Is there a reason for the trend toward short-gearing on manual
transmission cars?

Looking at the following examples (all of which have taller gearing
when equipped with an automatic):

Honda Fit: 60 mph @3000, ~20MPH/1000RPM.
Honda Element: 60 mph @3000 ~20MPH/1000RPM.
Scion xB: 60 mph @ 3000, ~20 MPH/1000RPM.

Now, contrast this with the Cobalt XFE, which intentionally uses a
tall-geared transmission for maximum fuel economy:
2009 Chevrolet Cobalt XFE Fuel-Economy Marathon Test Drive: Pre-Volt, Can GM Hit 37 MPG? - Popularmechanics.com

55 mph @ 2000 RPM, squeezing 37 mpg highway from a 2.2L 155 hp
motor... and still managing 0-60 in ~8 seconds.

I would be tempted to say, "It's because these small engines can't
handle taller ratios" except clearly they can, as seen in the
automatics.

So... what gives? I can't help but think that a Fit manual geared
like an the auto would be a hell of a mileage champion.

Just for kicks, here are the gear ratios compared:

A quick glance at the gear ratios:
Automatic
1st: 2.996, (13.662)
2nd: 1.679, (7.66)
3rd: 1.067, (4.866)
4th: 0.761, (3.470)
5th: 0.552, (2.517)
Final Drive: 4.56

Manual:
Gear Ratios:
1st: 3.308, (15.283)
2nd: 1.870, (8.639)
3rd: 1.303, (6.020)
4th: 0.949, (4.384)
5th: 0.727, (3.35)
Final Drive: 4.62

Now, for a car of similar weight, similar horsepower, and the same manufacturer:

Compare this to a 2001 Civic LX with a Manual:
1st. 3.462 (14.229)
2nd: 1.87 (7.686)
3rd: 1.241 (5.101)
4th: 0.97 (3.987)
5th: 7.11 (2.922)
Final drive: 4.11

(Just for reference, with a 4spd auto, the combined ratio in 4th was 2.74!)

My only guess: They know that magazines will review the manuals, and they want to ensure that the manuals have the snappiest acceleration possible, betting that the acceleration junkies in the popular autorags will rate a car better overall if it's got more get-up-and-go (much like smokers rating the flavor of a cigarette based on it's nicotine content).

 

I've thought about this too, as my last car was also a subcompact with the same deal (SX4.) The only thing I can figure is that with a world car, most MTs will be sold in countries that are shorter on space than the US, and don't need highway cruising or high top speeds. So basically it's adjusted down and we don't get a re-design since that means lost time and money at the factory for such a small market segment.

 

Would make sense. That's why we have the 1.2 and 1.4L engines like the rest of the... wait a damn minute!!!

 

Actually, I'm wondering if the new Scions over here are sold elsewhere? I seem to recall they were designed for this market, but overall, I think most cars share parts across markets, and ours is a tiny one now.

Some of those engines might sound appealing, but probably not suited for our high speed traffic. In urban areas, sure. That's where they shine and were designed for. Not saying all of them by any means. There are some light cars that will get around decently on 1.3L or less.

 

I recently started to work for delivery in a restaurant, we have echo hatchback and yaris there. 2 days ago I took my mom car and I was shocked how the gears were short comapred to the yaris (and the echo even more), it's not much longer than my 75hp wagon 4wd civic with .40 of drag coefficient... They rev 500rpm more than the yaris, but it's far from compensating. I guess it's because american drivers are too lazy to downshift, so that they can stay in 5th gear to pass on the highway (while an automatic will just downshift one or 2 gears). If it's for that reason it's stupid (people should just get the auto) but well. I dunno if the edm fit have different gearing (they have smaller engines too).

Also for sport driving, it would be good to see the poweband, because a 7000rpm cutoff seems low to me when we know that the max power is at 6600rpm. My geo metro had peak power at 5700rpm and would cut off at 7000rpm too. Higher cutoff and longer gears would get better fuel economy, while keeping the same performances (if you shift at 7500rpm, you won't fall at too low rpm in the next gear).
It's not for nothign that in europe TDI and other turbo diesel (and newer TSI engines) are so popular, it's because they have plenty of torque and power in the rev band we are in daily driving, so people who are lazy to downshift feel like these tdi are super fast. And fuel economy is a concern for many people, so I don'T think that short gear boxes will even make the fit sell more.

Of course they drive 55mph on the autobahn while we do 110mph on our 65mph roads...

And I'm pretty sure that the 1.2 and 1.3 in Europe don't have shorter gear ratio.
And the fit doesn't have the sound proofing or the seats to be a good highway cruiser.

 

Just a thought. Don't look at it from a power perspective, look at the torque. Torque is what gets you going, were as horsepower keeps you going. If you look at the engine specs of the various powering the tractor trailers you see on the roads, you may notice that they produce around 400 to 550 horsepower. However, they put out gobs of low end torque that gets that rig going.

