Like many of you, I have been reading reviews of the 2015 Fit, and looking forward to trying one out. Lurking here for a bit - this is my first post - apologies if this has been covered elsewhere.

The Manual Transmission - now in 6 speed. I feel like I am taking crazy pills! As I see it (not a mechanic or gear head), it seems that they just added a gear between 4 and 5. The ratios for the old 4 and 5 are the same as the new 4 and 6, with one in between. Sure, 1 and 2 are a little lower, and 3 is a tad higher, but in terms of overall range not much has changed.

I like highway efficiency, so was hoping for a higher top end to cruise at low rpms.

For context, I drive a 2003 Focus, and am torn between this new Fit, and the Mitsubishi Mirage (did I mention I like efficiency)

 

Sad to see. The CVT model runs 1800 rpm at 60, while the manual is buzzing at 2800. Why?

http://hondanews.com/channels/honda-...f-d9b92df4f0a5

 

Which is weird because the auto needs more power at freeway speeds. During hot hot summer days, I had to use a/t sport mode + 4th gear to maintain speed with the A/C running at 55-60 mph.

 

Seems to me that the 6th gear is more of a marketing gimmick than anything else. Is it possible that it helped reduce 0-60 times a tick or two?

I agree - I'd prefer to have a more comfy cruise at 75-80.

 

Yes, it does seem a little off for Honda to add a 6th gear but not make it a hwy cruising gear. But here is my theory.

The car magazines usually test 6speed manual cars for their comparison reviews. The magazines and many readers, love to base their ratings on measurable things like 0-60 and 1/4 mile speeds. The closer ratio 6 speed should result in better performance numbers in this regard. But the fuel economy number that everyone seems to care about is 40 MPG. So Honda let the Fit LX CVT get the fuel number (41 mpg hwy), while it will depend on the 6 speed to make the performance numbers that should keep it winning the comparison tests.

 

Five bucks says Honda is afraid of a proper ratio 6MT Fit beating 45 mpg highway, and eating into $30K+ Accord Hybrid sales.

 

Not a chance that a taller 6th gear would result in an extra 8MPG Hwy. 1 or 2 maybe, but not 8MPG

I have a Honda CRZ 6MT and it has a taller set of gears than the fit and a taller 6th gear. It does not make any significant improvement in fuel economy, but it does quiet the engine at higher speeds.

I will say that my fit is significantly quicker than my CRZ in every gear. Despite the CRZ having more power. I maintain that Honda's choice of the close ratio 6-speed in the new fit is in direct response to the poor reviews given to the 6MT CRZ because the car mags felt it was not fast enough to be a sports car.

 

Now it's time to hope honda parts bin engineered the fit 6mt and the crz 6mt gear box so that swapping out 5th and 6th will be a simple deal.

Or talk with mfactory and get a longer final since the ratio's are close across the board which will improve efficiency and reduce acceleration.

I'm simply hoping I can swap the mains haft into my gd3 gearbox for an extra gear to break up the 3rd to 4th gap

 

The CVT can do 41, but a proper M/T ratio couldn't beat that?

 

Generally MT are more efficient than automatics because the torque converters and fluid drive of a conventional automatic transmission has about 3% efficiency loss compared to that of a clutch. But CVTs are cutting those losses significantly and they do have some fuel efficiency advantages because of no loss of power between gear changes. This is why CVTs have become the standard for small low powered cars. In the real world, manuals usually can make up the difference in EPA fuel economy ratings, but yes, a CVT can obtain a better HWY fuel economy number than a manual transmission with the same top gearing.

Also you really would not want a super tall top gear in a MT car with as little power and torque as the fit because as soon as the road started going uphill you would be forced to downshift. The CVT does this automatically so it can cruise at a lower engine speed while on flat terrain.

 

Oh, no. I bought a manual shift car, and now I have to... shift it?!!! How terrible!

Actually, I doubt it. Mine can already accelerate uphill in 5th from 40 mph. The new one weighs the same and has more power.

 

The last Honda I owned had 6 gears, and the 6th was pure overdrive. Against a stiff headwind on the highway, 5th was actually faster than 6th.

Now, to be fair, that was a XL250R (motorcycle), but still, I didn't mind shifting down anytime I needed to accelerate, climb a hill, or battle wind, and I appreciated the ability to drive at less than WOT on the highway.

