Before we bought our Fits (2009 Taffeta White 5MT & 2010 Taffeta White 5MT), we had a USDM Suzuki Swift, also with a 5MT. No tach, but the owner's-manual-recommended max. speeds-in-gear were:
1: 25MPH
2: 42MPH
3: 68MPH
4: 87MPH
5: (moot, the car didn't have enough power to hit redline in 5th)

Anyway, despite the short lower gears, 5th was relatively tall, by engine pitch definitely taller than the Fits. What I notice now, is that the Fits don't need to downshift for freeway hillclimbing or good acceleration, and the difference in fuel economy is negligible between the Swift & the Fits.

 

I guess it's two sides of the same coin. The Civic feels much slower, less responsive, always in need of a downshift. I can't really keep the Civic "in the revs" because somehow they just never seem to match up right. You're going 35MPH, and 4th is too tall - you have no power, while 3rd is too short - you feel like you're fighting it to maintain the speed. Go 35MPH in the Fit in 3rd it's right where I want it to be where the power band begins.

 

Having owned the last gen Civic GX in our family, I can say that Honda's automotive CVT is horrible. The #1 problem people have with the Civic Hybrid has nothing to do with the electrical parts, its the CVT. We got a new GX and sold the old one before the HondaCare expired because of that transmission failing every 20,000 miles, at around $4000 a pop. Honda went back to a conventional automatic in the GX, probably due to warranty costs. Ford did the same with the 500/Taurus.

 

My ex had a Nissan Sentra with a CVT... I thought it was really cool, although disconcerting initially. It feels as though the engine and transmission are only vaguely connected. Under hard acceleration, the revs would jump to the peak HP point and just stay there until you let off. On the highway, it would drop to superlow engine speeds, and adjust the ratio as necessary.

Great design, but the longterm reliability was questionable on the Nissan units.

 

Good point, I forgot about that! These were the G13A-engined Swifts right? We didn't get those.

It was a pretty long while before that sort of output returned to 1.3L engines without boost, though - Toyota had to resort to turbos to get that kind of power with its 1990s Starlets.

Hahaha off-topic again, I'll stop now

 

This is exactly what I've been thinking. My 2010 MT Sport is the first car I've ever driven that gives me better local MPG's than highway MPG's and that's with a 70MPH highway speed. Having looked at things I'm sure it wouldn't be that way if my FIT were auto.

One of the reasons I've always owned MT's has been the fact that they gave a better highway economy. My FIT would love a sixth gear more than I would. Granted hilly terrain would bring out the down shift, but that's a big part of driving in my book, hitting the right gear correctly at the right time.

The i-Vtech locks the big cam lobe @ 4200RPM's or some thing close. Perfect set up for a sixth gear. And I really doubt there would be a gross effect on overall economy, but a whole lot more driving pleasure for sure.

I'm thinking Honda is up to something. These new "Economy" AT's seem to be setup to compete with the on-coming hybrids. As far as I know they offer NO MT option. New marketing ploys for a new market is all I can figure.
K_C_

 

I don't think so. Many people, even young drivers, care about fuel economy (especially those who buy a fit). I own a Toyota MR2 turbo and most people are looking for longer final gear or fifth gear (since it's already just an overdrive) to improve fuel economy. And the gears aren't that short (you can hit 60mph in 2nd, maybe 2600 in 5th at 60). But it's a turbo car, so yeah, the torque comes much sooner than on the fit (and there is twice more).
Even if the fifth gear on the fit was an overdrive, the first 4 gears (if well geared), even longer, would be all right for performance (especially if the cut off was a bit higher). No need for 6 speeds imo. I tried the versa with 6 speeds and I found it pointless.

I read a bit on the internet and watched video of edm swift, they go up to 100mph or so in 3rd gear.
And the usdm swift 1.3 was somewhat fun to drive

But I think you are all wrong about the short low gears and long tall gears. My geo metro would cut off in 2nd gear (around 7k rpm) at 86kmh (53.5mph), just like the fit, while it would spin at 4400 rpm at 80mph (and "just 4000" for the fit) in fifth. And it's normal, the engine at low speed has enough punch, but at higher speeds because of the wind and other factors, it lacks of power so it needs shorter gear. Only the geo metro xfi in early 90's had longer high gears. Also, like I said for the fit, the metro/swift can get fine performance (for their engine size) at low speeds even with "long" low gears, because the engine revs over 1000rpm over the peak, so when you upshift, you don't fall too low in the rpm. The fit has peak at 6600 and cut off at 7000, it makes you fall to low (unless you have short gears, which is the case).

