Through the years King Motorsports has always maintained cutting edge technology through our racing efforts. There is no better proving ground! From a 45-minute sprint race to the demands of a 6-hour endurance race, King Motorsports and Mugen performance products have always powered the champions! This is the same race-winning technology that King Motorsports and Mugen uses to produce performance products for your Honda or Acura automobile! From the high banks of Daytona to the "Kink" at Road America, we have proven our products again and again.
Welcome to Fit Freak!
Welcome to Fit Freak,
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
whoever that was that quoted The Fast and the Furious.....please dont, thats the DUMBEST car movie on EARTH. remember when Paul Walker thought he needed two HUGE bottles of nitrous in his car???.....YEAH RIGHT, like that depends on how much faster your car will go....the size of the bottle hahaha.
uh, the Fit Sport has the Paddle Shifters......which help out ALOT in getting the most out of the motor on the AT Fit. how much faster is a MT compared to a AT with paddle shifters......is it THAT substantial??? curious.
The difference is THAT substantial. Even with using the paddle shifters the auto had a 0-60 of 10.4 vs 8.7 for the manual. That is two different class of cars and the gap will widen by the end of the quarter.
huh.....wow, that is a big difference. it dosent seem like it takes that long to get to 60 in my Fit Sport, it feels more like in the 9 second range with the paddle shifters. does it matter that perhaps the car they drove wasnt "broken in".....ive got a little over 7000 miles on mine and even it feels a little more peppy since when i first got it....or maybe thats just the Mugen drop-in filter i added. oh well, i still like my AT Fit.....its practical and the most fun ive had with a small car......well.....ever.
Its still an automatic, paddle shifters or not. Autos have more parasitic loss than a manual transmission. This is due to power having to go through a torque converter, then clutch packs, then gears, than to the wheels, and everything in between. Manuals power have to go through the input shaft, gear set, and then to the wheels. There is just more of a drivetrain loss through an auto no matter how you look at it.
OkieDokie, I hope you never blow out your left knee and find that after two surgeries, you have to switch from a six-speed manual to an automatic. My Matrix XRS had almost twice the power, a lot more revs, and was more fun. But then, according to you, I am not a car guy. But, I also cannot walk very well, or run, or ride a bike. So, why don't you learn how to spell, punctuate, capitalize, and shut the **** up about things you do not understand?
The difference is THAT substantial. Even with using the paddle shifters the auto had a 0-60 of 10.4 vs 8.7 for the manual. That is two different class of cars and the gap will widen by the end of the quarter.
Read the article again. Leaving the fit in drive yeilds a 10.4 time.
Putting it in s and using the paddle shifters scraped off half a second, resulting in a 9.9 second time, essentially a 1.2 second difference from a very hard launched manual...
...and mind you , car and driver is Notorious for doing excessively hard launches when driving manual transmissioned cars: edmunds, for example, has never EVER broken the sub 9 second mark with their manual fit. The automatic though, is a little harder to modulate and will be forth more consistent times. So the REAL WORLD difference is very small.
1/4 mile times? come on guys! need we be reminded what a stock fit (manual or otherwise) does in the quarter? nothing to brag about in EITHER case.
besides, our cars best trait is the handling. and in a 105 hp car, even if you are manual transsmissioned, your cars performance can and will still be scrutinized against more powerful and sometimes cheaper to mod vehicles. If that is the case, most M/T fit owners will defend their reasons to mod their car because of peference and out-right desire and will to do so.
And to me, thats just a good enough reason for an A/T guy to use in his defense too.
__________________
if i could travel through time sometime....
pep pep?
Originally Posted by Btrthnezr3 Say Wha??? You mean, there's another reason to have a suspension?
0-60 in 9.0 seconds on car and drivers fit, quarter mile was 16.8, 81 mph
the auto fit (left in drive, not paddle shifting) got exactly 1.0 slower, at 17.8, going 78 mph.
pretty meh to me.
