These sporty 2015 manual transmission Fits, how fast are they anyways?

What are some of the best 1/4 mile times they run (stock or modified)? I haven't been able to find any information anywhere outside of a couple magazine reviews.

 

I think you're the only one who would take a Fit to a dragstrip.

 

I don't know. I don't live 1/4 mile from work. It gets pretty respectable results over longer distances, though.

 

There are those that complain that the 6MT is too loud on the highway. I've recently travelled at 105kph/65mph and in 6th gear the engine runs at 3,200rpm. The speed limit here is 100kph/62mph. To me the Fit is pretty respectable in terms of noise. For more acceleration and pep I just gear down to 5th. I have no complaints about the gearing. If the Fit had a lower 6th speed there would be more gearing down for small elevation gains in the road. I prefer the 6 speed as is.

100 km highway = 5.9L/100km, 40mpg = happy

 

The CVT allows me to cruise at 2300 rpm at 75 mph. I might have chosen a 6-gear manual if the 6th gear allowed me to cruise at 2700 rpm at 75 mph, and get better gas mileage at 75 mph, but it doesn't. It demands that the engine turn at around 3400. And 6th gear turns the engine at only slightly lower rpm at 75 mph than 5th gear. Weird gear ratio choices for highway driving by Honda engineers, and marketing people. I think Honda must have thought manual transmission buyers would want better acceleration than automatic buyers, so they configured all the gear rations on the manual, that way.

Yet the CVT has better acceleration than the manual for passing, or for merging onto limited access highways with not-so-long merge lanes. I love surprising all the "considerate" highway drivers who slow down to let me in, or move left to let me in - and who do so unnecessarily. It is fun to see them so far behind me in my rearview mirror, by the time get out of the merge line and onto the highway. Sure I could still do this with the manual - but it would require a bit more work. With the CVT, I just push the pedal down to the floor, once, and leave it there until the car reaches the speed I want, and watch the results.

Feeling that little engine rapidly wind up to, and then stay fixed at, exactly 6500 rpm, for several seconds, while only the car is changing its speed, while the car is smoothly and rapidly accelerating from 15 mph to 75 mph, I think that is a cool feeling, and is one that you don't get from any other kind of transmission.

 

Have you actually driven a CVT and 6MT back to back? The 6MT is faster as long as you drive the 6MT the way you are supposed to, which means running it full throttle to redline when accelerating and downshifting to make a pass. The "work" as you call it is part of the fun of driving a manual.

 

It depends on how you want to use the car. I bought the CVT because the Fit is not my only car, and I bought it to be used as a utility simple to use car. I am a guy who always drove manuals, including BMW and a Porsche 911 Turbo. At first, I wanted a manual because it would be "sporty", found a Modern Steel Metallic I wanted 400 miles away, but after considering the "real" purpose why I wanted the Fit, I went for the CVT. I am very happy to see an automatic in the stable of manuals. I love the Fit for what it was designed to do, be economical, reliable, and dependable with lots of interior space for a small car. Some say the 6spd manual is "faster". The Fit was was designed for the CVT, and 99% of the people who bought the Fit can't be wrong, but there is nothing wrong for being different.

 

You're forgetting that 88% of Americans want automatics (basing that on the 12% manual take rate) and that the rest of the world mostly drives manual (although in some places like Europe that is changing) so to say the Fit was "designed" for the CVT and that 99% of people can't be wrong is really an incorrect statement since the take rate on the CVT isn't 99%.

 

OK, for the record, what is the rate? The world is beginning to see driving is not a pleasure, but a convenience in autonomous cars. That is the direction. Now, that does not mean there is no place for manuals. If you want to defend manuals, go for it! Long time ago, pleasure drivers were defending the use of analog gauges vs digital. Guess what, it's all digital now. There are no more horses and buggies as well.

 

This article says that more than 80% of vehicles sold in Japan and Europe are still manuals. Don't know if accurate.

https://www.thezebra.com/insurance-n...-vs-automatic/

As for gauges, most cars still have analog read outs for either speedometer or tachometer. Many BMW's, VW's, etc are still all analog read out.

 

BTW, not saying which is better. I prefer a manual transmission, but can appreciate that not everyone does. I'm also fortunate enough to not sit in traffic all day. If I were spending hours inching along in traffic, I'd opt for the transmission that would include a self destruct button so that I'd be put out of my misery. LOL

 

Truly, it depends on the kind of driving you do. Lots of stop and go city traffic, or hauling a trailer, the CVT would be the way to go. But if you're doing mountain driving, with ice in the winter, a MT makes a lot more sense.

 

I don't know the rate of Fits sold with a manual but I'm sure it's higher than 1% like you claimed. It is most likely closer to 20-25%. Also globally, only 32% of transmissions are automatic.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204123/transmission-type-market-share-in-automobile-production-worldwide/

I stand corrected about the U.S. rate. It's about 6.7% Not sure where I got 12% from, possibly our Canadian numbers as we drive more manuals.

https://jalopnik.com/5694777/67-of-vehicles-sold-in-us-have-manual-transmissions

 

I chose to order my 2018 Fit with a CVT. My other vehicle is a Jeep with a 6 speed manual, so I will have that to drive when I get the urge to row my own. Also, all my motorcycles are manual of course. I went CVT for the Fit since it's mission is commuting and I wanted the lower highway RPM. My wife has a 2015 CR-V CVT and I actually really like the way it drives. The CVT keeps it in the perfect torque range for the amount of throttle you give.

