When it says it has a "dry input clutch", that would be referring to the regular manual transmission clutch we all know and love.

"All mechanical linkages" (plus the shift pattern shown on the right) means this is not an 'autostick'.

It's interesting how GM keeps playing around with different transmission layouts. The original Saturn automatic was a parallel shaft transmission (just like a manual) instead of planetary gearset. Now they're going the other way on it.

 

Maybe, but the URL says something about 2004 Product Info. Has anyone else seen/heard about this? Can anyone check with GM on this? Will we see this soon? Did Charlie give us this link cause he knows something we dont know?

 

I think it is an interesting transmission design. I remember reading about this GM transmission design the better part of a year ago, and was wondering if anything was going to come of it. Was this just thrown out there for discussion, or is there any chance of the Camaro being equipped with this kind of transmission from the factory?

 

I'm with you on this one.

I really couldn't care less as long it operates like a real manual and holds up well. Smoother shifting than the T56 is my only request.

 

Like everyone else has said in a sort of round-about way, if it retains a true clutch pedal, the manual trans crowd won't care. But, if it still has a clutch that must be manually operated, what's the point of this transmission? (Other than offering a Park feature...ohhh boy....)

I have to think we're looking at a clutch pedal-less manual. As a pretty recent learner of a 6-speed, (bought my SS 2 years ago and didn't even know how to drive it off the lot! ) I'm not sure how I feel about this. I won't go back to an automatic in a sports car....this trans isn't an automatic but it does take virtually 50% of the effort (fun?) out of driving a stick....

 

2 questions I have on this.

First question is durability (traditional manuals seem to have longer lifespans). I had my SC manual torn apart last year and after 220K miles, the tranny had no wear whatsoever (save the plate holdong the shifter down). My M6 Z28 at 145K miles still had an exceptional tranny (though it seems GM's clutches are inferior to Ford's). Meanwhile the auto in my B4C had to be replaced at least once by the CHP within 100K miles , and just before I bought my 93 SC, the owner had to get a new auto tranny (under 130K miles). If an auto tranny tends to have a shorter life than a manual, what's going to keep a auto based manual from having the same short life (or shorter since it's bound to be more abused) than an automatic?

Second question, like everyone else, I wanna know does this thing have a clutch pedal?.... a real one, not a "clutch by wire".

 

Guy, the CHP Camaro was probably beat to death and a half by those guys. And the Ford's auto...Ill leave it at that.

I would assume that automatics, due to the many moving parts and fluid movement, would generaly have a shorter life then manual transmissions.

 

By looking at the pics where does the shifter bolt on? I say it's just like an automatic with a manual valve body.

 

Cheaper and easier to manufactor I think the #1 thing about the trans is that it will fit in any car that has a 6 speed auto, since it is an easy swap for the factory I'd expect to see more GM cars/trucks with manual transmission options.

 

Same Case = 1 less Transmission Case design especially for lower numbers like Manuals typically see.

Would bolt in cars that might not typically have a manual (same crossmember, etc...).

Sounds good to me. Maybe Red can step in and give us a clue.?

 

Not so fast there, Al.

The Camaro tranny is tied into the computer that prevents them from roasting it, and the Crown Vics the CHP never had a tranny issue.

GM has also had tranny issues in the past from the turbo 250s when they came out in the late 70s (LM1 350s used to eat them up), all the way up to my dads 2003 Silverado.

GM automatics (much like the F-body's "glass" differential) aren't exactly known for best-in-industry durability, and the idea of having a manual based on one (especially the likelihood manuals will face large amounts of abuse) raises a big red flag with me.

 

As long as GM doesn't try to cut corners and uses a transmissions thats spec's are just within usage.. As in I hope they learned their lesson wiht the 4l60's and this time around with the 6 speeds beef up the tranny much more, for today's higher hp and heavier weights.

I'm wondreing how it directly compares to the t56.. In durability, and shift quality.

 

Does anybody have any idea what the name of this transmission would be? 6L80M? Just trying to find more info .

David

 

Have you seen all the problems the tremecs have?
Heck, I had to replace mine within 36k (covered by warranty).
And I know plenty of others who have broken their trannies as well.

I'm NOT a huge fan of the tremec 6spd. It's not a smooth transmission by design and the shifter had to be designed for the smoothness and easy to shift that the tranny itself was/is lacking. Thus why when you replace the shifter with a better unit, it tends to get notchier and noisier.

I would very much welcome a newly designed unit as long as it was stronger, smoother, and had short throws. And of course a clutch pedal .

Chris

 

One well known failure of the 4L60 was the clutch packs for 3rd and 4th gears. Mine developed a leak at 130k and lost both gears as well. Even repeated fluid changes wouldn't prevent it. That's one reason I went with a 6-speed when I bought an LS1 car.

I'd love to hear more info on this one as it sounds like it works like a traditional manual.