2nd Generation (GE 08-13) 2nd Generation specific talk and questions here.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

2009 Fit Fuel Efficiency: MT vs AT

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #1  
Old 08-24-2008, 07:21 PM
larkspur's Avatar
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 15
Question 2009 Fit Fuel Efficiency: MT vs AT

Hello all,
This is my first post in the forum, I just recently registered though I've been lurking since last spring. I've been wanting a Fit forever and it's finally going to happen, I'm planning on getting an 09 Sport with a manual transmission. The idea of getting the manual was to achieve maximum fuel efficiency, but now I am reading that the automatic gets slightly better than the manual. I've heard some talk of gear ratios but I don't really understand what it all means. I'm not a 'showy' driver; I build up speed slowly, go 60-65 on the highway, basically 'drive like grandma'. Is it still possible to get the best fuel efficiency with a manual transmission with careful, efficient handling of the car? Or will the automatic really do better?
Thanks!
 
  #2  
Old 08-24-2008, 08:13 PM
niko3257's Avatar
FitFreak GE8 DIY Guy
5 Year Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Palm Coast FLA
Posts: 1,929
the auto could do 2-5 mpg more
but like anyone would say.
it's all about how you drive.
i'm still getting the stick cause it's not as
bad as people make it out to be.
 
  #3  
Old 08-24-2008, 08:28 PM
Hootie's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 5,034
It all depends on what kind of conditions your going to be driving and how you drive. The manual trans is best when your driving in the city because its gearing is shorter than the auto and you'll be able to skip gears and coast in neutral in and around traffic. The automatics are geared for highway cruising because of their longer gearing. At a speed of 80 MPH the auto is churning out 3k RPMS in its final gear while the manual is around 4k RPM in 5th and may possibly be in VTEC.

So for daily city driving get a manual, you'll have more control over your gears. For daily cruising or highway get an auto, the lower gear ratio helps greatly at those speeds.
 
  #4  
Old 08-24-2008, 08:45 PM
pcs0snq's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: lake worth FL
Posts: 1,049
The manual Fit will get on avg 5mpg better then the Auto.
Go look at the MPG polls on this site in the Eco area.

I made this list up from data on another site

 
  #5  
Old 08-24-2008, 10:28 PM
ProMed's Avatar
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by pcs0snq
The manual Fit will get on avg 5mpg better then the Auto.
Go look at the MPG polls on this site in the Eco area.

I made this list up from data on another site..
The 09 Manual has shorter gear ratios than the 07/08 models in your list. I am guessing this will make it pretty tough for the 09 manual to top the 09 auto on the highway.
 
  #6  
Old 08-24-2008, 10:54 PM
TOOL's Avatar
Retired Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Ramon, CA
Posts: 9,487
Yeah as said above, MPG has more to do with your right foot then the transmission you choose.
I say go with the Tranny that you would enjoy the most.
 
  #7  
Old 08-24-2008, 11:14 PM
zukered's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Hootie
So for daily city driving get a manual, you'll have more control over your gears. For daily cruising or highway get an auto, the lower gear ratio helps greatly at those speeds.
I'd add a caveat: if I were stuck in stop-and-go rush hour traffic every day, I'd almost certainly want an automatic for the convenience, even with its extra cost and poorer city fuel economy.

The rare days that I drive to work instead of bus, I've definitely questioned my decision to buy MT, despite saving almost $2500 over an AT (thank you, Eco-rebate!).

Some passengers also question this decision because of my still-jerky shifts from 1st to 2nd, but that's a different story
 
  #8  
Old 08-24-2008, 11:41 PM
solbrothers's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vallejo, Ca
Posts: 7,343
Originally Posted by ProMed
The 09 Manual has shorter gear ratios than the 07/08 models in your list. I am guessing this will make it pretty tough for the 09 manual to top the 09 auto on the highway.
not necessarily. its isnt about the RPM, its about the throttle position
 
  #9  
Old 08-24-2008, 11:42 PM
solbrothers's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vallejo, Ca
Posts: 7,343
Originally Posted by TOOL
Yeah as said above, MPG has more to do with your right foot then the transmission you choose.
I say go with the Tranny that you would enjoy the most.
you are learning tyler :hugs:
 
  #10  
Old 08-25-2008, 12:52 PM
ProMed's Avatar
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by solbrothers
not necessarily. its isnt about the RPM, its about the throttle position
I understand that, but it will be harder to match the 07/08 manual mpg with the 09 manual because of the lower gear ratios, especially on the highway.
 