I never drove the civic 01-05 for extended period (tried the automatic and manual but for not so long), and I agree that for daily drive (I didn't tried to push them since there were not mine) they lack of power a bit, but still, they probably manage to do good 0-60 times, and achieve better fuel economy.
And the fit at constant speed can be in 4th at 35mph.
But nobody tried the echo 5mt? For me it's an example of how should be a small engined car. It's nimble, long geared, fuel efficient but still enough smooth at low rpm, and it can go up to 6500rpm without being out of breath. And 0-60 times are good (especially because we don't need to pass in 3rd).

I don't know about the engine name but we got the swift GTI 100. I know however than our 1.3 non gti had shorter ratio and a bit less power (like 70-76 instead of 80-85).
And the jdm starlet turbo in the 90's was making up to 135bhp stock. And at 9200 rpm says wikipedia
My dream would be a suzuki alto works 4wd from Japan, but Québec law sucks (the only province where we can't import jdm, since a year now).

Honda had one of the only manual hybrid still, the first insight. And they sell the honda crz (hybrid) only in manual transmission in Europe, so I don't think they want to kill MT so fast, even on hybrids (At least in Europe).

 

iVTEC activates at 5400rpm.

 

Interesting point - in 5th, it will still disengage the lockup clutch to provide a bit of extra mmmph if necessary. From a visual check on the way ho bme tonight, by switching to manual mode and then flooring the accelerator to unlock it but stay in 5th, I got the following:

5th gear @ 70 mph = 2500 RPM.
5th gear @ 70 mph - lockup = 3200 RPM

I mentioned before that I had a CR-V briefly, with the 4 speed automatic. I became pretty adept at pushing the throttle just gently enough to unlock the torque converter, without downshifting to third and sending the revs into the stratusphere. On mountainous roads, it took a bit of finesse!

(As an aside, the engine/tranny combo, a 146hp B20 w/ no VTEC and 4spd automatic may have been poorly matched to a 3100 lbs SUV, but dammit, that was a REALLY comfortable car for travelling the highway; drove it to on road trips - 750 miles days were no problem at all, no fatigue to speak of.)

 

The 2003-2005 Civic hybrid was offered with a manual trans, at least in the US. I originally wanted one, but settled on the Fit instead for the interior room and not wanting to pay so much for a used car, as the hybrid resale value here is very high. That bodystyle Civic sedan is also ugly, IMO.

 

Whoa - all the better. Cruising at 70MPH in top [6th] gear and drop 'er down to 5th and goose it would be unleashing max torque/power for that giddy-up and go. Stick it back up to over drive and life is again max economy.

But I've got to look into that 5400rpm number. I think I saw that the 1.5 i-Vtec loaded about 1K below that. What is interesting is that I haven't found much discussion on this characteristic of this engine. Old school to many I'm sure, but it's a brandy new thang to K_C and I'm trying to fully understand what it means to the performance of my FIT.

K_C_

 

I've driven both the auto and manual Fits.

From my perspective as a driver, the reason for a high-revving fifth gear (same rpm as our old Miata at cruise) is cruise control.

The auto was always downshifting to go up the slightest hill at highway speeds. The manual Fit can't do that. It would be very uncomfortable to have to downshift when you're cruising down a highway with the cruise control on. We took our Fit up into the mountains last summer and never had to downshift as long as we kept the speed (and the revs) up.

Is that too simple an explanation? Maybe there's a lot more to it than that, but from my point of view I think it's a factor.

Cheers.

 

It's probably the good explanation but they are wrong.

 

sonovabitch!!! I think you just nailed it!

In my 5AT, I generally switch it to manual mode while doing highway driving, because unrequested downshifts bug me. It can still unlock the torque converter, which will briefly give it a ratio closer to the manual... It's a virtual 6 speed ;-).

In regards to the discussion of CVTs earlier - if you have an automatic, lock it in 2nd. Now, start from a dead stop, and peg the revs at a certain speed, and the cars speed will slowly rise without any change in engine speed.

The first automatics used fluid couplings basically as CVTs - those old American pieces of iron had enough grunt to start pull it off in one-two gears.

 

Actually fluid couplings cant multiply torque, so they had four speeds in the original Olds Hydramatic.

