I don't think it is likely that will ever happen with 2 totally stock vehicles.

However, there are a few articles written last year that included actual 0 - 60 times as seen by the reporter while testing the vehicle. There's no way to know how accurate they really are, but by all accounts that I can find the CVT is slower by as little as half a second to as much as a second and a half.

Honda Fit 0-60 Times - 0-60 Specs

2015 Honda Fit Road Test Specs | Edmunds.com

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...t-ex-specs.pdf

Honda 0-60 Times & Honda Quarter Mile Times | Honda Civic, Accord, CR-V, CRX, Ridgeline, Pilot & more 0 to 60 stats!

2015 Honda Fit EX L Navi review notes | Autoweek

Could a CVT be setup to be faster than a manual? Sure, absolutely. But with this particular car at this particular time, and the whole car stock from the factory, the 2015 Fit CVT is slower.

 

Ah, but it has.
Three of us who have the same year and model with same lowered suspensions, disconnected FASB, 15x7 rims with 45 mm offset mounting 205/50x15 tires Dunlop Direzzas, Hawk pads, front stock rear pads. only one auto and the other two manual.
Result of laps at VIR, a 3.27 mile road course, with; each driver having 3 sessions in each had them running within a range of 2:45 to 2:50 with all drivers. And no advantage for any one vehicle.
No engine mods or exhaust mods. here you have to pass an emissions test for inspection. total laps about 16 on each car.
partlyclear day, temp 82F
We did see about 3mph difference at ends of straights but no braking differences either. the reason for equality is the automatic has gearing a little bit more useable at VIR; the manuals ranout of rpm a bit sooner.
we measured the mpg ou of curiosity and found no difference between the autoand manuals, all 3 about 12-14 mpg.
The autocross troops say the same thing. the auto takes lerss shifting.\ps all three drivers are ex SCCA, IMSA, and a/x pilots with a few championships on the walls.
And they are 10 se faster than a Prissy and 10 sec slower than a stock Beetle 2.5 non turbo. 15 slower than a stock CRX

 

Any hard documentation for this? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Also, you say "same year and model". Which year and model? I thought we were discussing the 2015 model year specifically.

 

No indepenfent verification.
We ran an auto 08 and a manual 08 and a manual 09. Data only in our logbooks. We ran them just for the heck of it and agreed with out assessment that the manuals have max torque at lower speeds than the automatics. don't have specs here but lasI remember there is 10-15 mph higher for autos at max torque where acceleration is best than the manuals. the manuals get a jump early the autos catch up where it counts when turns are 50 mph +.
The autocross guys ssy that matters to them too unles the a/x is very tight but I dunno about that.
We have no 2015's in our group but I don't see much difference no matter the year s the transmission ratios havent changed that much.
I wonder if manuals equipped with auto final drive would be better;seems the SCCA sb class winning mazda2 has somewhat better gearing closer to the Fit auto and probably the reason it won. and teah the Maz2 has better chassis too.

 

MyFreakFit- Don't bother. He's asked about that before, and he's been told. But he doesn't listen because... I can't shift, so I got an auto, so autos R00L! You get used to seeing that kind of thing.

Exactly! But you miss your own point: a lightning fast shift at the wrong moment is still a shift at the wrong moment, however quickly it's executed. Under constant, predictable loads like accelerating from zero all the way up through the gears, autos can shine. But that's not driving. Like you say, driving is about changing speed and direction and I'd rather not nurse an automatic through that.

If you have time to set up your line into a turn, do you not also have time to get in the proper gear before you're on the gas? I try not to have everything be a panicked reaction. I'd rather do the shifting myself than wait for the pressure sensor in the valve body to scream at the PCM to tell the shift solenoid what to do. Sure, you'll get a great shift then, but I wanted to be in that gear before I hit the gas. Are performance cars really doing away with manuals in favor of automatics, or are they just doing away with foot-actuated clutches? Paddle shifters are wonderful things if you're getting fast, reliable shifts from an actual gearbox. On the other hand a real (regular or CVT) hidden behind paddle shifters is a joke. A bad one.

 

its not whether you have the time to shift, its how long your drive wheels are not connected to the engine. The less time the engine is not connected to the drive wheels the slower the lap time. Thats true accelerating and braking; shifting is a distraction. Like texting the more you have to concentrate the less you're driving. And when to shift is the important item in driving, not how you do it. the quicker the better. Humans will never beat a machine shifting gears especially whe rpm matching is involved. If its not as good or quick manuals comein second to modern automatics.
and the difference inacceleration from 0 to 60 is strictly the gearing.