Now, what does that have to do with a smaller, fuel efficient vehicle? Well having a light weight vehicle with an engine that produces a moderate amount of torque at low RPMs will have to work less than the same vehicle with an engine that produces very little torque at the same RPMs to get that vehicle going from a standing start.

The longer gearing on the other hand seems to be a lazy attempt to bump up the highway mileage. Kind of like how the 6 speed 'Vettes, F-bodies, GTOs, etc. had two overdrive gears.

 

I think this part of the Cobalt XFE writeup deserves some further scrutiny:

That I think is the biggest reason for the taller gearing. If Honda wanted long-legged gears on the Fit, a corresponding bump in torque might have to go with it.

The XFE formula isn't new; European manufacturers have been doing this kind of thing for at least the past 18 months. Off the top of my head, VW did this with its Bluemotion lineup, and Volvo with its DRIVe variants. Coupled with the longer ratios are a few other economy-boosting mods: shorter springs for lower ride height (hence a decrease in drag), lower-resistance tires, and blanked-off areas of the grille and front fascia.

Kudos to the GM engineers though for keeping 0-60mph roughly the same as a non-XFE Cobalt. VW and Volvo have tended to blunt their "efficiency" cars' performance with strange engine choices and engine fuelling maps - the kind of logic that sees Volvo's largest S80 sedan being pulled by a 1.6L engine in DRIVe form.

 

All fine and dandy... but it doesn't explain why the same engine needs a highway cruising gear that is 33% shorter.

You descrive tall gearing as the "lazy attempt." Do you see this as a bad thing?

BTW, my first motorcycle was a Ninja 250 - they squeezed 25 or so HP from a .25 liter engine. 10,000 RPM at 80 mph, and you feel like you're riding a hair-dryer after a little while! I had the Element at the time, and it always felt unusually short-geared to me, doing four grand at 80 mph (and that's a 2.4L). It took me a little while before I really understood that, yes, the baby Kawasaki really did LOVE being spun up like a dentist's drill!

 

this just jarred something in my memory. I bought a Civic LX coupe in 2001, new. I wanted an HX, but they were almost impossible to find in a stick in my area. They used a mix of tricks and tuning, and brought the LX's 32/39 FE rating up to 36/44. Even bumped horsepower up by two to 117* That is, of course by the old fuel economy ratings system - they've revised the old numbers to match the new test... The Civic HX would now rate 31/39 with a 5MT, 30/36 with a CVT. My inner conspiracy nut says that they canned the HX so it wouldn't make the hybrid look bad!

* anyone else amazed at the age of horsepower we're in? I was damn impressed that the Civic had 115 hp standard! The first CRV only had 126! Heck, my first car, a 92 Accord, had 125! I remember thinking my dad's 4.0L 190 hp Cherokee was a rocket (it did weigh only 2900 lbs!) An the cars of the 80's... Let's not even talk about them!

 

Agreed.

If you live in a country that has 1.3L engines, the HP jump is even more amazing. Toyota's 2E engine from old EE90 and EE100 Corollas of the 1980s-1990s makes just 72HP. Compare that to the L13A i-VTEC on the GE6 Fits/Jazzes - those make 100 HP, which is impressive output (even if just at the crankshaft) for such a small mill.

Sorry, got kind of off-topic

 

This has me thinking about motorcycles sold worldwide and the way those sold in the U.S. were always geared more toward acceleration with either a smaller counter shaft sprocket or larger wheel sprocket on the British bikes.....When Harley was first marketing the Evolution (Blockhead) powered bikes in the 80s, the ones for the U.S. had 70 notch wheel pulleys while the international pulley had 61 notches....It appears to me that the general attitude of U.S. drivers are more impressed with acceleration figures from 0 to 60 than taller gearing that results in longer engine life and better fuel economy.

 

I think it's that these days MT in the US is the darling of enthusiasts who drive them because they just plain like it and don't care much about the potential for saving a little bit here and there on fuel economy or up-front costs (in fact they'd probably pay a little more to NOT have an auto!).

I actually have an '02 Civic LX which should have an identical gear set to the '01 you listed. Of course I never noticed it in the 7 years between getting the Civic and the Fit, but now that I have driven the Fit when I go back to the Civic the Civic gearing seems all wrong. The Civic seems to need a downshift anytime I need it to do anything. The Fit's gearing makes it feel much sharper...the gear I'm cruising in always seems to have enough left over for a little burst of speed if needed. I generally get 34MPG in the Fit vs. 39MPG in the Civic. I am happy to trade that 5MPG for the much more enjoyable driving experience provided by the Fit's gearing.

 

Taking this further off topic in this direction, it might have been an attempt the give the poor, underpowered 80 inch Evo a decent cruising speed on the Autobahn.

I'll admit, given the long distances we travel, our fascination with acceleration and low quarter mile times seems a bit misplaced sometimes. It may be that our artificially low speed limits maintained in the interest of "safety" that has something to do with this. Here in upstate NY, 55MPH is the rule, except for some rural interstate highways where it's 65.
Go much over 70 for any length of time, and you get to have a nice chat with the guys in gray with the funny looking hats.

