Hey, you managed to write a post without the words "test drive" in bold at 26 font size. There's a first time for everything

I get what you are saying that an engine that has to run at 6000k compared to 3000k is getting twice the amount of friction and potential wear but it seems that Honda has always been known for revvy little engines. As long as your pistons are well lubricated I don't think it's going to make an engine more likely to fail if it has to run at 4k consistently.

I believe that most wear occurs when shifting and clutching and anyway, that wear would be to the clutch and transmission, not so much to the actual engine.

There's a woman that got to 1 million miles on her GD3! I think she went through a few transmissions but I believe it was the original engine! She was a courier.

Edit: it was 1/2 million miles. Still, she managed 500k miles in 6 years in her Fit and it still runs apparently.

 

Astute observation!!! For once, my post was read intently. That's praise coming from an Einstein!!!

At least there is one thing we both agree on, GD's are proven nearly indestructable!!!

Aug. is only 2 months away. By that time we both would have "driven" a GK (for me, my future LX, for you, finally that TEST DRIVE) so lets see what our fact based observations will be!!!

 

For those concerned about the final drive and what the revs will be, get a JDM 5MT final drive or if you want even lower revs the CR-Z final drive, they are 4.294 and 4.111 compared to the 4.62 in the GK. And/or the CR-Z 6th which is a .688 gear compared to the .727.

 

You're talking about a huuuge tire lol. I did the math in another thread here.

 

Now that's an idea! My motorcycle is a Honda VTX and the 1800 version has a different final drive ratio than the 1300 version. For some reason, the 1300 has a taller drive ratio than the 1800 and many 1800 owners have swapped out their final drive with one from the 1300...more relaxed cruising, better mileage, 1st gear being usable for more than 30 feet, etc. In this case, the rear ends were identical externally, and only differed in number of teeth inside. Hmmm, I wonder how much trouble it would be to swap the 4.62 with a 4.294?

 

If Honda put a tall 6th gear on the Fit customers (including magazine writers) would interpret the need to downshift on hills as indicating that the car is underpowered. This sort of publicity would be death so Honda kept the top gear short.

It's sad, because all adding the gear did was make the driver shift more often.

This:


Is the 2014 version of this:

 

Very well put, and I agree with you up to about 3k rpm. But when you've got to wring it up to 3500 rpm for highway cruising...well you can imagine what that's like. If the 130hp can maintain the CVT at 2500 rpm, then I'm convinced that a 6MT could do it better (due to direct clutch) than the CVT at the same engine speed, no problem. With a brand-new 6MT designed especially for an econobox, you SHOULD need to downshift to make a quick move. Then upshift back into overdrive when ready to resume. IMO Honda blew the call on this one...it just doesn't pass the "common sense" test.

 

dang, this gearing is a bit disappointing. checked my 2011 Audi A4 and at 65 mph, i'm at about 2200 rpm in 6th gear. at 75 mph about 2600 rpm.

 

That's a terrible comparison.