I am a certifed Honda technician and can guarantee you it is safe to tow your Fit and here's why:

For a number of years now, work has has been proceeding in order to bring prefection to the crudely conceived idea of a machine that would work to not only supply inverse reactive current, for use in unilateral phase detectors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronising cardinal grammeters. Such a machine is the 'Turboencabulator'. Basically, the only new principle involved is that instead of the power being generated by the relaxive motion of conductors and fluxes, it is produced by the modial interactions of magneto- reluctance and capacitive directance.


The original machine had a base-plate of prefabulated amulite, surrounded by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings were in direct line with the pentametric fan, the latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzelvanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar vaneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus- o-delta type placed in panendermic semiboloid solts in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible termic pipe to the differential girdlespring on the 'up' end of the grammeter.

Forty-one manestically placed grouting brushes were arrranged to feed into the rotor slip stream a mixture of high S-value phenyhydrobenzamine and 5 percent reminative tetraiodohexamine. Both these liquids have specific pericosities given by p=2.4 Cn where n is the diathecial evolute of retrograde temperature phase disposition and C is the Chomondeley's annual grillage coefficient. Initially, n was measured with the aid of a metapolar pilfrometer, but up to the present date nothing has been found to equal the transcetental hopper dadoscope.

Electrical engineers will appreciate the difficulty of nubbing together a regurgitative purwell and a superaminative wennel-sprocket. Indeed, this proved to be a stumbling block to further development until, in 1943, it was found that the use of anhydrous nagling pins enabled a kyptonastic boiling shim to be tankered.

The early attempts to construct a sufficiently robust spiral decommutator failed largely because of lack of appreciation of the large quasi-pietic stresses in the gremlin studs; the latter were specially designed to hold the roffit bars to the spamshaft. When, however, it was discovered that wending could be prevented by the simple addition of teeth to socket, almost perfect running was secured.

The operating point is maintained as near as possible to the HF rem peak by constantly fromaging the bituminous spandrels. This is a distinct advance on the standard nivelsheave in that no drammock oil is required after the phase detractors have remissed.

Undoubtedly, the turboencabulator has now reached a very high level of technical development. It has been successfully used for operating nofer trunnions. In addition, whenever a barescent skor motion is required, it may be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocating dingle arm to reduce sinusoidal depleneration.

 

He's buying an RV. The kind of people who buy RV's would never do the physical activity requisite in driving a vehicle fitted with a manual transmission.

 

You are my new hero. Bravo sir.

 

I think you're right: it probably would be OK - for short distances. I'm still not confident idle keeps the fluid pressure proper for transmission at cruising speed for long durations, lke 50 miles+. Auto trans are still engaged, even when in neutral. If the engine stalls the trans will definitely fry. I wouldn't do it unless I had no other option.

Are there laws on the books that frown on this practice, much like coasting downhill in neutral is illegal in many states?

What if you're in an accident? what are the circumstances (liabilities) of a running, unoccupied vehicle in motion?

New vehicle depreciation (mileage) + fuel usage + wear and tear (tires, oil, filters, etc) just makes this seem like an option of last resort.

 

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ids/dotdot/misc/jokes/turboencabulator.txt

:-P

 

Here's the bottom line: OP wants "technical reasons" why towing an idling CVT Fit is a bad idea, but given that none of us are privy to data from Honda's internal testing (assuming this test was even done), we're really the wrong audience to be asking.

My guess is that the Owner's Manual statement is there not because Honda specifically tested this (towing an idling car), but because they are covering themselves should someone do so and cause damage. They don't want the potential warranty hit, in other words.

It's quite possible ("technically") that the OP can do this without damage to their car, but they are essentially Beta testers for Honda at that point. And it's a lot harder to reformat a transmission than it is a computer hard drive.

OP - if you try this and it works over several thousand accumulated miles, do please report back. We'll all benefit from actual real-world data at that point and you might help someone else make a similar decision... Same deal if you toast something...

es

 

The new 2015 CRVs with CVT are having the same no no for towing behind a motor home despite the fact large number of RV owners also own a CRV. So makes you wonder why would Honda cut off RV folks like that?

 

That's pretty simple to understand. The number of people who won't buy the new Hondas because they cannot flat tow them behind their motorhomes is much smaller than the number of people who would choose to buy them because of the better rated milage/performance that the CVT brings over the automatic transmissions they're replacing.

While Hondas are quite popular with RV people because they can be towed, it's very much a small niche in the overall car market, particularly when you're talking of vehicles that sell in the quantities that the Fit or the CRV sell in. (There were 335,019 CR-V's sold in the US last year, about one out of every four Hondas sold in the US. Fit sales in the US are lower, but the Fit is extremely popular in Japan and elsewhere worldwide. Towing a car behind an RV is largely an American phenomenon, I think.)