 

I think you have this backwards. It's not that manuals are geared so short, but that the autos are geared so tall in an attempt to equal the fuel economy of the manual car. They can get away with this because the auto can downshift, well, automatically, at the slightest uphill or push of the accelerator.

FWIW, I've owned manual cars with a small engine and a very tall top gear, and they're no fun in hilly country where I live. You're always downshifting on anything resembling a hill, and the car feels like a slug in top gear.

 

But isn't the point of overdrive just to be a cruising at highay speed gear? My first car was an Accord... 2.2L 125 hp 4 banger. It ran at 2400 rpm at 60. 5th gear wasn't useful for accelerating or ascending inclines, much like 6th gear on my motorcycle. I wouldn't expect instant punch in top gear... In fact, I was always reaching for 6th in the Element!

I had a CR-V for a little while - 146 hp 2.0L engine, 4-speed auto box. Holy CRAP was that car annoying. Top gear was nice and relaxed for highway cruising, but hit the slightest incline, and you were shooting up well past 4k. Drive through Tennessee, and you never want to hear the engine again.

 

What you are missing here is the multiplication from the torque converter in the automatic. Granted, it doesnt apply in 5th once the lockup occurs. Its at launch from a stop 13.662 x ~4 = ~54.6. I would be ok with a taller manual OD gear, but a sixth speed would be even better.

Slipping the clutch at launch does provide some advantage, but its almost impossible to quantify by a simple engineering calculation. Its the same reason tow ratings of automatic pickups are up to double that of the stick.

 

Again I am off topic in regards to the Fits available in the U.S..... I can't help but wonder about the fuel mileage and performance of the CVT cars that are available elsewhere..... I have a Honda Helix and a Chinese scooter I can't even spell the name of and I love the CVT belt drive on them.... Is there anyone with an opinion on cars using this type of transmission based on having owned one or driven one enough to make an educated evaluation.

 

I agree that low end torque is good, and that's why I don't get why the civic is a best seller in Canada, mom or grandpa will never go over 4000rpm (unless the automatic tranny do it for themselves), so something with more low torque like a tdi would be better for them imo. And on the highway most of the time we don't need much power, so I don't see what's the problem of an overdrive gear.
My mother has a ford focus zx3 2001 (zetec 130hp), so just slightly more powerfull than the fit, and when she bought the fit she felt like it was slow cause she was used to the lower torque of the focus (wich isn't that even low if we check the numbers). The focus at 60mph is at 2500rpm I think.

But VW bluemotions things aren't new, even honda in the late 80's had their HF CRX (and after the civic vx), with longer gears, detuned but torquey engine. The 2nd gen crx hf had the 1.5l with only 60hp but 90lb/ft torque (as much as the dx civic or regular crx). Same for the geo metro high fuel too.

Suzuki swift gti in the early 90's were doing 100hp with a 1.3 too. And the 3rd gear goes up to 100mph I think (and even in the 1.3 non gti in Europe, with around 75hp).

Like I said before, unless the power considerably drops past 7000rpm, I think that putting the fuel cut around 7500 instead of 7000 on the fit would allow longer ratios without falling at too low rpm on the upper gear. It would benefits fuel economy and keep the same 0-60 (if not better since we wouldn't have to shift in 3rd gear).

Many people get MT because it's cheaper. And wether it's long or short geared, if you stay in the revs, there will be enough power. I just think they put short gears so lazy people who bought a MT but shouldn't have can pass the truck in 5th gear without downshifting. Turbo engines are for these people.
When you drive a MT honda, you just have to downshift like the A/T will do. I prefere to downshift than wasting 3-4mpg on the highway for nothing.

 

aftermarket sales on short gear ratios is really popular on other cars... i personally think its a good idea to give a TOO short gear ratio, because then people would stop putting in aftermarkets to make it even shorter.

i used to have a boosted v8 and i went from a 3.10 stock to a 3.73 and many people with my same car would do even a smaller gear like 4.10


so saying BECAUSE the fit has as smaller engine is why we have a short gear ratio.. just not true... go on a domestic V8 website and its opposite.. it can't get SHORT enough. shorter gear ratio just equals sporty drive, altho a 6 speed would be nice for highway cruising.

 

You're right it doesn't, I don't think isn't a definite reason to why manual vehicles have short gears. It could be that are designed for the best fuel efficiency in low speed environments, it could be that they are designed with the performance oriented driver in mind. Whatever the case may be, I think if if those short geared manuals had a sixth gear (since they are usually 5 speeds) that is specifically designed drop those revs down at highway speeds.

Tall gears are not necessarily a bad thing on the highway, it is a cheap and easy way to lower the engine RPMs at speed and boost highway fuel mileage. Having the lower final drive will hinder acceleration in the city or any other stop and go situations, due to the longer gears of course, as well as require the engine to perform more work to accelerate from a stop than it would with shorter gears (hence the increase in low end torque).