I am considering a 2015 Fit purchase. I planned to get a manual (grew up driving them and I'm in New England) but it looks like the mpg is WORSE for manual than automatic. Is this true?

This will help affect the price and I don't want to pay for something (automatic tx) if it really doesn't give me better gas mileage. Any results out there?

 

I'm getting 38-42 in mixed suburban driving at 45-55 mph with the manual. If you like driving a manual why not get it?? The difference in a few mpg after 35 is pretty negligible unless you are driving 30k miles a year or something.

The auto is best if you are driving a lot if interstate speeds of 70+ since the manual revs higher at those speeds.

 

Im easy driving with my manual. 33-38mpg on average between mixed round town and highway. 25-29mpg if im towing my 5x8 trailer with ~500 pounds of furniture on it.

Get a manual. You wont be disappointed. Never been a fan of automatics. Especially CVTs. I learned on a manual at 15 yrs of age.

 

Don't go by the EPA ratings. I think their test cycle is biased in favor of automatics. I had a '09 Fit Sport MT and averaged 36.28 MPG over the life of the car, handily beating the EPA highway estimate of 33. I don't know anyone with an automatic that beat it.


Too soon to tell, but so far, my '15 EX MT is averaging around 40 MPG. I tried both the manual and the CVT, bought the manual and am not disappointed.


Get the car YOU want and don't look back.

 

Should have included the usage ... I drive mostly highway miles at 65mph average speed, putting on about 25,000 per year with minimum of 400 miles a week. Then add in suburban errands, which is a fraction of driving.

Manual owners: If you were driving 50-100 miles straight highway every day, would you make the same decision to buy the manual? Any "revving" that you experience in the last gear?

I plan on testing the manual and the automatic on the same drives to compare.

 

I have 2302 miles on my manual. Mostly commuting but two 300+ mile road trips. I never notice any engine noise on the highway - probably drowned out by the stereo. The following are actual measured numbers - the car's trip computer usually records 2 to 3 mpg more.
Worst tank - 32.27 mpg
Best tank - 39.31 mpg
Avg - 34.93 mpg
I regularly hit 6000+ RPM - I enjoy pulling away at the lights from the SUVs and pickups and Civics with fart-can exhausts.
The only automatic I ever bought in a new vehicle was my 2.3l Ranger because it makes pulling my small boat up the ramp a lot easier - no more 4 wheel burnouts as with the Saabaru (Saab 92x Aero - really a rebadged 2.5l Subaru WRX wagon with a better looking nose).

 

Given that, I would probably go with the CVT. Get an EX and it has paddle shifters for those times you want to have some fun. As someone else pointed out, the CVT will do lower rpms on the highway. Also, I would tend to think that the CVT model would have better resale value down the road, if that is important to you.

I'm in New England too. I have a 50 mile commute to work (100 mile round trip). I've been getting mid 30s (EX CVT) because I usually encounter at least one traffic jam both ways. I hope this improves a little now that the weather is getting warmer (the 1.5l motor really does not like the cold it would seem). I've had a couple longer highway trips where I've gotten around 42mpg indicated on the trip computer.

 

[QUOTE=NHsurfergirl;1299594]I am considering a 2015 Fit purchase. I planned to get a manual (grew up driving them and I'm in New England) but it looks like the mpg is WORSE for manual than automatic. Is this true?

This will help affect the price and I don't want to pay for something (automatic tx) if it really doesn't give me better gas mileage. Any results out there?
/QUOTE]

we have numerous Fit here, both automatic and manual, and yes its true. the manuals get less mpg simply because the gear ratios are higher on manuals meaning the engine revs higher for any given speed. the more rpm the engine turns the less the mpg. on flat level ground it can be less of a handicap but I never saw any place in NH that was flat. the nice thing about the CVT is it can be shifted like an automatic like Sebastian and cohorts do. and no one here drives at 45 mph if they can help it.
ps at resale or trade time you'll get your money back.

 

I'm all for manuals as well, but for my circumstances and the lower RPM's of the CVT and less noise, the CVT actually does a much better job going up and down hills with cruise control than my 2002 Odyssey which down shifts too late and very abruptly.

That being said, if it was my only manual transmission car, I would probably choose the manual and live with the extra noise and small decrease in MPG. I don't think you can go wrong with either model, it depends on your individual circumstances and cabin noise level requirements.

