i drove an automatic for years (my civic) but bought my fit sport in manual without even knowing how to drive it. I can tell you I love it, and I am no longer bored while driving... still getting a few of the herky jerkies, but i'm working on it... i totally don't regret my decision
__________________
Milano Red Sport M/T aka "Runtie" "She shifts like buttah"
5% rear tint
5% 6" front tint brow
Int. illumination - Red
3M protection
deciding on intake
Um M/T because the Fit only has 100 frickin horsepower to begin with and when you shove a sludgebox auto on there it tend to sap away much needed power.
M/T: More power. More control, More durable, and makes you appear somewhat cooler cause you can drive a stick "Ouuuuu"
i think its more of a personal prefrence than anything.both have thier strong points:
typically manuals are cheaper, get better gas milage(excluding cvt), feel peppier , can hold more power, are cheaper to repair/rebuild.more fun and dont forget if your battery dies you can push start it
automatics provide a more comfortable ride as you just push and go, stop and go traffic is not a hassle. easier to eat/drink/smoke/talk on phone while driving. auto trannys can be modified to hook up on a drag strip very well and consistantly. and if you ever get a little to wasted its easier to find someone to drive you home
i have never driven the auto fit sport, but its my understanding that it is a very nice setup, the paddle shifters combined with the drive by wire system help it to always stay in its powerband in between shifts.
for me i love to drive a manual car, and never even considered the auto
Hi siccmonkey...You state one advantage manuals have over automatics (except for CVTs) is higher MPG. I have a Dodge Caliber with CVT tranny & get v. good MPG for the Caliber(many get poor MPG with Caliber). However, I might think that if I drove a 5 speed manual Caliber, my MPG would be as much as 5% to 10/% better than my CVT MPG. I am v. pleased with my CVT tho, & think it would handily beat a 4 speed automatic in the Caliber if such was available.
There may be special types of driving where a CVT might be able to almost match a manual tranny, altho I'm only guessing now. Possibly in heavy stop & go traffic or mountain driving with many varying slopes, a CVT being always in the right gear might come close to a manual if driven with extreme featherfooting.
Hi siccmonkey...You state one advantage manuals have over automatics (except for CVTs) is higher MPG. I have a Dodge Caliber with CVT tranny & get v. good MPG for the Caliber(many get poor MPG with Caliber). However, I might think that if I drove a 5 speed manual Caliber, my MPG would be as much as 5% to 10/% better than my CVT MPG. I am v. pleased with my CVT tho, & think it would handily beat a 4 speed automatic in the Caliber if such was available.
There may be special types of driving where a CVT might be able to almost match a manual tranny, altho I'm only guessing now. Possibly in heavy stop & go traffic or mountain driving with many varying slopes, a CVT being always in the right gear might come close to a manual if driven with extreme featherfooting.
The main problem with CVT trannies is that they use a heavy, power draining, hydraulic system.
And that they might have a virtually infinite number of ratios they still weigh a lot more than a manual and even traditional automatic gearboxes. Though theoretically they have fewer moving parts, there is still the question of long term durability.
It's one of those technologies that have a few kinks ot be worked out as of yet.
i like MT's better because it gives me more control of my car.
I am my car's boss, it does whatever i tell it to do. If i want to start off in second gear... i CAN. If i want to stall my car... i can.if i want to bounce off the rev limiter in second gear... i CAN. If i want to do a 180 on the freeway and slam it into reverse, drive 80mph backwards to impress my black friend driving a purple convertible eclipse.... wait i can't do that, but you get my point.
i like MT's better because it gives me more control of my car.
I am my car's boss, it does whatever i tell it to do. If i want to start off in second gear... i CAN. If i want to stall my car... i can.if i want to bounce off the rev limiter in second gear... i CAN. If i want to do a 180 on the freeway and slam it into reverse, drive 80mph backwards to impress my black friend driving a purple convertible eclipse.... wait i can't do that, but you get my point.
Traditonal automatic transmissions require more power to run them, there is a larger driveline loss. In recent years, the lock-up torque convertor has narrowed the gap by reducing the slippage associated with automatics. Manual trans and clutches are not supposed to slip.
Up till recently, most cars had more forward gears for a manual trans than an automatic, so gear ratios were somewhat of a compromise in automatics. Now, you see automatics with 6 and 7 forward speeds being offered.
Tony D
Bingo - the performance gap has narrowed a lot with lockup and more gears in A/Ts', and CVT has the potential to put the nail in the M/T coffin.