 

My point is that when should I shift and how quickly can I shift are two very different things. Apples and oranges, one might say.

The word automatic gets a bad rep because until pretty recently they couldn't get a real transmission to be shifted automatically. Now that they can, it's expensive and most cars don't get those. To make gearshifts happen without people bothering to drive, they had to make crippled things with torque converters or belts, and for most cars that's what automatic means.

As it is, a lot of the shifting in a manual has been automated for a long time, and that's wonderful. Now they're using dual clutch setups to automate it further and that's even better. But my little Honda and the newest Porsche or the hottest F1 car share two critical features- they have a solid connection between the engine and the wheels with real gears, and the driver decides when to shift. The differences past that are really just a matter of priorities and budget: I don't have their money and can easily afford a few thousandths of a second on my commute, so a regular clutch does just fine for me.

That any automatic shifting mechanism can shift faster than a person should be a given. But as long as we're using traditional automatics it's also irrelevant, and if we're using a CVT then the whole concept of "shifting" is ridiculous- it gives up the continuously variable part to feel familiar. The bit of time I give up by not having a DDC is more than made up for by not having to pay for it, but the slop in the automatic shift mechanisms available in regular cars is unacceptable. I'm driving, not passenging.

 

I've actually found the paddle shifters useful despite what is said about them on a CVT, though it's limited to mountain roads I know well. Because I know what the road will do and the transmission doesn't, I can use the paddles to hold the motor to a rev band I want and get the feel I'm looking for in the car. It's not racing, just mild performance driving. A dance if done with these roads for over 50 years.

 

We compared a Fit CVT vs manual just for shifting and found the CVT to 'shift' quicker than the manual. The difference in acceleraion to 60 mph is due strictly to the difference in trans gears and final drive gear. A 6 speed auto would liely beat a maual with sqame final drive gear.
The dec/an issue of R&T had an interesting note on their Porsche GT3 vs Viper lap times: the GT3 lapped 0.18 sec quicker than the manual viper due to taking 1.8 seconds less shift time, We found it true with Fits, manual vs auto, on track.
Wanting manual tranies is like choosing carburetors or cross bias tires. It only matters if its better.

 

just so happens the dec/jan issue had an inteesting comment in their comparison of a GT3 vs Viper: the GT3 with notably less power was .18 sec / lap faster than the viper becuse the shfift times in the manual viper took 1.8 seconds longer.
hows that for verification.
course manufacturers all know that which is why manuals aren't offered. tradition is for the slow, not the fast.
cheers

 

So whatever occurs in a viper automatically makes the same thing true in every other vehicle on the planet? Good to know. I guess tuning means absolutely nothing even when the manufacturer intentionally tunes the CVT version of their car to be slower for whatever reason.

 

It's been quite a few years since I gave up the MT for city driving, but with the '15 Fit CVT, I gain satisfaction in-town from shutting off the ECON button, nixing the VSA system, and entering 'launch' mode to whatever extent the driving conditions/circumstances allow/require. No, not a sport car, but a very responsive and competent ride. But you would definitely have to give it a test drive to see how it clicks for you.

 

No, but the fact that someone managed to automate the shifting of a real transmission does make every Godforsaken torque converter and belt drive on the planet somehow better than an actual gearbox. Because there's a similarity in the number of pedals, which means more than the transmission's innards.

Especially if it has paddle shifters, because racecar.

 

I find it amusing that some folks say "I want a transmission with Real Gears because F1 cars have Real Gears."

The fact is that F1 cars have manually-shifted gearboxes because it's in the rules! At the currently state of the art it is possible to produce an automatic gearbox that can out-shift any human so manual shifting is required to provide an opportunity for drivers to make mistakes.

Jim Clark proved the value of automatic shifting way back when with his Chaparral cars. A crude, horribly inefficient, but smooth, torque converter transmission combined with engines with excess power produced a car where the driver could concentrate on driving, not being a controller for the drivetrain. Left-foot braking and no need to back off the throttle to shift gears gave his cars a half-length advantage out of every corner.

