Recently i've been hearing auto, b/c of software advancemnts, actually gets better mileage than manual. This was maybe 2 months ago. Then the common arguement against this was torque converter. This article kinda mentions the countercounterarguement.
Anyone can offer an unbiased input? every day i'm obsessing over the fit, and i used to want manual but lately I thought of automatic b/c I need my right hand for cell fone and/or soda. Now I'm in the middle, and my choice will ultimately lie in two variables: respnsiveness of paddle shifters, and mileage.
I'm now leaning toward the auto, since ive heard reat things about the paddles. But if mileage is no where near the 32-35 real miles per gallon of the manual, then I"d ahve to reconsider, and think (obsess) of the Fit even more :\ thanks.
Given similar gearing the manual will always do better, but the trend is to gear the automatics for economy, and the manuals for speed.
One more nice thing about manuals is that they are about 50 lbs lighter and that weight comes off the front of the car, and helps to balance slightly better.
Manuals also shine in the cities because they are not fighting the torque converter while idleing and you can coat to a stop in neutral etc.
Given similar gearing the manual will always do better, but the trend is to gear the automatics for economy, and the manuals for speed.
One more nice thing about manuals is that they are about 50 lbs lighter and that weight comes off the front of the car, and helps to balance slightly better.
Manuals also shine in the cities because they are not fighting the torque converter while idleing and you can coat to a stop in neutral etc.
...and wear out your brakes instead of downshifting.
anyway, the auto civic gets 30-40 city and freeway respectively and the manual civic gets 30-38. the accord i4 gets 24-34 city and freeway respectively and the manual gets 26-34. go figure
...and wear out your brakes instead of downshifting.
anyway, the auto civic gets 30-40 city and freeway respectively and the manual civic gets 30-38. the accord i4 gets 24-34 city and freeway respectively and the manual gets 26-34. go figure
It is all in the gearing. The Civic manual does worse on the EPA highway because it is geared much shorter - about 700 more rpms at 60 mph. Consumer Reports figures the Civic manual at 31 mpg overall and the automatic at 28 mpg overall. They are generally accepted at having the best mileage tests in the business. The EPA tests favor automatics.
...and wear out your brakes instead of downshifting.
I'll change my pads and rotors before changing the clutch. Downshifting a manual to slow down can wear the clutch if the RPMs are not matched correctly. It might even add some wear to the motor.
So would you preffer to slow down a manual with the transaxle disengaged, or slow down an automatic with the torque converter fighting the brakes? Sure you can tap the automatic into neutral, but how many people do that, not many.
I have an LX auto and had to fill it for the first time since picking it up last week. I do about 4o kms to and from work in mostly city driving. (lights, traffic, etc.) Basically the worst possible mileage one could get out of any vehicle. I got ~450 kms out of ~36 liters. Thats about 12.5 per liter. I will be doing a roadtrip later this month and can't wait to see what it does on the highway.
__________________
Tell your Mom to stop calling me
About autos and idling. Can't they just shift it to neutral like manuals? mY HS "health and drivign" teacher said you're supposed to, but most people do not. When I drive manual, I always shift to neutral when stopping, but when I drive auto, I don't feel like setting it to neutral. But can't this habit be a good thing for auto drivers to save gas?
The only time I used the neutral in my automatic (for downhill or stops) was one time when I was running dreadfully low on gas.
One thing about leaving the auto in drive when you're stopped is that the brake lights are on. Hopefully, the driver behind you will SEE your brake lights and stop.......
Also, unless you're a die hard stick fan, driving a stick shift in heavy city traffic sucks. I usta hate driving my Civic Si 5-speed in heavy traffic. I much prefer the auto trans in the Weak Dawg Toyota pickup I now have, gutless as it is. I don't use the "free hand" for talking on the cell, but don't take my coffee away....
One thing about leaving the auto in drive when you're stopped is that the brake lights are on. Hopefully, the driver behind you will SEE your brake lights and stop.......
I thought brake lightds are always on upon being stepped, even when the engine is shut off?
If you drive a manual resposibly you will get 150K out of the clutch no
problem. Thats not an issue.
The torque converter sucks up energy, there's no way around it. But on the
highway it is inconsequential so with the taller gear you get better mileage.
manual=better city mileage(not torque conv.)
auto=better highway(gearing)
Honda manual transmissions are known not only for their efficiency, but their durability as well. I can't imagine that the new 5 speed auto will be better in either of the aforementioned categories. I intend to do modifications to my future Fit, so the manual trans is almost a requirement.
I hope this is related enough: How is the Fit's speedo connected to the system? I grew up on VW beetles with speedo cables that needed to replaced every so often. When my 1980 Civic Wagon 5-speed had speedo "shake" in 1986, I figured I could eventually replace the cable, but the Civic's speedo connection was apparently geared into the tranny; it broke & fell into the transmission & the whole tranny needed to be replaced for $1100 in 1986. Is the Fit's speedo setup the same way as the '80 Civic? Thanks for any help.
Linear Mode