  #11  
Old 08-25-2008, 01:00 PM
Juliane's Avatar
Someone that spends HER life on FitFreak.net
5 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 2,963
Originally Posted by larkspur
Hello all,
This is my first post in the forum, I just recently registered though I've been lurking since last spring. I've been wanting a Fit forever and it's finally going to happen, I'm planning on getting an 09 Sport with a manual transmission. The idea of getting the manual was to achieve maximum fuel efficiency, but now I am reading that the automatic gets slightly better than the manual. I've heard some talk of gear ratios but I don't really understand what it all means. I'm not a 'showy' driver; I build up speed slowly, go 60-65 on the highway, basically 'drive like grandma'. Is it still possible to get the best fuel efficiency with a manual transmission with careful, efficient handling of the car? Or will the automatic really do better?
Thanks!
I liked the feel of the MT and was ready to buy one, but then thinking about all the stop and go driving I do, where I go from one red light to the next one, I decided to get the AT instead. To me, getting the AT Sport offers the best of all worlds - you can shift if you want to in Sport mode, but you don't have to do it if you don't want to.

If I had more straight runs with the car in higher gears, I'd have gotten the MT. Every gallon of gas saved is good. But for ease and pleasure of driving, I went with the AT. Either transmission will give you great mileage, don't worry about 1-2 mpg.

p.s. If you get the MT, I'm willing to bet you will stop driving "like grandma!" I dare you not to red-line it a few times...insane fun!
 
  #12  
Old 08-25-2008, 03:05 PM
mahout's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NC USA
Posts: 4,371
Originally Posted by larkspur
Hello all,
This is my first post in the forum, I just recently registered though I've been lurking since last spring. I've been wanting a Fit forever and it's finally going to happen, I'm planning on getting an 09 Sport with a manual transmission. The idea of getting the manual was to achieve maximum fuel efficiency, but now I am reading that the automatic gets slightly better than the manual. I've heard some talk of gear ratios but I don't really understand what it all means. I'm not a 'showy' driver; I build up speed slowly, go 60-65 on the highway, basically 'drive like grandma'. Is it still possible to get the best fuel efficiency with a manual transmission with careful, efficient handling of the car? Or will the automatic really do better?
Thanks!

The mpg ratings are determined on very carefully computer-controlled 'routes' that control both acceleration, speed, deceleration, and power loads so a valid comparison between vehicles isaccomplished. There are 2 trials, one a city route and the other a highway route. )you can google the actual testfrom DOT or NHTSA. Believe me, few drivers drive like that.
The differences between cars is mostly due to weight and gears in the transmission. Ultimately its how many revolutions the engine makes for every revolution of the drive wheels. including the tires. Its mostly expressed by mphper 1000 rpm. If you engine turns a steady 2000 rpm for you to go a mile in a minute then your vehicle is geared for 30 mph per 1000 rpm in that gear.
In another gear or another vehicle you may have to use 3000 rpm to go a mile in a minute. (60 mph) That is 20 mph per 1000 rpm.
When one vehicle is geared so the engine turns over less revolutions in a mile than another vehicle then you can expect that car to get better mpg.
In Fits case the automatic is way overgeared for interstat travel so it gets better mpg than the manual on the interstate. Maybe. Naturally it pays for that in reduced acceleration and top speed. On a track where the maximum speed is 100 mph the automatic will run in the first 3 gears while the manual will use at least 4 and possibly 5.
Simple. but here's the kicker: the mpg ratings don't account for aero resistance so they have to 'correct' by accurate means (using Cd drag numbers) or a guessimate based on similar cars. In truth the manual should get better mpg all around.
 
  #13  
Old 08-26-2008, 06:25 AM
ProMed's Avatar
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 519
  #14  
Old 08-26-2008, 10:37 AM
cyclefit's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 73
Wow, this is getting tough to justify getting the manual. I have a manual ordered but these rpm's at highway speed are worrying me. Maybe I am just being paranoind.

