Words from a true enthusiast who remembers and continues to propogate this dying art of driving a M/T.
That's why I buy Lotto tickets, so I may one day be lucky, hit the jackpot and finally buy that 458 Speciale that I lust for!!! That's an auto tranny I wouldn't mind. Wonder what hypermiling would get me on that??? 16 mpg!

 

you have no idea wat the fun of driving really is...

 

nono, toyota made the yaris correctly. it's like a roach trap. trap the loser into getting one, then eliminate them. lol

 

Yes I do. All other things being equal, I would take a stick over the AT. That being said, I would take the car with better acceleration regardless. Doesn't sound so far like the CVT is set up for that at all though, so it'll be MT for me.

 

Luckily my wife can drive a stick so the only thing keeping me from getting a car with a stick is advancing age and occasional bouts of gout.

 

I'm not sure which to pick, my last 2 cars have been manual, a s2000 and a B5 A4. The S2000 was, of course, a blast to drive but ultimately too impractical to keep as a commuter. The A4 is embarrassingly slow given it's 2.8l engine size and the 23mpg I've been averaging. The clutch is extremely long throw compared to any other manual I've driven and sometimes it's a pain in LA traffic. I feel like performance cars should be manual all the way, but given how people are saying the new 2015 fit isn't as fun as the older models, I'm not sure if I should just get the CVT and its slightly better mpg or save the $1000 and get a 6 speed. I've also read the manual revs much higher on the freeway compared the CVT, but there's only 2 manuals listed on cars.com in the LA area and they're probably gone by now. Also having an auto means someone else can drive me home when im drunk!

 

Here's the advice given to hundreds over the last 50 years in the car business and haven'y gotten more than a dozen complaints.
An automatic yields better mpg and with paddles shifts like F1 pilots.

Yeah, the CVT costs a k more but you get that back - and more - if you have to replace a clutch and at rresale time.
Manuals used to be beneficial in performance - and the Fit still is - but DSC's and automatics better than CVT's are faster thavn manuals so their use is reduced to a badge you can wear to impress the unknowing.
Choose the transmission that fits your mission. If its performance the manual, if its mpg, quietness, and longer life the automatic. Simple as that. When I was young GM's hydramatic was leagues down from even 3 speed manualas; now tiptronics, hydralic manuals, and 'automated' manuals are way better but the CVT is todays hydramatic. except you can manually shift it and that is first rate fun on the race course. But in between ...

 

^^THIS was quite funny. Thanks!


Fun to me is beating an manual equipped car in an autotranny. Cause...you know...that ain't supposed to happen.

 

You don't understand how CVT's work. I've been driving one (Civic HX) for 17 years and can tell you, they are NOT performance oriented, but rather economy oriented. The ironic part (to me) is back in '98, my HX with CVT was rated around 38mpg, and the 5sp manual was rated at 42 mpg, but with two daughters unable to drive stick, I got the auto (CVT). Now my daughters are grown and gone with families of their own, and I need a new daily driver. Well now the Civics are 3000 lbs with a 1.8 engine, and I wanted something smaller. Ahh, the Fit is about the same size and weight as my old Civic! Yippee! But the Honda engineers became brain damaged somewhere along the last 17 years, and now the CVT gets better mileage than the direct clutch manual. Hmmm, how can this be? Simple...the manual now has to spin the engine approx. 1200 more rpm to maintain highway cruise speed thanks to the screwed up ratios in the manual. Honda engineering at it's finest (tongue in cheek).

 

That's so far off base it isn't even wrong. Autos of any flavor have more failures than manuals, and clutches tend to not wear out unless you want them to.

And nobody who's serious about mpg drives an auto unless they got stuck with a car for other reasons. Simple as that.

 

Charlie, he's convinced and you're not gonna change his mind. That said, if you just want to get in and drive, the auto will likely give better mpg. If you care to do anything to improve mpg yourself, the manual is your ticket.

 

I'm not trying to change his mind, I'm trying to keep somebody from walking in and getting bad information.

 

I voted 6MT. You have less drivetrain loss though the manual which means a few more ponies available, and more control.

In terms of racing, the only time the auto will win is if the manual driver mis-shifts maybe.

The CVT is definitely not performance oriented but may get better gas mileage.

This kind of topic can be debated until the death, only way of knowing is to do side by side driving comparisons with everything being equal over a long period of time.

 

I would have gone for a manual fit, but I opted for the CVT automatic this time around.

 

After driving a 67 Vdub, 69 Vdub van, 85 Subaru and 00 Nissan Altima - all sticks, I couldn't be more happier with my 15 Fit EX CVT. My left leg is over-developed because of pushing in the clutch pedal. It's time to let it atrophy.

 

I'm hoping to beat the CVT gas mileage numbers every single day with my 6MT

Idk what EPA is on a 1993 Toyota Pickup but I know it's not 24, and I always got above EPA with my 2012 Tacoma, so I'm only assuming so far (still on my first tank) that the same will be more than possible with the Fit

 

Basically this^

Although I do strongly agree that the gearing could be much better. I feel like I could drive around faster roads in town in 5th and even 6th if I push it, so which gears are supposed to be for the 80mph highways here? ha

 

MT all the way.

 

.....mt.....

 

I still don't understand why so many say the ratios are messed up in the manual? Honda didn't just throw some gears in there and say it's good. With a motor that is smaller than most motorcycles these days and a weight that is way heavier than any motorcycle, they did what they had to do. These ratios in the MT give the car the best overall performance and if there were some better, overall, they would have released the car with those ratios. The MT does everything this car is designed to do. It's an economy car. It's not meant to drive 80 mph but will, all day long. It's not meant to be on a race track but will, all day long. So really the only thing to complain about this car, performance wise, is if you opted for the sewing machine CV trans...should have got the MT...