Long (!) review of automatic vs. manual Fit Sport (US) - Page 5

dancingsun · #81 (**permalink**) 05-23-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazz_honda

dancing sun ...when u say discrete gears...u mean lower gears?

i agree when i hit the 100 kph with the stick set to S plus m using the thumb shift...i feel a lose of power....compared to the stick set to D...

By discrete gears, I meant separate, individual gears. Since CVT doesn't really have gears, but you can simulate them by fixing to a specific gear ratio and not allowing it to vary. So instead of having inifinite gear ratios with the CVT, you get descrete gear ratios.

lyndab5685 · #82 (**permalink**) 05-23-2006, 10:43 AM

I was told by the Dealer (Toyota) that Indie and NASCAR have been using it for years, to maintain perfect PSI,I'm proof, got 2MPG with Mobil One, and last week when I switched to Nitrogen in my Camry tires, gained another 1.5.
Gives me combined 31.5, up from 28

Fray Adjacent · #83 (**permalink**) 05-25-2006, 09:25 PM

Wow, good review. Now I'm rethinking getting the manual. I might just have to get the automatic. I don't do mountain climbing, mostly moderate hills in Central Texas, but most of my normal commutes are fairly level.

JazzDiva · #84 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 02:39 AM

Fantastic, thorough and well-written review, very comprehensive and unbiased. Thanks so much. It has enhanced the already in-depth research I've attempted. I'll be moving from the flatland sea-elevation of Fla to the hills and mountains of NC and am only mildly concerned about winter roads, ice, curves and up and downhill manuevering. Maybe the paddle-thingys (that's what car doofs call them, I plead guilty) will help. Thanks again!
Hope to be in my Blue Pearl Sport tomorow in SW Florida! Peace!

hiroko12 · #85 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 04:55 PM

Believe me, the 5 MT is quicker than the automatic. No way the paddles will shift at high RPM like you can do with the stick. Trust me. With a small displacement engine like on the Fit you need a MT. If you want an automatic, your going to pay in performance, that is the bottom line.

phil_qc · #86 (**permalink**) 05-28-2006, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiroko12

Believe me, the 5 MT is quicker than the automatic. No way the paddles will shift at high RPM like you can do with the stick. Trust me. With a small displacement engine like on the Fit you need a MT. If you want an automatic, your going to pay in performance, that is the bottom line.

I'm with you on that one

hiroko12 · #87 (**permalink**) 05-31-2006, 02:28 AM

Just read the new edition of Car and Driver. They did a little article on the Fit AT. Came in at 0-60 at 10.4 seconds. This is 1.7 seconds slower than there 0-60 time with the 5 Speed MT which clocked at 8.7 seconds.

DRum · #88 (**permalink**) 05-31-2006, 10:34 AM

That is about the difference I would expect. It is in line with some of the other tests for an AT.

Packy · #89 (**permalink**) 05-31-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiroko12

Just read the new edition of Car and Driver. They did a little article on the Fit AT. Came in at 0-60 at 10.4 seconds. This is 1.7 seconds slower than there 0-60 time with the 5 Speed MT which clocked at 8.7 seconds.

Good to know, thanks. I wonder if using the paddle shifters would help at all? From what I've heard the engine shifts at pretty logical points already.

buttahball · #90 (**permalink**) 05-31-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiroko12

Just read the new edition of Car and Driver. They did a little article on the Fit AT. Came in at 0-60 at 10.4 seconds. This is 1.7 seconds slower than there 0-60 time with the 5 Speed MT which clocked at 8.7 seconds.

lol...I think I'm gonna change my order now...to a M/T...2 seconds is a lot...

chibianh · #91 (**permalink**) 05-31-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buttahball

lol...I think I'm gonna change my order now...to a M/T...2 seconds is a lot...

Could've been a bad day for that ONE fit in ONE test from ONE driver? *shrug* I test drove both the manual and the AT before I made my decision. Albeit, both were base models. I didn't really push them or anything, but I didn't really feel much of a difference. I'm not buying this car to race or be a menace on the streets, so I decided to get the AT, so my gf can drive it whenever I'm too drunk to.. lol. Besides, if I want to go fast, I have my other car.

btw, I live, work, and go to school in the foothills west of Denver. 5400ft to 12000ft in less than an hours drive. The Fit will definitely get a good workout.

Jetydosa · #92 (**permalink**) 05-31-2006, 07:21 PM

I am a long time MT nut. Every car Ive ever owned except my first one have been MT. I drove both MT and AT Sports before buying and to me the MT Sport was noticably quicker. I will say the AT was probably the BEST of any car Ive driven that had the paddles/triptronic/whatever you want to call it.

