The 911 and C7 both have top speeds close to 200MPH. On the C7 the 6-7 shift is comfortably done over 150MPH!

The Fit has a top speed of 118MPH. Both the 911 and the C7 have two or three gears to go at this speed.

"Sounds bad" is subjective. A CVT sounds fine to those who understand how it functions. If someone doesn't, they are probably a prime customer for those Walter Mitty cars that "augment" the engine noise through their sound systems.

 

I can't imagine how a true MT guy would ever even consider an auto tranny. Anything less than absolute control is unacceptable for me.

IMHO, older style slushboxes had to "guess" which gear to get in depending on engine load and throttle input and have been improved over the last few decades to eventually get closer and closer to the quality of a manual transmission as far as efficiency and handling/dynamics/response. That being said, the constantly varying ratios of the CVT is a truly incredible feat of engineering and a whole other beast with regards to efficiency. In that regard, since it doesn't try to automate the proper shifting of a car but rather run the engine most efficiently at all times, the CVT is superior from an efficiency standpoint.

I've never test driven one but I'd be really curious to see how a cvt feels. I don't think I would want to own one but I suspect it offers a smoother drive than a traditional A/T.

 

[QUOTE=Chazman;1286941]Nice pics! In the case of a transmission however, don't forget the pesky snap ring!

It sounds like you would know the answer to my question: does Honda have a standardized diameter for its gear shafts or would the thickness vary from civic to Fit to crv?

 

I agree that a CVT is the best choice for power delivery for normal driving conditions and will consistently show better mpg averages. That said, even with paddle shifters (which have been quite handy and mountain roads), there isn't much of a fun factor to it besides watching the mileage gauge.


A manual is going to be more fun to drive hands down. What I don't understand in this thread is why anyone would want to change the mt's gear ratios. It seems to me Honda struck a good compromise between performance and economy. What has been overlooked is overall gearing and though I don't know for sure what it is for a Fit CVT or manual, I'd guess the CVT is in the 7's and mt around 5 with top gear spooled up with more rpm's than an automatic. Meaning the lowest 'gear' is 7 times that of the highest. And that's a good thing, you want closer ratios in a manual for performance.


If someone lived in an area of open and challenging roads where they could make use of it, a manual would make a great choice. And astutely driven, you could probably match or exceed the fuel economy of the CVT. For me though, the mountain roads where I learned to drive are now double yellow lined with rumble bumps and full of nimrod bicyclists. The fun is gone except for the odd corner or two.

 

A lot of people seem to complain that the manufacturer did their best to keep the engine close to its powerband at higher speeds. If they'd changed the gear ratio to the point where the engine was quiet but the driver had to drop two gears to climb a hill there'd be even more complaining. Don't like it then buy a CVT and suck all the fun out of the car.

 

Also, a lot of people are complaining one way or the other without having actually driven the car with the transmission that they're criticizing.

 

A lot of that stems from reviews that are written. People take away two major negatives from those reviews: no volume knob and highway RPM. If it weren't in everyone's face most people probably wouldn't care.

I drove two CVTs and waited two weeks to drive a manual before I made a decision. I'll never own a CVT equipped car. That's based on personal and professional opinion.

 

You've got it! If you actually enjoy driving, when you're not on a track then your manual can still outperform the CVT at the CVT's own game.
A manual is going to be more fun to drive hands down indeed.

 

Then I expect that you will be installing a points distributor so you can have absolute control over your spark advance? I'm partially joking, but I remember my father cussing at balky automatic advance mechanisms and longing for the days of having an advance lever!

In F1 the use of automated gearboxes is actually banned, because having the transmission select the optimum ratio would eliminate the possibility of driver error and reduce the sporting nature of the event!

I've always chosen manual gearboxes for reliability and efficiency. I think that they are still ahead a bit in reliability, but for efficiency things are now neck-and-neck. An expertly-driven manual gearbox might beat a CVT on economy, but, thinking realistically, how many manual gearboxes are actually driven with total attention to gear selection? Unless the driver is on a track or compulsive-obsessive it is likely the transmission will be in the wrong gear part of the time and efficiency will suffer. The lack of a tall top gear in the 6MT is a definite minus when it comes to economy.

 

I picked up my new fit yesterday with cvt. I do quite a bit of freeway driving which means occasional rush hour traffic. I learned how to drive using a manual but preferred the auto I had in my last car (95 accord wagon) so I chose the cvt. now, I didn't get a chance to test drive the manual fit so I can't compare the two, but my old car's auto and the fit's cvt is very different. The cvt really doesn't have gears so it constantly adjusts the ratio it seems so you don't have to press the pedal more when transitioning to a hill unlike the traditional auto in my 95. I tried out the sport mode but find it difficult to judge when to shift because it has 7 gears (I think) and its hard to hear the revs change unlike my mom's civic and civic wagon. The cvt does have more power than my old car and compares well to my mom's 03 manual civic but less fun.