Either transmission, you can't go wrong with a Fit!

 

Yes, overall percentage might be 6.7%, but it's also geographically dependent. Meaning some areas the percentage will be higher and some will be lower.

I live by Chicago and when I went to buy my 2017 Fit in October of 16 there weren't many MT vehicles available in my area. I originally wanted a red one, but the closest was in Western Iowa or about 300-400 miles away. I settled on a blue MT which was only 60 miles from my house. I originally went to the largest volume dealer in the state and they only had two MT Fit in stock and they were both silver. That was out of probably 100 Fit's in inventory.

Auto manufactures will send colors and options to certain geographic regions where they will sell or be more popular. Back in 2008 my wife wanted a MT "C" class Mercedes. The only ones available in the country were in Florida and California. I would have to have special ordered the car or paid $1K for transport to Chicago.

 

id drive MT everyday to work if i didnt have to wear dress shoes everyday. my commute is 20miles one way with mostly expressway and lots of congestion. i found that my dress shoes get worn a lot faster when i drive MT.. and not very comfy. driving MT in congestion didnt bother me..

i use to wear my piloti's and swap shoes once i got to my work's parking structure. it wasnt bad and i actually enjoyed the commute. but silly me i had to try dual clutch and sold the car and got my current dd which has a DSG. meh.. much superior to any torque converter based AT, but so boring to drive. i should've just stuck with my original idea getting an IS350F sport or at least a S3 if AT..

 

I bought a 2018 Fit EX this month. I really wanted a manual and a small part of me will regret not having one, but the CVT had too many advantages and I realized that I would have regretted it a lot more had I not went with it.

The big one on the 2018 models is the Honda Sensing suite, which requires CVT. Adaptive cruise control, anti-collision auto-braking, and lane-keep auto-steering. This is a car I want to try and enjoy for 15~20 years, so I'd gladly give up some of the feel/fun that a manual provides knowing the car is doing everything it can automatically to stick around with me.

But honestly, you don't lose a whole lot with the CVT. I say this as someone who loves going through the gears when accelerating in a manual.

Normally I have the car in Drive and keep Econ mode on. I still get acceptable throttle response and good torque when I need it on the freeways. If I need more or I want to have a bit of fun—which is often—I can turn off Econ and drop it into Sport mode. The throttle response, engine revs, and transmission all perk up immediately. The paddle shifters work well enough in manual mode, giving me enough control over the thing to engine brake going down and semi-flirt with the redline going up. (It automatically shifts up a few hundred RPM before getting there, though. Boo.)

For me, the CVT is capable of replicating 80% of the fun of a manual, but with the extra features gained being worth what you're missing there. Can't beat the fuel mileage, either. I just got back from a 200 mile freeway trip easily pulling 40mpg. Missing that other 20% may not be an acceptable trade-off for the manual die-hards, which I can relate to.

But you can't look down on the CVT just because "it's not a manual." It's its own thing now, and it's a good thing in my opinion.

 

I look down on them because, while they are getting better they still drive oddly to me. Then there is the question of reliability. While Honda has a better CVT reputation than most, manual transmissions are bulletproof with minimal maintenance costs. I went 290K on my original clutch in my 2000 Civic with no issues except a clutch slave replacement that cost me $60. Gear oil is cheap too. What does a CVT cost to maintain? Serious question as I have no idea.

 

My last seven (yes, that's right seven) vehicles were all manual. With my '16 LX, I decided to "splurge" on the CVT, and I haven't looked back.

Boiled down to this: 1. Wider gear range with the CVT, in particular a much taller top gear, meaning less revs at highway speeds, less engine wear and better fuel economy. 2. I spend a fair amount of time driving to Chicago, where stop-and-go traffic is legend, and would wear out my left foot every time I get stuck there. CVT gives my left foot a rest. 3. Much smoother revs when accelerating from a stop. I test drove a GE8 with auto and in comparison, much buzzier/frenetic with the traditional auto.

If the 6MT had the same top gear as the CVT, I'd be tempted, but it would still be a toss-up. With the 6MT essentially squeezed into the same gear range as the previous gen, no benefit there. Yes, I get the point about less maintenance with the MT. We'll see how that one plays out.

 

Sure, the manual is pretty much guaranteed to be bulletproof in the ways you describe. But if we're asking the question of manual or CVT, you can't end the debate there. You've got to look at the whole picture.

With the manual, you get these advantages:

• Cheaper up front
• Bulletproof transmission reliability
• Lower maintenance costs
• You own a Honda Fit that is fun to drive

The advantages for the CVT, especially with the 2018+ models:

• Autonomous comfort/safety features (Honda Sense)
• Better gas mileage
• Easier to drive (in traffic)
• You own a Honda Fit that is fun to drive

The only unknown on the CVT side is the reliability of the transmission, like you said. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to put a little faith in Honda that their products will last. It's OK to question unknowns, but it's also OK to go with those unknowns if they are behind a badge that has built up a reputation of quality and reliability.

With that being said, it's a matter of which set of advantages you want. Personally, I like the peace-of-mind knowing that the car might help me avoid getting into an accident. I'd be happy to be in the car long enough for the question of reliability to come up in the very-long term, because by then I think I would have got my money's worth already.