there.
Last edited by RC000E; 10-09-2015 at 06:14 PM.
#15
The Corvette gets it done with CAGS, which can easily be defeated. A 7th gear for manual transmission cars, which doesn't have to be used. And DOD, which also doesn't have to be used (for manual transmission cars). The trade off is of course weight, cost, and complexity, but far less so than if the team went with forced induction across the line.
You yourself made the same complaint about the Z06 that Porsche, Ferrari, and BMW enthusiasts are now making, that the high reving character of the car is being lost by going to forced induction. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have the C7 as it is now than with the twin turbo V6 out of the ATS-V. A 7 speed and DOD is a very small price to pay compared to utterly transforming the character of the car.
#16
You yourself made the same complaint about the Z06 that Porsche, Ferrari, and BMW enthusiasts are now making, that the high reving character of the car is being lost by going to forced induction. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have the C7 as it is now than with the twin turbo V6 out of the ATS-V. A 7 speed and DOD is a very small price to pay compared to utterly transforming the character of the car.
#17
It's not forced induction that reduced the LT4 to a maximum 6500 rpm, it was cylinder deactivation. Have you looked at the 488 GTB or 650S/675LT? They have small twin turbo V8's that rev to 8000+. Auto companies are being forced into reducing C02 and the only way to do it is smaller displacement. Then use forced induction to get the power back. I could live with a 7 speed if it where a dual clutch and you can run in automatic mode or use the paddle shifters.
Ferrari's and McLarens can't be effectively used in comparisons to Corvettes. Those cars cost multiples of even a Z06 and their builders aren't as constrained by practicality and reliability as the Corvette team. The fact that the Z06 must be compared to cars that two to three times its asking price to find its performance peers is a testament to the Corvette team's engineering skill.
My mentioning of Forced Induction was to say that all auto companies have to pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat to meet the upcoming emissions and fuel economy rules. ...They have been warning of such for years. GM powertrain, for whatever reason, is of the opinion that it's better to make a larger engine smaller with DOD than a smaller engine larger with forced induction. There seems to be some merit to that as I remember a recent Luxury SUV test were the Cadillac Escalade had the highest or close to the highest acceleration numbers and ALSO the best observed fuel economy. Anyway, the corvette team since C4 has pursued the fuel economy strategy of high low rpm torque (that is then extended to higher rpm since it is a sports car) and a very wide ratio transmission. Hence, the C7 has DOD to make the engine "seem" smaller under certain load conditions (I'll note that the C6 was going to have DOD with the LS3, but there was too much NVH), CAGS, and an even wider ratio transmission with the 7th gear.
Once again, very small price to pay compared to, for instance, the BMW M series guys.