Now if you are focused on mpg, my mom's 03 manual civic gets about 41 mpg freeway (rated 36 20/80 I think) with a/c on. I don't think the newer manuals are geared that way anymore since they try to cater to the majority of the manual market which doesn't care much about mpg these days. The fit cvt on the other hand I've seen reports ranging from 35 to 44 mpg freeway which I believe is higher than the manual.


So basically this narrows it down to personal preference... freeway long haul mpg or fun to drive a manual in the city.

 

Present

I didn't realize it until I went on a 10 hour road trip with someone recently and they started asking questions about what I was doing and why. After, they said "I guess I should start paying more attention to my driving.", which I was delighted to hear.

 

Most people would rather just text.

 

OTOH, I'd prefer that more average drivers be paying attention to actual driving rather than dividing their attention to be a smart controller for the transmission. Shifting is pretty much the only internal vehicle function that isn't yet fully automated in some cars.

If you can maintain total focus for a 10-hour trip my hat's off to you. You sound like a person who should be in F1 or perhaps in the special forces!

 

More of a way to not be bored, like a game in my head, I am on the road a lot.

I start losing focus at the end of a 30 minute HPDE session , I have tons of respect for endurance and F1 drivers.

 

I'm not understanding why a manual would beat out a CVT if they both handle the same. I mean, when I put the CVT in 'L' gear, once it hits 6000rpm, I'm capable of keeping it there the WHOLE time while I'm driving. It doesn't matter if I accelerate or hit the brakes. So I'm confused... No downshifting for power. It stays at its maximum power for the duration of the drive, if I choose to keep it in 'L'. Paddle shifting it would be pointless.

This seems like a dream to me performance wise. **Scratching head**

 

Not a dream, it's just a matter of how sophisticated the control software and hardware are to allow smooth and efficient power delivery.

Earlier I stated that automated gearboxes are banned in F1 racing since they are too good at keeping the engines on the powerband. Shifting is a key place where drivers make an occasional error and the Powers That Be decided that it would be unsporting to withhold the opportunity to make mistakes!

If you think about it, automatic transmissions have had continuous improvement since their introduction. Remember the first powerglides? Two speeds and a torque converter that provided a very loose connection between the engine and wheels. Horribly inefficient. Over the years autos have had more gears to the point were some of them have more ratios than a manual driver could handle. The ultimate is the CVT with an infinite number of ratios. Also improved is the lockup action that solidly connects the engine to the drive wheels most of the time without any fluid couplings in the middle. If the control software is good enough there is no reason that a CVT can't perform better than a fixed gear transmission.

The one thing a CVT can't yet do is store energy in the flywheel to give the car a boost off the line. That sort of thing was important when heavy cars had only 150HP or so, but for normal driving in a Fit with 130HP I don't feel the need to drop the hammer like that.

 

I don't think the CVT is worse for performance honestly, I think it'd require a different driving style at pace, it'd have to be learned. I'd like to experience it myself, maybe I can convince my local dealership to take an extended test drive, i'll even bring the salesperson with, good local roads aren't really all that far away lol

I can't imagine driving in "L" like that in a spirited manner with lots of throttle input changes would be good for the transmission's longevity though, sounds like that belt would be doing a whole lot of adjusting, but I'm just assuming. Performance cars use DCT almost exclusively, so there must be some drawbacks and limitations at this time. The new NSX is even (I believe) 9 speed DCT? Why no CVT?

 

I've actually not driven the 6MT. Just the CVT.

Anyone who knows how to drive a manual gearbox properly can get better MPG in that than they would in a CVT.

The only advantage of the CVT is that it sucks the fun from the experience...making it easier to pussyfoot around.

No idea why its not...but the fact that the CVT cars are slower from the factory says that something must be up.

 

I think that there are still issues with transmitting a lot of power via the CVT so current incarnations are in lower power vehicles.

Also, if you think there are a lot of Luddites here, we're nothing compared to the high performance car community!

 

All we have to do is think outside of the box. You don't need more torque to be faster or make more horsepower. Lighten the car. Reduce rotating mass from wheels, crankshaft, etc. Use the same torque as stock but raise the rev limit and add aftermarket camshafts. Instead of 6500rpm peak horsepower, raise it to 7200rpm, ......hell 8500rpm with additional valves and springs to support it. You'd be using the same amount of torque as stock but further up in the powerband. No worries about breaking anything in the CVT tranny and it'd be doing it on a lighter vehicle.

Either way, arguing either way is useless. Get what best 'Fit's your needs. I'm just excited about the 'new' technology and love experimenting with what it's capable of. I'm liking it a LOT so far!