Can someone convince me the manual is the way to go?
 
  #15  
Old 08-26-2008, 10:59 AM
troch1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Marlton, NJ
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by cyclefit
Wow, this is getting tough to justify getting the manual. I have a manual ordered but these rpm's at highway speed are worrying me. Maybe I am just being paranoind.

Can someone convince me the manual is the way to go?

If you are a primary highway cruiser, and your top priority is fuel economy, then it appears the AT is the way to go.

The MT is geared for more "sporty" driving with the benefits and downsides that come with that. For me, I like to have complete control over whatever I'm driving and I actually enjoy shifting myself, especially when I have stetch of country roads. I'm willing to give up 2-3mpg for that experience.

You need to figure out what your priorities are.

Mark
 
  #16  
Old 08-26-2008, 11:50 AM
cyclefit's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 73
Yeah, I am an MT guy, being that I just sold my WRX to pruchase and 09 Fit. My wife will do a lot of highway, and I assumed better mpg with the MT based on the mpg polls on the ECO board.

I am totally good with the MT, minus a couple mpg. I want a fun car to drive too, but I might catch some heat if she finds out the auto is more efficient on the highway. If it's 1-2 mpg no big deal, but 800 rmp difference @ ~70mph is a lot.
 
  #17  
Old 08-26-2008, 12:26 PM
txmatt's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 524
Interesting that Temple of VTEC got almost 39mpg on their couple hours of mixed driving. Ran across this link that also says the new Fit may very well be pushing 40mpg in combined driving, well above the EPA ratings.

2009 Honda Fit: Zippy and Fuel Sipping - BusinessWeek

Once you're at this level of efficiency, 2, 3, or 4 mpg difference is almost negligible. The AT vs MT decision is really more about convenience vs control, a little extra engine noise on the highway with the MT, and whether you're willing to take the acceleration hit for the auto.
 
  #18  
Old 08-26-2008, 02:45 PM
troch1's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Marlton, NJ
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by txmatt
Interesting that Temple of VTEC got almost 39mpg on their couple hours of mixed driving. Ran across this link that also says the new Fit may very well be pushing 40mpg in combined driving, well above the EPA ratings.

2009 Honda Fit: Zippy and Fuel Sipping - BusinessWeek

Once you're at this level of efficiency, 2, 3, or 4 mpg difference is almost negligible. The AT vs MT decision is really more about convenience vs control, a little extra engine noise on the highway with the MT, and whether you're willing to take the acceleration hit for the auto.

Unfortunately that number was determined by the on-board car-puter, which are notoriously inaccurate in my experience. Don't get me wrong, I hope it's close, but no way an EPA rated 27mpg city car will get 39mpg in the hands of heavy-footed auto-journalists.

Mark
 
  #19  
Old 08-26-2008, 03:00 PM
txmatt's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 524
Originally Posted by troch1
Unfortunately that number was determined by the on-board car-puter, which are notoriously inaccurate in my experience. Don't get me wrong, I hope it's close, but no way an EPA rated 27mpg city car will get 39mpg in the hands of heavy-footed auto-journalists.

Mark
My experience is the opposite... the onboard units and ScanGauges are usually within 1-2mpg. Even a 5% error, which would be pretty big, it's still only 2 mpg off.
 
  #20  
Old 08-27-2008, 08:22 PM
larkspur's Avatar
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 15
Thanks for all the info and advice everyone. I'm still not entirely decided on what to do...this is frustrating! Ideally I'd want to test drive both and find out first hand what each transmission is like, but I don't know if I'll have that luxury with these cars in such high demand and my '91 Buick Regal about to disintegrate into a pile of rust. I need a new car NOW! About 2/3 of my commute is on the highway, but I do a bit of driving around town too. Not really city driving, kind of rural town driving. I don't think it's the 1-2 MPG difference that really bothers me so much as the initial decision to go manual was because I thought there would be a significant advantage in fuel economy. Now that that's not so much the case, maybe I might as well go with the automatic because it's easier? I enjoy driving stick but it can be frustrating at times too. I don't know what to do!
 


Quick Reply: 2009 Fit Fuel Efficiency: MT vs AT



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:39 AM.