I read the article again and it says the .5 second difference "reflected in our test results — a half-second to 60 mph" meaning that the 10.7 zero to sixty included using the paddles. As they said..."reflected in our test results" meaning they were used.
You don't realize how big of a difference that is. Using the old generic car length for every tenth puts the manual TEN car lengths ahead. That is a HUGE difference. A second is what usually seperates a base model small motor car with the more expensive, powerful sport model.
That being said, I can appreciate the handiness/simplicity of the auto and don't "hate" on it. I have an auto in my Explorer and I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm just pointing out that a full second in the quarter is HUGE.
I think we can both agree that a v6 Accord is a lot faster than a Fit. Guess what...it's about a second faster than a manual Fit in the quarter.
my god, so much hate for the automatics. I have a fit sport and I love the fact that i can drive it like an auto or stick. best of both worlds. I do love manual a little more. I just sold my 07 STI. Now thats a fun car! But I would still take a fit with a worked k20 swap any day of the week. This is coming from some one that worked on and owned a STI! Don't get me wrong I love my subaru's but I can't seem to get away from my honda's. Now if you own a base fit auto then that sucks but the sport auto is very nice. What other new car out on the market can you by with steering mounted shifters with a 5 speed auto in it. For around 16k?
I read the article again and it says the .5 second difference "reflected in our test results — a half-second to 60 mph" meaning that the 10.7 zero to sixty included using the paddles. As they said..."reflected in our test results" meaning they were used.
You don't realize how big of a difference that is. Using the old generic car length for every tenth puts the manual TEN car lengths ahead. That is a HUGE difference. A second is what usually seperates a base model small motor car with the more expensive, powerful sport model.
That being said, I can appreciate the handiness/simplicity of the auto and don't "hate" on it. I have an auto in my Explorer and I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm just pointing out that a full second in the quarter is HUGE.
I think we can both agree that a v6 Accord is a lot faster than a Fit. Guess what...it's about a second faster than a manual Fit in the quarter.
i still think its a bit of a stretch, even if you are going by generic car lenghts. And remember, car and driver is the only publication to have gotten those numbers. They also got 6.2 seconds for a gti one time, which made me wonder why everyone else said that the mazdaspeed 3 was 'so much quicker', when it was only at 5.8 to 6 flat. the reason was no one else got that time, only they did, meaning most people who are not car and driver=not getting that clamied 0-60.
automatics are a little harder fluctuate so extremely, hence why most everyone gets the same 0-60 with it. and for an automatic that doesn't increase weight a ton, an almost 3 second discrepancy is a pretty big deal. About 90 percent of m/t drivers WONT get those times. I guarantee it.
and im not saying that the 'supposed' quarter mile isn't huge advantage, but the fact of the matter is that 16.8's is still nothing to brag about. or worth arguing for that matter.
__________________
if i could travel through time sometime....
pep pep?
Originally Posted by Btrthnezr3 Say Wha??? You mean, there's another reason to have a suspension?
i still think its a bit of a stretch, even if you are going by generic car lenghts. And remember, car and driver is the only publication to have gotten those numbers. They also got 6.2 seconds for a gti one time, which made me wonder why everyone else said that the mazdaspeed 3 was 'so much quicker', when it was only at 5.8 to 6 flat. the reason was no one else got that time, only they did, meaning most people who are not car and driver=not getting that clamied 0-60.
automatics are a little harder fluctuate so extremely, hence why most everyone gets the same 0-60 with it. and for an automatic that doesn't increase weight a ton, an almost 3 second discrepancy is a pretty big deal. About 90 percent of m/t drivers WONT get those times. I guarantee it.
and im not saying that the 'supposed' quarter mile isn't huge advantage, but the fact of the matter is that 16.8's is still nothing to brag about. or worth arguing for that matter.
I agree with everything you said in this post. For the average driver, autos are more consistent and for the less than average driver might be faster. I'll stop threadjacking now
__________________
Wifes Car - '08 SSM Sport 5-Speed. Work in progress. Can be seen attacking the N GA mountains.
Linear Mode