 

Someone of Mike410b's extraordinary knowledge should know that the lubricant pump of the transmission is run by its input shaft and the circulating lubricant is what is lacking when the car is towed with the engine off.

Now, while it is possible to do this in an emergency, I think that it's not terribly wise to recommend doing this as a normal procedure. Idling an engine for hours at highway speed without monitoring is asking for trouble.

It would be much more prudent to get a simple, no-suspension trailer and use that to haul the car. As a bonus, you don't rack up miles on the car and you can back a trailer properly, unlike a dolly or a tow bar.

 

So OP is going to tow a trailer behind a trailer?

Better solution: Ban RV's.

 

I agree ban RV's. Or restrict their use.

I think it as absolute farce in this country and our highways. That ANYONE with a normal driver's license can drive a huge RV the size of a big rig and then on top of that still tow something behind it!
For years now, I think there should be legislation on such acts.
If you intend to operate a vehicle like that, it should be mandatory to have a commercial drivers license!
Completely off topic of the fit but surely someone here knows someone who can take this matter to a higher level.
With all of the safety mandates on vehicles today, having any Joe Smoe being able to drive a setup like that is a joke and a danger to me!

 

Technical reason from someone who is an engine design and development specialist and worked for several years specifically on valvetrain development. Idling is typically the worst condition for the valvetrain (camshaft lobe nose, timing drive) due to the minimal lubrication during idle. Taxi's idle for MANY hours and it destroys their engines. When working at one of the major auto OEM's we would run countless "granny cycle" idling tests on the valvetrains.

So from a valvetrain perspective, yes, you can idle it towing, but it definitely isn't the best for the engine.

From the CVT perspective you would need to dig into how the transmission is designed and allowed to "freewheel" in neutral. I haven't delved into it's design to know whether they are using a solenoid actuated clutch to engage the transmission or a torque converter.

From my perspective I agree with the comments from others that if you want to tow a CVT Fit, buy a car dolly. If not, the risk is yours, others have given their advice.

 

CDL is based on weight of the vehicle. I guess a lot of Rv makers get around their buyers needing that by making them light. They just need to make length of vehicle count too. That's federal though some states like CA do take length into account but there is like a special noncommercial rv license or something for those big ones.

 

License laws vary from state to state. A federal CDL is never required for private noncommercial use of an RV, no matter what the weight of it is; there's a specific exemption in the federal law for them.

Some states do require licenses above and beyond the normal driver's license for (larger) RVs, usually more or less in line with the federal CDL requirements for testing but usually not requiring the physical exam, logbooks, and so forth. Many other states don't bother; anybody with a driver's license (or learner's permit!) can drive any RV legally. I do agree it doesn't make a whole lot of sense...but then again we are talking about laws, and applying common sense is often futile there.

The original poster apparently was talking about a class B RV, which is a van conversion, and which requires no special licensing in any state. (It also isn't especially long or tall, at least by motorhome standards.) The weight (excluding any trailer or towed vehicle) is probably in the rough vicinity of 10,000 pounds.

RVs have a surprisingly decent safety record per mile driven, I suspect mostly because people driving them do so with more attentiveness and care than many people driving cars. (If you're driving a large RV, especially one that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, you generally want to keep it and/or your own self from being destroyed.) It's certainly not because they're particularly crashworthy or have great handling.

 

He's considering flat-towing a Fit behind a Class B, which is basically a van conversion.

This is actually a small and agile combination as RVs go, but of course you knew that.

 

Shoot, must've misread somewhere that said something about him towing a trailer behind a van, then the Fit behind that.

Either way...if the Class B is that small manageable, just drive that.

 

I think the transmission would be fine doing it that way. Just hope the car doesn't turn off for some dumb reason.

I also hope the doors don't auto lock on you. Do the cars come with two fobs or some way to unlock the car without the fob?

Two wheel trailers are so cheap to rent though, I don't know why you'd bother with all the shenanigans, but do what ya do.

 

Some reason why you can't just buy or rent a vehicle front wheel tow trailer??? For the money you save on fw tire wear and potential other issues/wear... Issue solved.

Of course I've never been RVing... perhapse I know nothing.

 

It came with two keys.

 

if the tranny is firmly locked in neutral I could see where there's no problem but that neutral has to be absolutely locked. any possible matching gears could be a problem and at some point there almost has to be gear revs matched at some time..
are you talking about using the class b trailer to hual the car? as long as front wheels are off the ground - there's no reason for the engine to idle. what kind of trailer is this?