The MT has more moving parts that could lead to repairs than the AT. Like having to replace the clutch. You dont have these issues with the AT.

Is the savings in MPG from the MT worth this extra maintanence?

 

Manual transmissions are repairable, rebuildable as opposed to the more complicated and usually just "replaced at full cost" automatics. And believe you me, there are a lot of parts inside an automatic transmission.

I have seen that you have created more than one thread about MT vs. AT. Is there a reason? Are you thinking of getting a fit and debating the transmissions or what?

 

Why multiple threads? This could have been discussed in the other one.

You made a statement that is wholy and completey inaccurate. Manuals fail at a much, much lower rate than autos. It is extremely rare to need to rebuild a manual outside of the racing world where as autos fail on a regular basis. Very few cars make it to 200,000 miles without the auto tranny needing a rebuild/replace.

Clutch replacement is not considered a repair. It is a maintenance item similar to brake pads. A clutch can last 15,000 miles or practically indefinitely depending on how you drive. I drive my cars hard, but accurately. The earliest I have had to replace a clutch in a non-raced car was 150,000 miles.

My family has never replaced a manual in the countless vehicles we have owned, but we have had multiple auto tranny failures.

 

I'm wondering the same, if they're debating AT vs. MT in a Fit. Btrthnzr3 and GAFIT are right on; the automatic transmission is, without question, the most complicated part of a vehicle, and repairs generally do entail full replacement vs. just a repair of a manual transmission.

 

Oh, and as for the moving part idea, you are completely mistaken.

A manual has one clutch, the auto has 3. The auto has a torque converter, the manual none. The auto has two valve bodies with countless little parts, the manual has none. I have taken apart auto's and manuals. There are countless races, bearings, plates, clutches, bands, check valves, etc in an auto. I wouldn't touch one as far as repair. As for a manual, I've rebuilt one and it was easy.

 

As everyone has already pointed out, a manual is cheaper to maintain than an auto, but each should last well over 150k miles with proper fluid changes.

I wouldn't base your decision on which one would cost more to repair, but rather on which you would rather have to drive.

I personally love driving stick, so that was the way I went. To each their own.

 

There are no mpg savings with the MT. The auto, at least on the highway, gets better mileage.

 

According to the window sticker yes, but real world situations may change that.

 

Not relevant to the Fit but relevant to AT vs MT: I had a 2003 Saab 9-3 transmission go on me at 70K miles and it cost $4000 to replace. Luckily I got the extended warranty that ended up being a $100 deductible. If I needed to replace the clutch on a manual transmission car it would be what well below $2000. Granted you have control over how long your clutch lasts you have 0 control over how long your AT lasts other than fluid changes but that doesn't mean it will last forever. I did everything right with my Saab and was on time with all my maintenance but that didn't matter because one day it just went.

 

Just wait till you have to repair a automatic transmission.

"We're just going to replace it..."

 

That's exactly how the auto's have been in my family. All the maintenance and gentle driving in the world doesn't help. When they go, they go without any warning. $4,000 or so later and you're back on the road. If you have a reputable mechanic do the clutch, you'll be out $400 - 1000 depending on vehicle, clutch choice, and what parts are needed.

Personally, the Fit is so easy to work on that I'll do mine myself.

 

Sticker means nothing. I am talking real world, since I have had both. In town, the MT got 37-38 mpg, on the highway, at 75mph, 38 mpg. in town, the AT get around 36 mpg, and on the highway 40-41. Both driven the same way. Lower rpm, at highway speed, gives better mpg to the auto. Neither gets hot dogged, since they are both my haulers. Hot dogging is done with my other car.

 

^ But that's just based on your own personal experience.

An experiment using just one driver with just two Fits - one auto and one manual - and a calculated difference of 1-3 mpg is not even remotely statistically significant.

 

overall yes the AT is better MPG but with the MT you get have a little bit mroe control IMO. My record going from OC to Pasadena (uphill) was 51.3 MPG my average ended up being 48 after driving around locally too. My average speed was also 68-70 MPH. The whole AT > MT mileage gag is debatable really depends on road conditions and how heavy your foot is (my foot is very heavy, size 13 shoe yo)

 

I assume you have an AT?

 

no no no 2010 base model manual trans

 

fstyle, all these threads, it just seems like you really want an autotragic, but afraid what your friends are going to say to you or something, so you want to have some sort of "forum proof" that the AT is better and why you chose it.

For myself, I'll never own an autotragic as long as I can operate a clutch pedal, never have I felt I wish I had an AT equipped car, even driving in Tokyo traffic moving at a pace slower than walking, but I know if I had an AT, I would wish I had a clutch pedal to operate and gates to row.

Just go test drive them, if you can even possibly test drive a manual. If my assumptions are correct, just go get the AT and be on your merry way.

 

I said Situations, which will be different for each driver. That may be the fact for you, but not for everyone.

I avg 37 mpg with a mix of 50/50 hwy/city. I have noticed if I stay around 65mph or under, I get well over 40mpg on the highway. It starts to drop when you get to 70mph or higher. This would be where the auto gains the mpg. This is because of the ability to lock the torque converter, and the longer final gear.

So as I said, different driving situations may change which trans gets the better mpg.

 

True. It depends on your foot, and seemingly, where I live, the hills. The slightest uphill run, and mileage goes to pot. From here to LA, the speed limit, at least in AZ, is 75, and that higher speed really hit the MT. With the AT, it didn't seem to matter. Either one, however, is a whole lot better than my Camaro.

 

I've noticed that about uphill as well. I've also noticed if I downshift, instead of fighting up a hill in 5th, it helps the mpg a little bit. Its like the engine can sip fuel all thru the rpm range as long as the throttle is open less than ~25%.

I wish we had 75mph limits. We get limited to 60 or 65 here.