It was the torque converter that allowed a reduction in the number of gears, two in the Chevy Powerglide and one in the Buick Dynaflow. Acceleration was s-l-o-w. A 1950 Chevy with Powerglide did 0-60 in over 30 seconds!

These things all had a LOT of slippage, the exact opposite of a belt-type CVT, which requires an automatic clutch for stop and takeoff to avoid stalling the engine.

 

I have owned cars with all of the transmissions you mentioned and CVT on scooters.... Thinking back about the Powerglide and remembering how I hated it so much until I put one behind a 396 in a 65 SWB Chevy pickup and raced and beat a 427 powered 56 Chevy with 4 speed MT that no one could touch and everyone was in awe of..... Those things are still in use in race cars.....I think that the 4 speed Hydromatic was used in tanks.... You could go about 12 feet and it would break the tires loose as it shifted to 2nd..... The Dynaflow had a more direct low gear that was good for about 50 MPH and when manually shifted to high at that speed you felt like you had been rear ended by a big truck..They were ruined after that was done a few times and were $500 to rebuild in 1963.

 

I have hooked up a VTEC indicator to the ECU, well just a LED wired to the VTEC pinout and it doesn't light up until 5400rpm. I wanted some verification because I was considering getting the J's Racing reflash, it stated the stock VTEC crossover as 5400 and their reflash only drops it to 5300. I really believe the car would benefit a good bit with a drop to around 4700~4800, but fuel and ignition timing would also need to be altered for a very smooth transition which means you haven't lost any power before the big lobe is locked in and also FE wouldn't be affected as much either with a smooth transition, but then again if you have a foot like mine that has its own mind and just thinks , your FE will not be great, but still acceptable.

 

I'm surprised no one has brought up the old GSR, teggy type-r, or 99-00 Si transmissions. Can you say 3800-4100 rpm on the highway, on a bigger engine? Sure it's performance-oriented but still...

Really my old y8 civic and the fit could genuinely use a sixth gear. Sure the engines will outlast most anything if taken care of-- take the '95 EX I saw for sale a couple years ago that had the .71/4.25 5th gear/FD combo and the engine rpm that resulted from it (that wasn't that much different than the Fit's, maybe 100 rpm less at highway speed). It was driven from Atlanta to Seattle weekly since the man bought it and he had 988k miles on the ticker, and even with the 1.51:1 R/S ratio and highway rpm it still wasn't burning oil.

I guess Honda doesn't design a transmission like I would. 1-4 would be short and close much like the GD fit's 3-4 spacing, 6th would be somewhat tall, with 5th splitting the difference.

 

I'm new to Honda technology and have been trying to understand what I believe is the L15A i-Vtec Engine in my 2010 FIT. With engagement occurring at such a high RPM my question is how is one to best drive this little beast.

It is certainly a fun and economical car to drive and I'm enjoying the high revs and I am sure about the, "... so what!" on the technology end, but it is a part I'm determined to understand.

I do, however, keep coming back to that sixth gear. I find myself instinctively reaching down to up-shift one more time when in that giddy-up mode...

Because of the i-VTEC characteristics [as quoted above] I am seeing that messing with the crossover can be counter productive to harmful. I'm sure that's what limits the re-flash.

More and more I'm thinking that the stock FIT set-up is geared towards local economy driving at a slight sacrifice in highway MPG's - at least in the MT configuration. The stock AT is an over-all more economical ride for the "average" daily driver who has become most comfortable with automatic everything's....
K_C_

 

There's a lot of misinformation in this thread about the type of VTEC & iVTEC the L15 uses . . . There's no such thing as a VTEC "cross-over" on our cars, just a point where the 2nd intake valve is activated & deactivated. This rpm point varies based on load and throttle position, but happens anywhere between 2200 & 3400 rpms.

For GE folks, the 'i' in iVTEC refers to the variable intake cam phasing.


As for needing/wanting a 6th gear, no thanks . . . with a gear even taller than our 5th (and the corresponding drop in torque), the L15 would be gasping. On a hilly highway, 5th gear is useless enough.

My only complaint about the stock MT gearing is the 1-2 shift - 2nd needs to be geared lower. Even shifting @ 4k rpms, acceleration really suffers when you get into 2nd gear. Of course, that would mean another shift to get to 60mph, making the "oh so important" 0-60 magazine racer rating worse than it already is.