2nd Generation (GE 08-present)The New Fit... Generation specific talk and questions here.
Welcome to Fit Freak!
Welcome to Fit Freak,
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
And the auto trans weighs 84-86 lbs more, and has more drive-train loss. I don't believe it.
Automatics are tall-geared. Change the final drive ratio on any vehicle, and mileage will suffer. The Element is the same - I had an '06 with a manual. At 70 on the freeway, its 2.4L was screaming along at 3500 RPM.
The rating spread is even bigger on there. 20/25 with the auto, 18/23 with the manual.
FOr a real surprise, look at a Nissan Sentra, with the 2.0L. 26/34 with the CVT (about the same as the Fit Sports 27/33) vs 24/31 with a manual.
Yeah 3k rpms is pretty normal for a Honda. I've consistently gotten more MPG than all of the EPA estimates on all my Hondas (5, 4 M/Ts). The numbers for the Fit are low to begin with anyway and most are in agreement on this site on that. I'm happy with the MPG I get, but I'm not surprised, Honda is awesome.
Aye the automatic has taller gears cruising highway rpms are only 2.5k. The torque converter allows this because it can vary infinitly from 2:1 to 1:1 when the stator is locked. so although the gears appear taller at a 1:1 ratio they are fairly similar when the torque converter is considered. Regardless power is still lost.
whats up with that? if i knew that i would have gotten an automatic!
With the Added weight and taller gear, the automatic may save a tiny bit on gas but seriously loses out in acceleration. I read somewhere there is a 2 or 3 second difference between the manual and auto in 0-60 runs, even with the paddle shifters.
~SB
__________________ 2009 Honda Fit Sport
Economy(calculated): AVG - 37.06mpg @ 8695 miles | Best - 41.89mpg | Last - 38.46 mpg Current Upgrades: Graco Nautulus "High Performance" Car Seat | Valentine1 | Bell Thermometer | Parrot Minikit Slim
Former/Current Cars: '86 Prelude Si. 2.0 | '93 Integra GS | '98 Civic EX | '00 Integra GS-R | '06 Ridgeline RTS | 07 Altima 3.5SE
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Aye the automatic has taller gears cruising highway rpms are only 2.5k. The torque converter allows this because it can vary infinitly from 2:1 to 1:1 when the stator is locked. so although the gears appear taller at a 1:1 ratio they are fairly similar when the torque converter is considered. Regardless power is still lost.
When the lockup torque converter is engaged, it's a direct link, just like any manual. A clutch engages and there is no fluid coupling, so no parasitic losses. Since the lockup can unlock at any time, there is extra torque on hand for passing (as well as downshifts when necessary). Somehow I think there is a sizeable contingent that would scream bloody murder if they had to regularly shift out of 5th by hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by specboy
With the Added weight and taller gear, the automatic may save a tiny bit on gas but seriously loses out in acceleration. I read somewhere there is a 2 or 3 second difference between the manual and auto in 0-60 runs, even with the paddle shifters.
If I cared a bit about 0-60 runs, I sure wouldn't be driving a little Fit. That's like noting that a Jeep Wrangler doesn't corner all that well, or that a Corvette doesn't have much in the way of cargo-hauling space! Still quite an entertaining little car!
With the Added weight and taller gear, the automatic may save a tiny bit on gas but seriously loses out in acceleration. I read somewhere there is a 2 or 3 second difference between the manual and auto in 0-60 runs, even with the paddle shifters.
~SB
yeah but seriously.. iam driving a honda fit.. i don't need it to be fast lol. if i wanted acceleration i would have bought a S2000, i got this thing to try and save gas..
in a way.. it doesn't really matter cuz i PREFER driving manual, but i think its kinda jacked up to how manuals suffer more on the highway. highway is about all the driving i do on this car. i guess i should have researched the car more before i bought it.. i basicaly bought this thing for looks and... hoping to save gas.
whats up with that? if i knew that i would have gotten an automatic!
AT gearing is much better than manual on the interstate. At 70 mph the manual rpm is 3500 rpm while AT is 2525. Theoteically thats 60% higher mpg for the AT compared to manual. The manual is much easier to hypermile than the AT thoough.
Around town the manual is more efficient but at interstate speeds the AT overcomes its mechanical deficiency with much better gearing.
Unless you drive mostly interstate you won't see that advantage.
Next time you buy you should check the mpg ratings first if its that important.
EPA test methods are out of whack and worthless when comparing Fit auto/manual.
Go down to the ECO-Fit forum and look at the Mileage reports.
Average out the first ten Auto trans reports and I get 30.1 mpg. The first ten Manual trans reports gets 35.8 mpg.
Under real driving conditions the manual will almost always get better mileage than an auto even with the gearing difference.
If I cared a bit about 0-60 runs, I sure wouldn't be driving a little Fit. That's like noting that a Jeep Wrangler doesn't corner all that well, or that a Corvette doesn't have much in the way of cargo-hauling space! Still quite an entertaining little car!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vash
yeah but seriously.. iam driving a honda fit.. i don't need it to be fast lol. if i wanted acceleration i would have bought a S2000, i got this thing to try and save gas..
ok... so for some reason everyone now thinks I'm talking about 0-60 runs as being pertinent... not so much. That was a reference to what I had heard elsewhere but, it does have some validity as it shows the power difference between the two. Where it will matter is dropping gears to pass or getting up to speed on a short on-ramp. It is in situations like these where the manual transmission will be much more capable. Imagine what the Auto would be like if it didn't have paddle shifters. The performance difference would also be beneficial if you decide to go on some canyon runs (country road runs here in VT). Granted, it's no S2000 or Miata but hey, I'm not dead, I want to enjoy the ride and save money. I think I made a good choice. I'd have kept the Altima if I was looking for more power.
If acceleration was important, you could also do alot better for the price of an S2000 as well. STI or EVO comes to mind.
~SB
__________________ 2009 Honda Fit Sport
Economy(calculated): AVG - 37.06mpg @ 8695 miles | Best - 41.89mpg | Last - 38.46 mpg Current Upgrades: Graco Nautulus "High Performance" Car Seat | Valentine1 | Bell Thermometer | Parrot Minikit Slim
Former/Current Cars: '86 Prelude Si. 2.0 | '93 Integra GS | '98 Civic EX | '00 Integra GS-R | '06 Ridgeline RTS | 07 Altima 3.5SE
It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
![Lyon[Nightroad]'s Avatar](http://www.fitfreak.net/forums/customavatars/avatar31469_2.gif){kind=avatar}
Parrot Minikit Slim 
... cruising at 15mph. 
Linear Mode
