Wow! What a huge step forward towards oil independency.

In Europe, most of the cars have manual transmission and those available with automatic have 6 speeds. Just look at Volkswagen: Already in 2004, the automatic option for a VW Golf was six speed and the same for 80% of all other models.

The USA was once world technology leader. Where are they today. Shame.

How would this better than CVT?

CVT's have higher mechanical loss and are less reliable than a conventional AT with lockup torque converter. GM's huge, 300+ horsepower Tahoe gets the same fuel economy as Honda's smaller, lighter, 200-something horsepower Ridgeline. 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.

"GM's huge, 300+ horsepower Tahoe gets the same fuel economy as Honda's smaller, lighter, 200-something horsepower Ridgeline."
First of all it is not fair comparison. One is a pickup another is SUV. If anything Tahoe should be compared to Pilot. Both more or less same size SUV.
Even if you compare those two you need to assume that:
both of them will drive at 55 mph with very light foot. I bet that Ridgeline is going to be a lot more efficient at 80 mph then Tahoe. Just because GM engineers are good at setting a car for EPA test doesn't mean that you will see it in real life. That why they don't get any respect.
We'll see how Tahoe do with 6 speed transmission when it is compared to Riceburners, for know no praise for GM.

A small improvement is better than no improvement at all.

I would like to see what the development & production cost difference is between this 6 speed AT and a dual clutch "SMG" type gear box.

A CVT built to develop a high enough starting gear ratio could completely remove the need for a torque convertor making it more efficient than an automatic or manual but many people are *unsettled* by the manner in which a CVT equipped car behaves (staying at peak torque or efficiency rpm constantly while the speed increases).

Also: Tahoe 4wd is 295 hp vs 247 hp for Honda Ridgeline. I think that puts it in better perspective than calling the Tahoe a 300 and the Ridgeline 200 something.

Good job on quoting the OLD Tahoe. The 2007 (which is what all Tahoes on dealership lots for the last 3 months are) is rated at 16/22 in 2WD and 16/21 in 4WD. The 2007 Tahoe is 320 horsepower. It achieves those figures with the old 4-speed, so yes, it will be even better when they give it the new 6-speed like the Corvette (almost the same engine) has.

Sorry, but I did not realize you were talking about 2007 and did not realize data was available for the 2007. However, I still don't see the relevance of the comparison in the context of the CVT transmission.

No, the new Tahoe is based on the GMT900 platform which is BRAND NEW, not "several generations old." Are you all on the Honda/Toyota payroll or something? No one in the universe makes a real truck or SUV with a CVT transmission because they are weak and crappy. Nissan offers a CVT with their minivan, I mean wannabe SUV, the Moron-oh, which isn't a fair comparison since it's just a jacked up Nissan Maxima station wagon in reality.

I don't understand why any of you are hung up on this "GM sucks because they only have a 6-speed and not a CVT" when there's almost no CVT's on the market except for hype-rids, which only get 26-32mpg according to Consumer Reports anyway. The Civic's CVT only lasts about 60-100k miles anyway, and that's with it only having 100 ft-lbs of torque in the first place. They've had reliability problems with their CVT's ever since the 1996 Civic HX and still can't make them as reliable as a conventional automatic. Weak!

I don't think the current CVT designs would be well suited to towing heavy loads without massive R&D on materials and design, probably a much more expensive route to take, but they are essentially taking it with the hybrid transmission being partly eCVT and partly conventional, but I don't expect it to be cheap.

The Pilot gets better gas mileage...albeit with a less powerful V-6 but the vehicle "size" (interior space) is rated the same as the Tahoe.

Up until the mid 90s CVTs were used on little 3 cylinder 60hp motors. They have made vast improvements but they are not going to be capable of handling the torque and loads from a large vehicle.

I want to know if there was really that much greater cost do develop a tranny similar to what VW/Audi use (their dual clutch). It would have been more efficient...not sure if the average american would have embraced it in mass production or if they have ever put one of those in a heavy chassis designed for towing with a motor that puts out alot of torque.

I will never buy a GM product. Not after this:

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

What VW is doing in Brazil is not comparable to what GM is doing in the United States. GM, in the U.S. is primarily taking advangage of a loophole which permits them to meet CAFE standards by just considering the gasoline used with E85. This is especially absurd when one considers that the vast majority of drivers will be using gasoline, not E85, when driving their vehicles. It also pretends that their in no oil or fossil fuel use in the manufacture of ethanol.

Having said that, I don't think VW deserves praise or admonition for their actions in Brazil. They were just making a production decision which just makes senses given the pervasiveness of ethanol in that market.

The fact that GM has improved the efficiency of the Tahoe is a good thing. However, I would hope that the only people driving these large vehicles are those who truly need it for whatever particular occupation they are in that really needs this kind of power. When I see single occupants driving their 330 hp Tahoes to their office jobs, I have little sympathy for their alleged needs for that kind of vehicle.

I must admit that GM's "go yellow" campaign leaves a bad taste in my mouth
as it will do very little for the environment and is just a b.s. marketing campaign.

GM isn't simply taking advantage of the regulatory and politicial environment. They help shape that environment throught their lobbying and campaign contributions.

I might add that I am not leaving Toyota off the hook on this subject as they are in bed with GM in opposing California's attempt to cut greenhouse emissions from autos. However, correct me if I am wrong, but last I checked Honda is not part of that particular coalition.