The Fit is the first new AT car I've ever considered buying, and I actually came pretty close. The performance argument isn't near what it used to be, but the differences are still more apparent in cars without much power to spare (e.g. Fit).
From an efficency standpoint, overall they are pretty close too, but manuals tend to do better in the city. Because of the higher gearing and lockup, A/T's tend to do a bit better on the Freeway.
In a nutshell, it's a matter of preference and how/where you drive.....
Hi GoFits....Yes, I've wanted a perfected (reliable) CVT for 16 years. But the rubberized belt & pulley systems were bad. Then I saw the less costly Nissan Versa & Dodge Caliber using Jatco CVT w/carbon fiber graphite belts(4 times stronger than steel & Boeing uses the material increasingly in their planes). The primary reason for bad reliability went away. & of course, expensive electric hybrids have used reliable CVTs in their cars for some years.
Anyhow, my main reason to stay away from CVTs went away & I own a Dodge Caliber w/CVT. Wish the American Honda Fit had a CVT like its European & Japanese counterparts. But alas! No!
Don't know anything about the weight disadvantage. My Caliber is averageing 29.3MPG & 32.5 MPG over 4000 foot mountain passes from sealevel. If the Fit had had a CVT, I bet I'd now be averaging at least 36+ MPG & 38+ MPG over the mountains. Sure, not like the manual, but pretty darn good. & the CVT has such an elegant magic carpet ride as to end my life long relationship w/manual transmissions except for my 45MPG average Ford Festiva.
Well, I have to say (as a manual driver for years) I prefer having AT on the Fit. I drive my boyfriends MT Fit and it's fun, but I've gotten so used to being lazy... My integra is the MT for me... I can feel clutch engagement, and no drive by wire. The paddle shifters are what keep me from getting frustrated that it's AT. The reason I bought the car was for safety and reliability. I end up in traffic when I go to pick up my kids and drive them 160 miles round trip for weekends. That's the main reason I opted for the AT. But, when I get the itch... I drive the bf's MT and then I'm satisfied for a while. We have a few friends who drove both to see which one they think they like and a lot have said the AT... but, that's all opinion. All that matters is that you're happy with what you have. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, one just fits one's needs more than the other.
Just a note on the AT with the paddles... I find that when I'm about to redline it will lock the converter and drop the rpms about 600 and it stays up in the band (when in 4th gear and under quite a bit of load) to maintain power. It sounds like the car isn't going anywhere but when you look at the speedo... it's still climbing and not so slowly either. With the paddles I feel in control of the car as well, I can tell it what to do at that point... I can bounce it off the rev limiter if I want, and I can also start off in 2nd gear. It's just sans clutch pedal.
Last edited by Black Widow g2; 04-19-2007 at 01:54 PM.
I like a manual because of better gas mileage but mostly being more in control (engine braking, and keeping the engine in the rev range I want). Automatics seem to have a lot more reliability problems.
Car and Driver tested both manual and automatic Fits. 0-60mph for the auto: 10.4 seconds. For the manual trans: 8.7 seconds. That's a BIG reason why manuals are better. You'd have to put a lot of time and $ in aftermarket parts to get the auto to catch up with the manual.
Car and Driver tested both manual and automatic Fits. 0-60mph for the auto: 10.4 seconds. For the manual trans: 8.7 seconds. That's a BIG reason why manuals are better. You'd have to put a lot of time and $ in aftermarket parts to get the auto to catch up with the manual.
In the article text we're told that the 10.4 seconds reported for the AT was with them using the paddle shifters, which they said improved the acceleration by 1/2 second. So it would be 10.9 just letting the AT do it's own shifting.
Well, I know that when my boyfriend and I are playing around with each other at stoplights, I get the jump on him. After 1st he's gone, but once I get into 4th, I pass him up again. So, it's not so bad... but the Fit isn't for street racing. By the way, the JRSC is coming out for the AT as well.
M/T: More power. More control, More durable, and makes you appear somewhat cooler cause you can drive a stick "Ouuuuu" [/quote]
Yes, I also believe that I am much more awesome now because I drive a stick!
__________________
Milano Red Sport M/T aka "Runtie" "She shifts like buttah"
5% rear tint
5% 6" front tint brow
Int. illumination - Red
3M protection
deciding on intake
(Hey, at least I admit it, lol.)
IMHO
, etc. (and I don't smoke)...
It's just sans clutch pedal.
Linear Mode
