The only advantage I see is the fact that this transmission will afford those who speed (70-90mph) lower fuel costs. That is the issue here; the driving habits and demands of the American consumer. As we and drive farther and farther between home, work, play, etc. we want to get there in the same amount of time it used to take. Therefor many of us drive more aggressively, and speed. All this takes a toll on fuel economy, vehicle wearout, and to some extent traffic jams, road rage, accidents, and deaths. Many hybrid operators are frugal drivers who do not drive aggressively, and thus save fuel. This can be done with any vehicle with a decent trans./engine. While the results are not as great, it is still notable. Over time, it can add up in reduced maintenance, vehicle life prolongation, reduced operation cost, and maybe a beter driving record.
_
____The issue is personal habits and time scheduels. Crammed to the hilt, many zip around from place to place, across increasing distances (exurbs), trying to keep up with what is on the planner/day's business. The American dream of a house and yard is colliding with the hard truth of buildout.
_
____Perhaps we should take social and economic consideration to zoning laws to make innovative buildings possible. One example would be a flood resistant building with a green roof on pillars, with enough room underneath (semi -enclosed/enclosed for summer/winter) and above to compensate (1.5-2.5 acres) for less real estate around the structure. The incresed pop. density/space availablility may decrease the rate of sprawl.
_
_____Another possibility is sustained high cost of gasoline. Frequent/sustained $5+ a gallon of gasoline would shift the way we drive. Automated high density parking garages combined with car pooling and express buses (and lanes) would trim the demand during weekdays. Better management of trains and traffic lights would be a bonus as well.

@Sid:

I suggest you update your knowledge on CVT's, because it's outdated. Based on anecdotical evidence from the early days. Modern CVT's are just as reliable as a conventional gearbox. And only for small engines? Look for the Audi multitronic. You can have it up to 3.2 l, 260 hp engines. Not quite American SUV size, but getting very close.

As for fuel consumption, a modern CVT gets about the same mileage as a manual gearbox. Compared to a normal automatic with torque converter it should be about 10% more economical. And deliver better performance and more comfort. I really cannot see a single reason for preferring a gearbox over a CVT.

I have driven a Honda Jazz CVT (called the Fit in the USA), and I can tell you, once you have driven a CVT you don't want anything else. It didn't break down on me either. This little car made me CVT fan. (And a Honda fan for that matter).

Sorry Sid, by "generations" I intended automotive generations, not human generations, sorry for not making that clear. There is a lot of carry over from the previous platform.

Yes, I am critical of GM (Ford is as guilty in the U.S. market) because I wish they would have the foresight to improve products in a way that makes them world class and pushes the envelope, not play catch-up when it is the last hope.

For example, Cadillac had the V8/6/4 engine 20 years ago. If the variable displacement product would have been updated (instead of abandoned) as technology improved, the entire line-up of GM cars could have been equipped with the technology years ago. Over the past 20 years GM would have been ahead of the game, possibly changing the hybrid wave. The hybrid is sorta a multi-displacement motor in concept. Big power when you need it, switching to a small efficient motor for most of the time you drive. Toss in an on-off engine for stop-go traffic and you have nearly 70-80% of the hybrid advantage, without the extra weight and complexity. Go GM!!!! Opps, too late. Have a switch to leave the engine in small size when you are driving to work, then go big when you what too. Maybe next year....

Yes, the new (Ford/GM) 6 speed is great, it will make a difference. Most of the worlds automakers have been proving that now for the past 5 years with 5 and 6 speed transmissions.

Also, ALL SUVs are jacked-up station wagons. :>

Everyone I know who has an suv has it for the same reasons my parrents had a ford econoline van. Long all day road trips with the family.

Now back when we had the van we had room for 3 cars. Now your lucky to have room for 2.

"GM gets no respect for their prowess, but if anything, that will only make them that much more powerful when they retake their crown as the technological leader of the world."

This will happen only if Toyota decides to keep the "GM" brand name after they buy the company.

What's wrong with CVTs?

Where do I start?

1. With constant slippage, there is no direct feel to the ground with the driver. How do you control such variability on snow? You guess. The ignorant expect some type of electronic device to compensate. It can't.
2. CVTs advantage over torque converted automatics is in city driving cycles. That's it. On highway cycles, they are inferior in efficiency to clutch gearboxes.
3. Reliability - massive torque and sudden "I wasn't expecting that" loads tear it up.
4. Momemtum efficiency - like any automatic gearbox - how can the transmisson substitute for driver awareness of what is coming? It can't!

CVTs are a bandaid for those who don't understand why automatics are wasteful. OK for inner city traffic, but elsewhere - wasteful.

Look at any racing car -it is manual clutch for a reason, YOU are the reason efficiency is poor. Judgment is #1 factor in driving green. Learn how to drive, before complaining about what the car companies do or don't do. There are 50 mpg diesel manual mid size cars that perform well. No technology will make up for driver judgment.