I know it isn't exactly the same, but if Honda is making the manual for folks who presumably know how to shift, I think more range would be nice.

(Incidentally, folks have the same beef with the Mirage manual vs CVT - with the CVT offering taller gearing . . . and, since the Mirage has only 74hp and can do 180km/h, I suspect the Honda could handle a taller gear what with it only weighing 20% more, but having nearly twice the power/torque).

 

Frustrated that Honda put all CVT gains into mpg, and all 6MT gains into performance. The two are so diametrically opposed, with annoying behavior at each extreme. One sluggish with unusually low rpms, and one buzzy with unusually high rpms. This is what happens when product roadmap group gets to be in charge of the engineering group.

 

My family had a Ford 9N. That was a beautiful machine that lasted longer than any Honda I know of (built in 1939, I think). It had only 3 forward gears, but 2 ranges - you would use it in low range pulling in the field all day, then stop, switch to high, and let it run fast and light on the road heading home. Mind you, it was a heavier, and less sophisticated machine (no back-up camera, for instance . . . not even an 8-track player)

 

I have both a 2009 fit 5MT and a 2011 CRZ 6MT. The transmissions in both cars shift wonderfully and I truly could ask for no better shifting engagement from either car. The CRZ shifter is a bit better than the fits, but both are wonderful. And I hope that Honda did not do anything to make the new fit inferior to the shifting experience of the old car. I expect they did not.

As for gearing choices, the CRZ has a taller final drive than the fit and a taller 6th gear. It turns right around 2500 rpms at 60 mph vs the fit that turns 2900 rpms at 60. While driving the CRZ in 6th gear, as soon as the road begins to climb at all, you either have to apply significantly more throttle (and then the electric motor kicks in) or you have to downshift to 5th. After a few miles, the electric motor stops providing power and you are forced to downshift to 5th in order to maintain hwy speed.

So on a long flat road, the 6th gear of the CRZ is useful in reducing engine speed, but it would be far more more useful in a car with 25% more torque at lower rpms than is provided by the fit or CRZ. For reference the CRZ provides 122 hp and 128 lb-ft of torque with both motors and is 5" shorter than the fit, so therefore pushes significantly less air at hwy speed. When the electric motor is exhausted, the power drops to 113 hp and 106 lb-ft.

 

CRZ has a crazy tall 6th gear but also has much better drag coefficients than the Fit just by looking it it, I have not looked to confirm.

I fully expected Honda to keep the gear ratios similar on the 2015 Fit. You know why? For the same reason a bunch of us have been saying for the longest time:

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE RATIOS THE GE HAS.

The problems are:
1: Despite being sleek, the Fit is the automotive equivalent of a barn door when it comes to cutting through air. The new one may be marginally better at it, but it's still pretty damn tall.
2: Motor doesn't have enough torque to move a 2600 lb car at high speed effectively. Honda does and has always made up for this lack of torque with low gear ratios and the torque multiplication that comes with them.

The efficiency brick wall you hit at about 68mph has less to do with RPM and a lot to do with overcoming aerodynamics with torque, and guess what, the torque multiplication in 5th/overdrive gear SUCKS.

The only way around it is with a bigger motor, which Honda won't do for the Fit. I suspect a hatchback Civic will return to much fanfare in the future lol

 

Hey Wanderer - I'm interested in this brick wall you speak of. Are there any graphs available that might predict the mpg on the new Fit at say 55mph or 60mph? Any guesses?

As one who lives north of the border, most of my driving is at 100km/h (62mph) or less, so maybe the Fit would get better mileage than the rating would suggest.

 

(It's not worth it, I'm out.)

 

I could not agree more with the conclusions that you have drawn here. I think the gear ratios of my GE are just fine for the power that this car offers and the fuel economy it delivers. What does strike me as odd however, is why didn't Honda just leave the first 5 gears alone (or maybe just shorten 5th a little, to say 0.77) and then add a 0.69 6th gear? Then everybody is happy.

Instead they gave the new fit a shorter 1rst gear and closer ratios from 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th. I can only conclude they are aiming for better performance benchmark test results form magazine tests.

 

It is amazing how certain some are that the same gear ratios in two entirely different vehicles are going to yield the same feel from the driver seat. In my opinion, it's not solely the RPM that is the issue, it is how we perceive the effects of RPM. Any number of engineering changes such as the 27% more rigid chassis or sound deadening material could change how sixth gear "feels" at speed.