When I knew I was getting the Auto, I was hoping it wouldn't be crappy like the 5th Gen Prelude Auto Transmission. I feel like this transmission is much better built. So good thing there.

Also, from just regular drive to Sport Mode w/ Shifters is a world of difference. You do get all the power available and much more control of the car.

Either way, the Auto is going to lose another approx. 5% power through drivetrain loss.

Performance - Manual

Flexibility - Auto

 

The auto I have gets about 32 city and about 39 highway. No, I drive between 75-90 on highway.

 

Actually, flexibility goes to manual as well. How about:

The ability to operate your car without having to drive it - Auto

 

To your original concern over fuel, the manual will be better since you have more "control" over what the car is doing. However, you also have the option to play around more and have less mpg.

Get manual if you want to save some gas and have a little fun. Don't get manual if you are thinking the Fit is going to be faster. It's a tiny 4 cylinder car with minimal horsepower.

 

That's what I'm thinking. The auto may deliver a bit better mpg but the manual will be fun.
I think everyone should be driving tiny little cars.

 

True. Manual is flexible as well, not debating that.

In Sport mode you still have to shift the car by listening to revs and feeling throttle, unless someone wants to drives it herky jerky.

 

The manual will give you better mpg vs. the automatic if you drive it easy.

Little cars are boring. :P

 

Fixed!!

 

Automatics have higher gear ratios and thus yield better mpg; thay can be shifted manually via paddles. quuiter on interstate.
Manuals have lower gear ratios hence better acceleration and top speeds but gdoes require cluch changes.
take your pick.
Haven't seen specs on 2015's but don't expect much change so the improvement is available power for climbing hills, acceleration, and based on Honda ads better mpg possibly due to better rpm . More horsepower sometimes means an engine works less below max rpm.

 

Sigh.

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

Under some circumstances, like in EPA Test World, simple gearing math like that will show a big advantage to one car. If you could live your life cruising at a constant speed on level ground, you would likely get better mileage with an automatic. I have hills, lights, on and off ramps and traffic. The nut behind the wheel has more of an effect on mileage than the transmission choice, but if you want mpg then the manual will help you get more of it than an automatic will.

 

As I am nearing my actual purchase of a '13 have given into gentle pressure and will be buying an auto.
Most of my driving is 160 mile trips, little traffic, few red lights, at 55 mph. About 30% is at 65 mph. When I realized the awful truth about manual gearing ratios and the higher rpm it makes sense for me to cave.
I guess my hot clutch action has gone the way of my dark brown three pound mullet and the Pinto that carried me.

 

And that's where the gearing on the automatic will help you - on a long steady high-speed drive. Around town the manual can get you better mileage if you handle it correctly, but on the highway the gearing is a handicap.

 

Don't give in! You'll be dying a not so slow death.

 

Agreed. Honda's automatic transmission was always the weak link in overall reliability IMO, but as with all companies, they've gotten better at it. Having extensively test driven both transmission Fits, the slight extra weight, cost, complexity, and torque converter power loss swayed me to find a much rarer MT Fit Sport. The slightly shorter final gear and higher rpm does get old on the hwy, but around town that manual is the best way to squeeze out the most power out of that tiny motor.

Btw my other car is a 5th Gen Prelude SH and the manual is still reliable and slick after almost 20 years of spirited daily driving.

 

Traditional ATs better mpg? Not necessarily true. Quieter on interstate? What?

Manual requires clutch changes? Only if you don't know how to drive a manual.
Automatic transmission may require transmission repair/replacement.
Take your pick.


You also have to factor in power loss through the drivetrain. AT more so than MT, so this negates the gearing advantage/disadvantage.

 

For fuel economy, I don't know. I average 36.5 and my best tank, on a long trip, was 41.5. If you are stuck in traffic a lot, the auto will be much better to drive.

 

According to me, manuals get better mileage than automatics mainly because of the inefficiency of the automatic transmission with it’s indirect fluid drive and other factors. The manual trans is direct with no slip and with proper usage will get great fuel efficiency.

If you are still confused, then I will recommend you to have a look at carmanuals.org . Here you will get all the reliable information.

 

Personal preference aside (manual or nothing xD)

They both comes with ups and downs, and can depend on design of both. For instance the new mustang had a TERRIBLE manual. Breaking all the time

As a general rule, Manuals are more reliable, but you do need to replace clutches. How often is 100% on you.
Autos are easy, and no clutch to break. But tend to be less reliable.

THE MOST IMPORTANT NOTE: Fuel economy aside. With the shops around my house, servicing a manual (oil ect) costs exactly half an auto. They literally gave me a price sheet and told me to cut prices in half last time I was there.

Regarding the Fit specifically.... Its a Honda, with a Honda manual. Generally the best feeling manuals. But according to some other users right here on the forum (our beloved 500k+ mile Fit), the clutches generally grenade themselves if you drive up around 4k rpms for long periods of time.
Ive never driven an auto Fit. Just a few manual ones.