 

Fwiw there is also a difference in estimated mpg between the lx and ex, with the ex being slightly lower maybe due to it's increased weight. You will definitely want to test both the mt and cvt under your driving conditions. I have the lx mt, and the higher revs at 60+ do not bother me, but my driving mix is the reverse of yours - mostly city/country roads with more occasional interstate/highway. My own mpg results over 8 months are slightly higher than the estimates around town, and considerably higher when travelling longer distances at 55-65. I'm really enjoying my fit, very practical, and a lot more fun than I expected, but if I faced your weekly commute I might consider something a bit more substantial than a sub-compact.

 

Thanks all for the input. It is really helpful as I head off to test drive both the Manual and Auto (along my actually commuting route) this afternoon. I have a distrust of the auto industry - so real life owners/experience always trumps what the sales floor or official info puts forth.

I currently own a 2009 CRV which has always been bigger than what I need, Plus and it sucks my paycheck up with a commute that went from 9 miles a day to 40 at the same time that gas prices jumped from $1.25/gal to $3.89/gal. Despite lowering fuel costs, Just doesn't "fit" me anymore.

 

Your commute sounds just like mine. 40 some-odd miles each way, mostly highway, and then all the regular errands that come with having kids.

It never would have occurred to me to get an auto or a CVT- they're optimized for EPA test results instead of the real world. On top of that, if you're going to buy something underpowered, why would you hide what little power you do have behind a torque converter?

 

Real life experience should trump the EPA numbers, but it is your experience that counts, not that of manual transmission purists and CVT fanboys on a forum.

Personally, given a long commute, I would go for the CVT as it would be quieter and more economical at speed and easier to drive if traffic is stop-and-go. This is from someone with three MT cars in his driveway.

 

Actually now that I think about it I don't recall seeing anyone that went for either transmission say they regretted it, so I'm sure you'll like it either way

 

I think CVT is a ticking bomb. Get the proven and trusted manual gearbox.
If you shift right, you will get the most mpg out of a manual. I average 40 mpg in my 2012 manual and have gotten as high as 56 mpg when at steady moderate speed driving.

 

True enough. I test drove both, and, for an automatic, I thought the CVT was quite peasant to drive. If I drove mostly in the city, I might have been persuaded to go with the CVT, but I don't, so I got the manual. A few extra RPMs on the 4-lane doesn't worry me in the slightest, It's a Honda, and it's meant to rev.

 

you missed the attributes of cvt, besides better mpg and easier radio listening on commutes. And manuals with higher gear ratios are hard pressed to get better mpg under the same conditions. but consider:
1. you'll get back more than you paid when trade-in time comes. many dealers won't even trade-in manuals more than they can get at auctions.
2. first clutch replacement will blow your entire savings from buying a manual over a cvt
3. with paddles you will have just as much fun shifting. that I can attest to, even on track. its easy to see why racing switched to automatics.
4. cvt's have proven at least as reliable as manuals. just because manual shifting with clutches have been around for a century doesn't mean more reliable. manual transmissions have gone thru so many updates that the current ones are no more developed than automatics and in fact may not be as reliable because they have to be to meet the market.. perhaps scanning fit postings can give you an idea of the comparison of posted problems between manuals and cvt.

 

Mahout makes good points. Back in the day of rear wheel drive a clutch replacement was an afternoon in the garage but with transverse engines and FWD it has become a job for the $$$ pros who have the lifts needed. Clutches last a good long time if treated well, but it is a friction-wear device and it is nearly certain that one will need replacement in the lifetime of a car driven normally, two or three in a car driven primarily in city traffic or in a sporting fashion.

The Fit's CVT uses a conventional torque converter for its clutch function. This is well-prove, reliable technology that does not wear out. Although CVTs are relatively new to the US they have been used elsewhere for quite a while and I haven't heard of a higher failure rate than has been experienced with conventional automatics.

 

If that's how your driving will be, you need to get the CVT auto, no second thought. Not only CVT gets the better MPG, just think about extra wear and tear on the manual engine that has to spin 1200 rpm higher than the CVT engine at highway speeds over the years.

 

In 36 years of driving manual transmissions, I've only had to replace one clutch. Heck, even my Harley-Davidson is on its original clutch at 191,000 miles. Yes, sooner or later everything wears out. So will you. Not a good reason to choose one over another unless you're one of those people who abuse clutches. For that matter, one rebuilt automatic transmission will put you behind the game, too.

MPG? As I said, take EPA numbers with a LARGE grain of salt. Too many variables in real world driving to say one is better than the other. Depends too much on how and where you drive.

I still say, get the car YOU want, the one YOU will enjoy driving and living with. Don't let a bunch of opinionated "experts" on an internet forum (myself included) make your decisions for you.