No Lift Shift
Banned
Joined: 10-24-2006
Posts: 1,761
From: The Show-Me State
I think the HHR/SS barely saw the light of day and they're trying to maintain a sticky balance with profit and cost to build. Yeah, there's no reason why they couldn't have used the F40 manual or even the new 6T40 six-speed auto, but the development costs would have been way more than any profit they're ever going to see on these cars. I'm surprised that they even used the DI-Turbo engine in these cars, but they probably did it for emissions because of the dirtier old 2.0 S/C engine.
I really think the auto mags and bloggers are going to crucify the car for not having more modern transmission choices.
I really think the auto mags and bloggers are going to crucify the car for not having more modern transmission choices.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 06-21-2006
Posts: 939
From: Calgary
I'm no business man or anything, but I've heard that sometimes you have to cut your losses for a while in order to develop a product that will win the hearts of the consumers in the long run.
I hope somebody did some cost analysis on this. I'd like to think it would be better for the long run to take a loss now by putting in a more costly, technologically advanced tranny, if that's what the public would want.
Make a sacrifice for a little while and give the consumer a product that they will enjoy and re-buy down the road. If they are being cheap now in order to make a tiny profit they will be hurt even more down the road when even more consumers leave them for other brands which are willing to put out a better product.
At least, this stuff kinda makes sense to me. But I'm sure GM has lots of high paid folks that looked at all this stuff and really know how to drive a company into the future. I'm just a scientist, damnit!
I hope somebody did some cost analysis on this. I'd like to think it would be better for the long run to take a loss now by putting in a more costly, technologically advanced tranny, if that's what the public would want.
Make a sacrifice for a little while and give the consumer a product that they will enjoy and re-buy down the road. If they are being cheap now in order to make a tiny profit they will be hurt even more down the road when even more consumers leave them for other brands which are willing to put out a better product.
At least, this stuff kinda makes sense to me. But I'm sure GM has lots of high paid folks that looked at all this stuff and really know how to drive a company into the future. I'm just a scientist, damnit!
Senior Member
Joined: 10-02-2005
Posts: 1,245
From: VA
You can bet that GM had the engineers with one hand tied behind their backs! 
They had to work within the money driven guidelines to bring the SS to market at the least expense.
It really should have offered the F35/6 6-speed and one of the more advanced autos that could handle the additional power. The money people nixed that! Too bad.
Still a good looking package, but not what it could have been.
They had to work within the money driven guidelines to bring the SS to market at the least expense.
It really should have offered the F35/6 6-speed and one of the more advanced autos that could handle the additional power. The money people nixed that! Too bad.
Still a good looking package, but not what it could have been.
Senior Member
Joined: 10-02-2005
Posts: 1,245
From: VA
A couple of days ago, my curiosity got the best of me... 
I now have "No Lift Shift" on my 2.4.
Do I like it? Not sure yet!
I still think that this "feature" is more to prevent abuse and subsequent warranty claims rather than a performance enhancement.
Since it applies to the 2.4 LE5/F23 with a different ECM, I'll post more in the 2.4 section.
I now have "No Lift Shift" on my 2.4.
Do I like it? Not sure yet!
I still think that this "feature" is more to prevent abuse and subsequent warranty claims rather than a performance enhancement.
Since it applies to the 2.4 LE5/F23 with a different ECM, I'll post more in the 2.4 section.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post