At any rate, I did not buy this car for its acceleration. The MT just makes it more fun.

kingdlx · #93 (**permalink**) 06-01-2006, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiroko12

Just read the new edition of Car and Driver. They did a little article on the Fit AT. Came in at 0-60 at 10.4 seconds. This is 1.7 seconds slower than there 0-60 time with the 5 Speed MT which clocked at 8.7 seconds.

Thats better than the 11 seconds motorweek got with the auto sport.

wyy183 · #94 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiroko12

Believe me, the 5 MT is quicker than the automatic. No way the paddles will shift at high RPM like you can do with the stick. Trust me. With a small displacement engine like on the Fit you need a MT. If you want an automatic, your going to pay in performance, that is the bottom line.

{sorry for the duplicate post...}

wyy183 · #95 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiroko12

Believe me, the 5 MT is quicker than the automatic. No way the paddles will shift at high RPM like you can do with the stick. Trust me. With a small displacement engine like on the Fit you need a MT. If you want an automatic, your going to pay in performance, that is the bottom line.

Maybe you've not driven one with the paddle shift??

In Sequential Mode, using the paddle shifters, it will hold the gear until you upshift. If you don't shift then the fuel cut-off will kick in at the appropriate point, after redline!!

In other words, using the paddle shift you can shift it at whatever rpm you desire (within limits, of course.)

Packy · #96 (**permalink**) 06-03-2006, 03:10 PM

Keep in mind the new Car and Driver review of the AT said that using the paddle shifters took half a second off the time. That means it's only a bit over a second slower. I think it's all a personal preference, and I could care less if it did it in 8 seconds or 12.

MT: 8.7
AT/Paddles: 9.9
AT: 10.4

JT-KGY · #97 (**permalink**) 06-06-2006, 05:53 PM

Anyone here know the actual gear ratios between the two?
I dont really care about the 0-60mph times of the two... acceleration
from standing start doesn't really interest me since I dont plan on
drag race anyone with this car. However a good engine power band
matching tranny will make passing on freeway that much easier.

Found the gear ratio of the 5MT on Honda Japan site... I assume
this is the same ratio used here in US.

1st = 3.142
2nd = 1.750
3rd = 1.241
4th = 0.969
5th = 0.756
Final = 4.111

Anyone got the 5AT's?

dancingsun · #98 (**permalink**) 06-06-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT-KGY

Anyone here know the actual gear ratios between the two?
I dont really care about the 0-60mph times of the two... acceleration
from standing start doesn't really interest me since I dont plan on
drag race anyone with this car. However a good engine power band
matching tranny will make passing on freeway that much easier.

Found the gear ratio of the 5MT on Honda Japan site... I assume
this is the same ratio used here in US.

1st = 3.142
2nd = 1.750
3rd = 1.241
4th = 0.969
5th = 0.756
Final = 4.111

Anyone got the 5AT's?

http://corporate.honda.com/press/art...=2006033155013

Also, note that the MT gearing ratios are different in the U.S.

JT-KGY · #99 (**permalink**) 06-06-2006, 07:46 PM

Thanks dancingsun.

Compared the two.. I cant see how AT is faster..?

6500
max hp=5800
max tq=4800

AT 2.996*4.56=13.66176
MT 3.462*4.29=14.85198

AT 1.679*4.56=7.65624
MT 1.870*4.29=8.0223

AT 1.067*4.56=4.86552
MT 1.321*4.29=5.66709

AT 0.756*4.56=3.44736
MT 0.970*4.29=4.1613

AT 0.550*4.56=2.508
MT 0.757*4.29=3.24753

Speed at RPM in 100 increments:
MT
AT

spreadhead · #**100** (**permalink**) 06-11-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossom

Using the Sport mode with the paddles will likely result in lower gas mileage than similar driving in the Drive mode. The reason is very simple. The Sport mode only has four speeds (gears?) while the Drive mode uses all five speeds in the transmission. The fifth gear is like an overdrive and will produce better gas mileage in conditions that allow the Fit to upshift into fifth gear. With the Sport model you can also use the paddle shifter to get into a lower gear while in Drive mode and not have to tromp on the gas pedal to get some power.

When I put my Sport in S mode, it only uses 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gears, not 4th or 5th. The owners manual says it will use 1-4, but it only uses 1-3 (I can use the paddles to manually go to 4th). What are the rest of you experincing? I haven't gotten my 600 break in miles in yet so I'm still taking it a bit easy.