Edmunds got 8.8sec for 0-60mph with 2015 EX-L CVT. They got 10.2sec with 2009 sport 5-speed manual and 11.4sec with 2008 base 5-speed auto.
2015 CVT should be faster for day to day driving compared to previous versions.

 

Edmunds are terrible drivers lol

Maybe they took 1.8 seconds to shift the 1-2

 

These numbers are from their road test reviews. They got 9.8 sec for 0-60mph using 1 foot rollout with 2009 manual. 2008 version seems to be from 1st gen. 2009 is from 2nd gen. I am not able to find their 2g auto road tests. 2008 auto is slow compared to 2015 CVT.

http://www.edmunds.com/honda/fit/201...est-specs.html

http://www.edmunds.com/honda/fit/200...st-specs1.html

 

I know, i'm just saying in general...

C&D got 8.3 I believe in the GE (2nd gen). Quite a few people on here under that, but I think they're legitimately launching the car.

I have no doubts the GK is faster than that though. By how much, I don't know.

 

CVT seems to be a good improvement over previous 5-speed auto. It matches with my 8g Accord with 5-speed auto.

 

Car & Driver, MotorTrend and others have done 0 - 60 in the 2015 6MT at 8 seconds or less.

 

As is with the manual, there are different way to driving the CVT to improve its acceleration. Most magazines are just mashing the gas pedal in 'D' and/or 'S' mode and hoping for the best. Some manually shift it and some with paddle shifters. I personally have seen the best results in modulating the gas pedal in 'L' gear. I would not be surprised if it is similar to a 2015 manual tranny GK launching however they want to launch and they both crossing the 1/4 mile line very close to each other.

And yes, I drive like this ALL the time to maximize acceleration and simply switch back to 'D' mode when I'm ready to cruise again.

 

Sounds like a lot of work to:

A) Still accelerate slowly
B) Waste gas

 

A lot of work, as opposed to clutching and shifting six times to get up to speed, and then clutching and shifting six more times to come to a stop?

 

For an automatic that is still soulless and devoid of character/charm/technique/etc., yes, a lot of work.

I drive a manual because I enjoy it. Thus, the upshifting/downshifting is not a lot of work.

When I drive an automatic/CVT...its because someone else doesn't want to drive.

 

Says the guy who apparently doesn't know how to drive a stick.

 

If you are trying to get a good 0 - 60 then you are probably not getting much past 4th gear. If I recall correctly in my puny GD3 is was going over 60 before even wanting to shift to 4th.

Also, to stop only one operation is necessary: pressure the clutch and brake. It is not bad driving technique to simply brake to a stop. Engine braking will assist in braking but it's not vital (unless going down a very long hill). Plus you should never use 1st for engine braking so that leaves only 4 possible downshifts on the 6mt before a stop.

 

Technically, getting to 60 only requires 1st and 2nd. Including 3rd would be noticeably less aggressive and still produce good gas mileage.

Why buy a car with a 7000 red line if you're never going to get within 2000rpm of it?

Nobody I ever met downshifts through all the gears to stop. I'd be surprised if any significant percentage of casual users downshift at all for anything, except maybe for a sudden step incline or tight turn that requires a significant slowdown to negotiate. The intention for both instances is for more power to recover. Not for any help or requirement to slow down or stop.

You can be in 6th and coast down to almost 10mph in this car before any kind of shuddering occurs. Don't be a tailgater. Stay in whatever gear you're in and coast/brake down to ~20mph. Then go to neutral and coast/brake as needed to stop.

A lot of downshifting is not needed with the Fit during normal, moderate driving in normal. moderate or heavy traffic. The only vehicles I've ever driven that required much down/up shifting all the time were large, heavy trucks. If you're rowing up and down through all the gears all the time and every time you drive the car and in all conditions then you're doing it wrong. It's just not necessary with a car as small and light as the fit. Brakes are cheaper than clutches too.

 

I corrected your mistakes above mike410b. It's ok since I know the best of us make typos from time to time.


Putting the gear in 'L' and accelerating is a lot of work? I was approaching 50mpg before making further changes to my exhaust. No need to comment on accelerating slowly. I'll see you at the track. ;-)

 

In what way is that apparent?

All my cars are sticks. I've driven three-on-the-tree, 4-speeds, 4 with outboard overdrive, 5-speeds, 6 speeds, and even a 2-speed Model T. I've spent four decades rowing shift levers back and forth.

However, my Fit will be a CVT as their efficiency and performance has matured to the point where it has surpassed sticks for the normal tasks the car will be doing. I'm not so much a Luddite that it's "stick or die!"

If I were building a B-spec car I'd probably get the 6MT, but I have other cars for when I want to play boy racer.

 

I got the CVT for the same reason, better fuel economy. Now if the 6MT had a taller gear or was a 7MT, I might have gone for it since I love rowing my own.

 

50 MPG on the car's computer that was made specifically to blow smoke up your butt from one trip to the next =! 50 MPG.

And you mean the drag strip? That's a playground for small children, I wouldn't waste my time attempting to make a Fit almost as quick in a straight line as a stock Camry. Go to a track with corners...where being in the right part of the engine's powerband can gain you huge time.

Ugh automatic drivers. Lazy, illogical people the lot of them.

 

Pretty broad generalization your making.
"Ugh" is fine cause that's your opinion. But to conclude that they "all" are "Lazy and illogical" is absolutely unnecessary.
We all know your not a fan of the GK. That's totally fine. You have opinions on the technical and asthetics of the vehicle, that's fine too. But when you start letting your emotions get the better out of your opinionated postings, better you put more thought into it rather than have other members see you in an unsavory light.

 

Other members already see me in an unsavory light.

I'm okay with that, their cars are probably uglier than mine


REPLY: Now that's more like it. If your goal is to be the "unsavory light", you'll know best if you've succeeded or not. As for their cars being uglier than yours, maybe, in your eyes. Again, you can rejoice to yourself on that point.
Just stay away from making broad, emotional statements that could be intepreted by the majority of others differently. This forum is for sharing and opinions. Not for creating intrigues and the like.- rttby

 

He had to figure out other ways to bully forum members after the rating system he was abusing was discarded.

I can see both sides of the issue. I know the feel of that perfect downshift into the powerband at exactly the right point on the track and I understand the concentration needed to achieve it. My first racing experience was with small-bore 2-stroke dirt bikes with narrow powerbands and a tiny mistake in shifting would cost a position or two.

OTOH, when I'm driving to work or to the store I don't always want to apply that level of attention and the CVT will do a better job than I, leaving more of my attention reserve available for actual driving.

The fact that the CVT has better ratios for economy seals the deal for me.

I think that 6-speed manual gearboxes are rather silly in modern cars that have broad powerbands. 5-speeds are actually sufficient and we got along with four for many years. More gears means more shifting and when you're shifting you're not accelerating. In passenger cars the only reason to have a manual six speed is for the customers who have a "but this one goes up to 11!" mentality.