Hydra-Matic? What is this, greased lightening?

That being said, 4% gain on 20 MPG is 1 MPG. Small, but every bit helps. If GM can squeeze out 1 MPG this way, 1 MPG by cutting weight, and 1 MPG by shifting it's base to a generally more fuel efficient choice, that's 3 MPG. If every GM car got another 3 MPG, we'd be in much better shape.

$450 million for this? Toyota will overtake GM next year in sales. Speaks for itself. It's over. Kiss GM goodbye.

I guess that it is Nissan that is doing the smart thing by pushing for more CVTs.

stomv, if we are going to cut demand by even 1% per year we're going to need an improvement roughly equal to the age of the typical car at retirement.  That's what, 13 years?  So we'd need 13%, or more.

50% isn't that hard.  We should be aiming for it.

The problem may indeed be the UAW.  There are a lot of workers in transmission plants, making all the fiddly bits for automatics.  If a much simpler electric/hybrid CVT renders many of them surplus, the no-layoff contract requires that they still be paid!  The UAW is unlikely to give up that clause, so bankruptcy is the only way for GM to cut its labor force down to what it needs.

If GM is smart, they've got a ton of designed and tested systems just waiting for the opportunity to build them with a lean manufacturing environment.  I have strong doubts, though.

stomv, if we are going to cut demand by even 1% per year we're going to need an improvement roughly equal to the age of the typical car at retirement. That's what, 13 years? So we'd need 13%, or more.

50% isn't that hard. We should be aiming for it.

Right, but that also assumes that the bundle of autos purchased in 2006 will be equivalent to the bundle purchased in 2005. If some folks do "class migrate" to smaller/more efficient models, then we'd get improvemets in fleet MPG without any technological improvements. So, improving the engine by 4%, improving weight by a bit, maybe improving the tires a smidge, it all adds up. Add that to the idea that folks may be shifting classes to more efficient styles, and the fact that the distribution of retired cars isn't uniform throughout the 13 years (more cars 6-10 years will be retired than 1-5 years, for example), and your innitial claim is both (a) not quite accurate and perhaps (b) irrelevant.

Every little bit helps. Incremental improvements are still improvements. Compounding improvements helps yet more.

No company is going to get to 50% improvements in a single step. It takes iterations of improvements. Snarkily lambasting GM for making their products more fuel efficient, if only slightly, seems a bit silly to me.

But then, GM is a dirty acronym around here, and folks love to pile it on.

The problem may indeed be the UAW. There are a lot of workers in transmission plants, making all the fiddly bits for automatics. If a much simpler electric/hybrid CVT renders many of them surplus, the no-layoff contract requires that they still be paid!

Sure, but if the "much simpler elec/hybrid CVT" was indeed cheaper in materials to manufacturer and required less labor, then GM would do it anyway and pay guys to stay home. It'd lower GM's bottom line, and they could send the least productive guys home, thereby improving capital effeciency. So, I don't think it's quite that simple... and it still doesn't make it the UAW's fault -- it's GM's fault for signing a contract it shouldn't have been signing.

stomv writes:

No company is going to get to 50% improvements in a single step.

A small turbocharged engine with an asymmetrical compression/expansion ratio might boost the thermal efficiency high enough to raise economy by 50%.  Aerodynamic improvements can make large differences at highway speed, and reduced weight (esp. from smaller engines) reduce energy demands for acceleration.  There are a lot of cars out there which get 50% better mileage than the target RWD platforms, they just have to emulate them.

if the "much simpler elec/hybrid CVT" was indeed cheaper in materials to manufacturer and required less labor, then GM would do it anyway and pay guys to stay home.

That's gotta change, no doubt about it.

I'm not sure that CVT is the thing that will save us all, they do have some problems.

I think the action is heading towards automated manual transmissions (AMT). I.e. a "normal" manual transmission + clutch that is operated by a computer controlled mechanism. These avoid the lower efficiency associated with a classic automatic transmission, in fact they are often more efficient than a manual transmission since humans tend to forget what the optimum gear for every situation is. Heavy duty vehicles (trucks, busses etc.) are moving this way in a major way, and it's slowly starting to catch on in passenger vehicles too. At least VW and Reanult sell cars with AMT:s.

These transmissions will be used in vehicles from the Corvette to SUV's, not heavy trucks.

There are ways to make a CVT for a truck; I was personally involved with such a project.  But what these things need is both efficiency and a technological bridge to hybrid models; electric CVT's a la the Prius fill the bill, 6-speed automatics don't.

The use of a variable displacement hydraulic pump would create an cvt for heavy trucks. Some heavy construction vehicles already use this system.

Throw in a switched reluctance generator and you're looking at 9%-14% improvement in efficiency for heavy duty vehicles. Anyone know if the auto manufacturers are looking to incorporate SRGs into mainstream or hybrid designs? It seems like a no-brainer, but then I'm not an engineer.

1-2 mpg saving in a 15 mpg tank is irrelevant.

What does not make sence to me is the indolence of management. If they wanted to keep the gargling sound of a v8 which all the rednecks adore, they could make a hybrid v8. That could be both more efficient and more powerful.

With regards to the 50% improvement, of course its possible. You just have to go from 1960's 8 valve pushrod crap to 20 valve VVT hybrid stuff, or turbo diesel of equivalent capacity.

Gm prolly cant make drastic moves they are a very... slow changing conpany at best and weighted down with a very slow changing union its not gona look good anyway you slice it. Ford is however changing much faster then gm but then ford managed to avoid many of the union health care plan pitfalls gm fell right into AND ford made some very important partnerships with japanese companies early on.

The good news is if gm tanks ford will then become much stronger.