I drive 90% highway at 55-60mph. Will I do better with the AT at these speeds?

Thanks,

Pete

 

I can't answer that question. I do not have an 09 FIT maybe others here can though. I wouldn't make use of Navi.

However, if you use cruise control then the Auto would yield better mpg for highway. I still think the 09 FIT is too pricey and not enough mpg. Though the look of the new fit is growing on me.

 

The AT rev are much lower at those speed compare to the MT.

 

It is pretty easy to get 40 mpg+ in the MT at those speeds (no hypermiling required). I cant speak to the AT.

 

On my most recent road trip I averaged 40-42mpg (hand calculated) doing the posted speed limit (anywhere from 55-65). I also turn the AC off when I don't need it.

 

the auto will def get better MPG at those speeds.
2000 rpm is around 58 mph. if you keep the car under
2000 you should be fine.

 

We don't have any 2009 MT that have arrived only AT.

For the 2008 Fit Sport, the MT is much better on the highway. 40 would be easy.

Fit Sport AT gets about 32-33 mpg on highway in my area, better if road is completely flat. Any hill and mpg drops like a lead ballon- get high 20s.

Under full load of 4 or 5 people and going uphill the Fit Sport AT is dying.

Hard to say what will be for the 2009 Fit. Lets hope it is a better AT, the older AT is definitely lacking. Too bad 9 out of 10 Fits sold in my area the last two years are AT.

 

I have 09 Fit with about 600 miles on the tach.

My second tank went to about 31+ mpg.

Road conditions contained a lot of steady hills and valleys with a long, steep decline on the way to work which became a long steep incline going back to work. Round trip took about 100 miles (50 miles to or from work) each day.

I drive 65 when I can but mostly 75-80 mph.

A/C is off unless it is really hot outside.

I think once my break-in period is done, I can do much better than 31mpg. I felt the trip meter is a quite a bit over the top but the meter helps you drive better.

 

guys will argue that the AT spins slower so it has to get better MPG right?.
But I disagree, fuel usage is really based on throttle opening, not RPM.
So my money is on the MT as you dont have the parasitic power loss of the AT

 

Well, the Automatic has a "lock-up" torque converter which has increased modern automatics quite a bit. Sure, there is the hydraulic pump, but it doesn't seem like it would be as much of a drag as an A/C compressor. Manual transmissions aren't exactly 100% efficient either, they have lots of parts moving and spinning in oil. I suspect the process used by EPA to gather their number is at least comparative. Most people/cars can do better, but it is a good baseline.

 

I hear ya, and consider the "Lock-UP TC" to be pretty much standard for 10 years or so.
It just seems for all my studies of cars, the smaller the car and engine, the better MPG a manual will give even though like you say even a manual is certainly not 100% efficient. Before I posted (just to make sure I wasn't just spouting off) I checked the polls (which are mainly based on the 07/08) and 14.65% of the automatics got 36 MPG or better while 38.95 of the manuals got 36MPG or better. Even if there are a few bull sh!tters in there, its pretty convincing.
Now that Ive owned an 07 and now an 09, I am pretty sure it is going to shake out about the same way on the new models.

My point really is so many people base their opinions on the fact that the manual spins faster. But I am pretty darn sure it is throttle opening (load) that determines your MPG not RPM.

 

The auto vs manual data you provide makes sense, if one follows that people buy an Auto when they have lots of city driving to do and they buy a manual for more open road/suburb use. Maybe it isn't that the automatic is that much worse mileage, but that the audience using the automatics are the ones driving more city traffic. Seems one would need to do both types of vehicles on the same course at same speeds/loads and isn't that what EPA does? They might have had the "Sport" mode enabled (higher shift points I think) on the sport vs base automatics.

 

regardless of the gearing, the MT will get better fuel economy.

 

Fitforfour
you are putting faith in the government to accurately pit an automatic against a manual? Ishhhh! Do they really drive em on the highway? I'm trying to think of something the government has done right lately.....there must be something....well maybe....or ummm drawing a blank here.
Then if they are wrong will there will be a MPG bailout for the automatics???
Mostly joking around, but I definitly have no faith in EPA MPG estimates.
I dont know if your other theory is true, maybe not so much. My wife drives an automatic....shes mostly highway. I'm more city with my manual lately.

We need new mileage polls for the 09 cars!!!!!!!!!

I think all the speculation that the manuals would suffer MPG wise, and that was before the damn cars were even out, may likely turn out to be nothing more than fools logic.
Only time will prove this out, in the meantime manual trannys are a lot of fun especially in a smaller car like the Fit.
My wifes other car, a Murano has a CVT. Now that is the future of automatics in my humble opinion and the greatest potential for top MPG

I agree, I honestly believe your statement is very true

 

even w/ taller gears, the AT fit's engine will have to work harder due to the power loss in the drivetrain. not even, but especially because of the taller gearing.

 

oh, and u are exactly right. the 'epa estimates' are complete BS. i can get 30mpg in my 07 MT sport, or i can get 60mpg. depending on how hard i push my foot down, and the weather

 

Maybe we are all agreeing here. If the aerodynamic drag of the '09 Fit at 55mph is 18 hp (that's a guess...), then it comes down to; is the engine just as efficient producing 18 hp at 2200 RPM as it is at 2800 RPM. It is probably very close given the wide torque band. I don't have direct experience with the EPA, but they have been changing their testing process over time, presumably as an improvement to reflect real life usage.

 

imma sorta agree. idk hahahahahhah. nao isnt the best time for me. but the auto trans RAPES power in a 4cyl. idk what kind of car.

 

Driving 55-60 in my '08 Base AT, I get 38-40 (better when it isn't below freezing outside) mpg with the tire pressure @ 44psi. All highway, near 80 mph average with the wife and three in the car (at one point, we hit 104mph @ 4000rpm), we averaged 34 mpg heading to West Virginia a couple of weeks ago. Running the speed limit or less on a 600+ mile trip to South Carolina yielded 38 mpg, and that's with 780 pounds of people and at least 250 pounds of luggage. I had no problems with the hills on 40 through the Smokey Mountains.

I think part of the confusion with the AT vs MT is that the AT costs more so the dealers all push it. More money in their pocket. The MT seems to get better mileage despite the AT's better freeway gearing because of the power losses through the trans.

My best tank (to date) is 49.6mpg, but I had to work for that.

 

we need to remember too that the 09 auto is differently geared from the 09 sport auto. the 09 auto (non-sport) might get just as good or better mileage on the highway as the sport manual, but i think in a sport auto to sport man comparison the manual will win mpg wise.

rpm has a pretty big impact upon your mpgs. if you doubt me, try running about 6,000rpm in 1st, compared to shifting to third, and watch your lil mpg thing. VE (volumetric efficiency) speaking, the engine is more efficient at 6,000 rpm, however you have much greater loss due to resistance. in one minute each of your pistons have moved up and down 6,000 times compared to 2,000 times, your crank has also rotated that many times more, and your transmission's input shaft has turned that many times more. rpm has a large impact on mpg.

i've gone from a 3.23 rear end to a 4.11 in a big mean american powered car, i'm speaking from experience here. nothing else changed, but mpgs when down big time.