FORD's are problematic. So one says stay away from CVT's. Many manufactures that I would even consider are now going CVT, so what to buy then ? A ford ? Ya right.....

 

If I had to buy a currently offered car with a CVT, Id personally choose Subaru. Hondas' CVT's are pretty reliable, but damn are they picky about fluid condition

 

A CVT to manual comparison in terms of reliability is like comparing to similar hammers with one being fitted with a build in camera (CVT). Sure it may have been designed with shock absorbing rubber gaskets around it, but it's never going to be as reliable as a simple old hammer. A belt vs constant gear = no match.

 

So, you're comparing a manual transmission car driven only 7500 miles a year with the worst of early Honda 6-cylinder automatics in order to ascertain the durability of the latest generation of Honda CVTs? Yes, that's logical.

 

All the person needs to do is test drive the vehicle. I recommend driving several different brands of cars that use CVTs like the Nissan Versa/Sentra/Altima or Mazda 3 for example.

As I said before, there are reasons people won't like a CVT, but reliability concerns should not be one of them. All vehicles have the potential for failure. If the powertrain was that fragile, no one would buy a car with an automatic at all.

 

With all due respect, reliability of a CVT transmission IS a major concern. It is fragile. Because CVTS (automatic is too generic of a term and varies widely) are fragile, many people do not buy them. Heck, many countries and line of cars do not make them. Look at trucks. CVTs are good for cheap scooters and cheap small cars when the owners do not understand what a CVT is. They are cheaper to manufacture and they get better fuel efficiency than autos with torque converters. Manufacturer doesn't care so much about the long term life span. Build a lot of cars in Mexico, sell cheap in large volumes, make a profit. That's the philosphy of most auto manufacturers in the past decade.
Go ahead and buy the CVT, your money will help the mechanics who will charge you 10 hour labour to even look inside of it when it wears out in 30000 miles.

 

There's no evidence at this time that the CVT in the Fit is going to be any more problematic than any other kind of transmission under normal conditions and unless you've personally worked at the Celaya plant and have something specific to report, I can't really take any negative generalizations of the new manufacturing process seriously.

I have yet to hear of modern transmissions dying after 30K miles en masse. If powertrains were that bad, no one would buy cars.

Edit: I should add that current CVTs are designed to be as robust as regular automatic transmissions. Nissan alone has sold over a million CVT-based powertrains world wide. Car companies can't afford to make serious mistakes, as the recent Toyota and GM recall scandals have highlighted.

 

Does anyone know if the clutch on the Fit is one of the older style single mass clutch and flywheel units? Or if it is a dual mass unit?

I am not sure I know what the difference is but I have heard the dual mass units are more troublesome, in general.

 

At least it will still be under warranty. I think this is a little bit of a "sky is falling" line of thought. If Honda ships several hundred thousand CVT-equipped vehicles per year which then proceed to have a high failure rate before 30,000 miles, then Honda's quality reputation will be done. I don't see this happening.

That said, this is the first vehicle I've ever purchased without a manual transmission, so I have a bit of trepidation.

 

In 1986 I bought a new Honda 2 seater hatch CRX-HF. The HF meant high fuel as in economy. It had a carb instead of fuel injection and low rolling resistance tires. The way they got the high MPG was by having high ratio gearbox, I could get about 40 mph in first gear. I think 70 mph was about 1500 rpms. It was not fast drag race style and had a 5 speed. I think they made car 3 years along with basic CRX and Sporty CRX-SI. I kept track of fill ups and averaged 47 MPG over 68,000 miles with mostly city driving. Hand crank windows, AM/FM and AC.
It is too bad Honda won't offer a similar drive train especially with a 6th gear. I also had 1998 and 2001 5 speed CRV's. My 2015 2017 FIT's are CVT. Hard to find MT. I would consider a new MT FIT for 2020 but it looks like there will be none. I don't mind the CVT but the LX does not have paddle shifter.