Of course, the technology was banned by the sanctioning body at the demand of Hall's competitors. Can't have some upstart Texan taking home all the trophies just because he had engineering skills to match his driving skills!

The CVT is remarkably similar to the Chaparral transmission in its power delivery, but has the further advantage of a firm connection between engine and wheels for better economy.

Ordinary drivers don't use manual gearboxes in any way close to an optimal manner. They tend to shift early and leave the transmission in a higher gear than it should be. This isn't bad for economy or engine longevity, but it isn't the way to get the best performance from the vehicle. The only performance advantage the manual gearbox has now is the ability to rev up the engine and launch the car using energy stored in the flywheel. This is really the only reason that MT vehicles are a few tenths faster at the dragstrip and this does not translate to better performance in the "onramp grand prix" with a rolling start. For overall economy, manual gearboxes also fail because manufacturers won't provide the tall ratios needed for optimal cruise economy. The reason is because any hill would require the car to be shifted down and most drivers (including those professional magazine writers) would view this as a sign of the car being underpowered.

I like manual gearboxes and all three of my cars are sticks, but I can also see that we've reached the tipping point where the gearshift will go the way of the spark advance lever.

 

I don't know how in the world this thread devolved into a debate about whether CVTs or automatic transmissions in general COULD be faster or technologically better than manual transmissions. Obviously, anything is possible and, without a doubt, there are some CVTs and automatics on the planet that are engineered to be faster/better than their manual counterparts in the same vehicle. I don't see anybody here saying otherwise.

The discussion about the CVT vs. manual 2015 Fit specifically, and every published comparison report I can find about the subject, indicates that the manual is faster with all things being stock. 0 - 60 anyway.

 

True, but the only reason for the difference in 0-60 is because you can store a bit of energy in the flywheel and then use it to launch the car by slipping the clutch. If you abuse your clutch like this regularly you will be paying for a replacement soon. This doesn't concern the test drivers at Motor Trend but those of us who pay our own bills tend to forgo that second of E.T. for reasonable clutch life.

The more relevant numbers for normal driving are those for rolling starts. Keep in mind that rolling starts typically involve a downshift so a manual gearbox car won't be accelerating until that downshift is accomplished. A CVT will be accelerating somewhat even as it changes ratio.

 

FitCharlie: I don't think the purpose of the dual clutch is to increase automation but rather bring the amount of torque loss between shifts to practically 0.

GeorgeL: I'm pretty sure they don't make automatic shifting "against the rules" to encourage driver error rather that they want to keep "gear selection" in the hands of the driver because that is part of the sport. I doubt that shifting in an F1 car is anything like a foot operated clutch, it is probably an electronically shifted gearbox but it is nothing like a CVT or a torque converter.

Since we are driving cheapo foot operated clutch cars, the comparison to a Bugatti Veyron or a F1 car is not relevant.

 

Umm, what's the difference? Errors are "part of the sport" and a driver who misses a shift or selects the wrong gear will lose ground to a driver who shifts correctly. The rules forbid full auto transmissions to keep the possibility of error in play.

Yes it is, but the choice of when and which way to shift is the driver's to do correctly or mess up. Hit the wrong paddle and it's no champagne for him!.

Comparisons are valid when people come up with claims that manual gearboxes are better because various racing cars are shifted manually. Where automatics are allowed, such as on trophy trucks, oval tracks, and drag racing, they tend to dominate.

 

Hey you.

A Fit with a CVT is not a race car.

It is closer on the overall spectrum of motorvehicles to a Yamaha Zuma than it is to a Mercedes W05.

 

Nor is a Fit with a 6MT.

We're comparing technologies and their applicability to tasks. CVTs are pretty well optimized to the main task of a Fit, hauling people around economically.

The MT used to be the economy winner simply due to lower frictional losses, but this advantage is now muted by unavailability of tall cruising ratios and improvement in CVT efficiency.

Now, if you want to play Walter Mitty Racer the 6MT is great fun, as are the paddles and artificially fixed ratios with the CVT. They'll both provide great entertainment for the driver.

A very skilled driver, paying close attention, might be able to get around a race track or down a drag strip a fraction quicker with the 6MT by using stored energy judiciously.

Lower the attention level to that of everyday driving and the CVT will likely be better in the long run. The CVT doesn't get tired of shifting and won't leave itself in a too-high gear just to avoid a downshift.