 

i went with the 6sp , no reason to expect to not go over 200k with it , the CVT ? i think it's still a work in progress , expensive if it breaks , noisy ,
and well , a manual in a 2500lb car is a no brainer . an aunt of mine who drove a stick all her life summed it up , she said " i have be in control "
that about says it all

 

I bought the 6MT, CVT is "new" technology and while it is better in most ways - the engagement and longevity of a Honda MT has always been rock solid. Apart from the late 90's Honda has done well with all of its transmissions (speaking of ATs here)... but CVTs are going to wear and the cost of repair will be higher than a MT.

Clutches being replaced is a good excuse to do necessary maintenance to the car (ie: rear main seal, oil pan, etc.), so if you replace engine seals every 60-100k... then I think that is a good thing. Japan has engines pulled out of cars at certain mileages for a good reason, they should be fully serviced at 100k intervals; the variable that we should be thinking about is the cost of those repairs, MT < CVT.

 

Ford launched that CVT with many known problems then refused to fix them until the complaints on the NHTSA and service managers forced them into a TSB then recall

 

I also owned a 1994 Civic VX with Chrysler's lean up fuel injection technology yielding 43-52 mpg on the highway. That lasted until someone pulled the plug on that engine. I had > 200K miles on that gem and loved owning that 5MT only VX trim.

 

Mt6 is the way to go

 

I don't know what one considers "reliable"?

For sake of discussion labor to remove the CVT and MT6 is probably close to the same? The CVT is going to wear the band no matter what. I don't own one so I really have no idea whether parts are available for an owner to service themselves? if it requires specialized tools, if a local transmission shop can rebuild or if it needs replacement and one has to buy a Honda certified rebuilt? I do know that unless the MT is abused pretty much all that will need replaced is a new clutch, pressure plate, throw out bearing and pilot bearing. I just purchased an Exedy OE pro clutch kit off eBay and new pilot bearing from Honda. Parts total was less than $175. Any competent shop can install it. I paid $350 labor. That's why I drive a MT Fit

 

Reliability & Maintenance Cost

CVT costs more if/when whole assembly needs to replaced. Not sure if Honda sells an individual CVT component such as band, pulley, bushings, etc. I know Nissan doesn't in ANY of their CVT vehicles and it costs $3-4000 for their complete CVT assembly.

6-MT - Transmission (gears, shafts, bearings, etc.) itself would be way more reliable than the CVT. Clutch friction plates are normal wear item just like brakes and tires. So, clutch shouldn't be compared here.

Now, let's check the engine running RPM when cruising at typical highway speeds - it's about 70-75 MPH in Calif when there is no traffic.
CVT equipped engine is running at 2200-2500 RPM.
6-MT equipped engine running well over 3000 RPM.

I think there would be LESS wear and tear on CVT equipped engine from above observation.

 

It's funny how people are posting that the MT will be more reliable but all the posts I'm seeing being posted here about transmission problems and issues are about clutch/manual transmission problems and issues. I'm not seeing any CVT problems being posted. That's even more amazing when you remember that 90+ % of the Fits on the roads are CVT equipped. So my conclusion would be that almost all the Fits on the road are CVTs but all the problems being experienced are by the small number of MT owners. Is this not correct? How can anyone claim that the MTs are more reliable than the CVTs?

 

Manual is more fun for sure and you get to see what car can do at high rpm

 

Woof you’re probably right. A MT is going to require maintenance: for folks too young to know what that is, it means replacing parts before they fail (like a clutch). Luckily the parts and effort are low.

contrast with CVT. Will run without problems for life of car. When it fails, it’s a single unit to be discarded. In a way this makes sense: most cars are only run to 125k miles. Problem is, most ppl who buy cars with 115k miles aren’t able to budget for the cvt failure coming up. Or, if you don’t want to buy into the “disposable society” trend and you prefer tools that can be made to work as long as you want them to, then the MT is a better choice.