Yeah, I want a CRX but finding one in the Midwest that hasn't been molested by some rice is the tough part! And the ones that are clean no one will come off of. I guess I just have to show up with a couple grand cash in hand. Money talks . . . and well you know the rest . . .

 

^^^ The best suggestion so far if you can avoid the typical squid "adventures".

 

couldn't agree more. and thats IF you even find one.

not to mention (and this is important to some folks) that a fit is quite a bit more safe than a crx. the fit is small, the crx is an engine with a shell.

 

HAHAHA. I didn't know that.

You could just get a roll cage in it. I'd love to have a CRX with a roll cage, its more of a golf cart than the Fit is. LOL

 

true, but crashing in one, even with a roll cage, is going to be significantly more unpleasant than in a fit.

 

reminds me of this video: YouTube - Watch this.. Another Woman Driver!

 

I once saw a CRX around here that still had the OEM tail lights instead of some Autozone euros.

Then I woke up.

BOOYA!

 

Not too mention they are usually rusty as hell being the midwest.

 

this midwestern CRX looks clean (for the most part):
eBay Motors: Honda : CRX (item 180322961369 end time Jan-29-09 16:36:20 PST)

 

Ehhh rear quarter rust

 

Gotta love the midwest and it's rust inducing winters.

 

I love the AT for my DD but it helps that my S2000 is MT!

 

The only reason why I got the MT for the fit is to utilize its tiny engine a little better. I know the sport has a sport mode but nothing beats the control of an MT. There are days though that I wished I had bought the AT but overall, the MT boosts the fun factor of this car. Plus, MT are easier for me to work on because I don't know how to fix an AT if it breaks down.

 

AT ftl, even if you have one leg... AT ftl.

 

Can I have your MT so I can swap?

 

Apparently in Japan all the L13A-equipped Fits ran the fuel-sipping CVT. By some minor miracle, the L13A-equipped Jazzes that made it to the Philippines got a proper manual gearbox and three pedals...and Aibo's one of them

For a couple years I was the only one in my family who drove a stick shift, on a daily basis at that. Everybody else carried cars and SUVs with slushboxes...although that changed when my dad bought his 2009 CY4A Lancer 2.0 last year. That's more of a toy for him though, meant to relive memories of his first car, a 1979 Lancer.

Traffic here's gotten pretty bad as of late due to road works (and I mean BAD - crawls on a highway for kilometers on end), so I can understand how tiring an MT can be. "Tiring" of course is a relative term depending on the car. The GD's clutch is pretty mushy and soft. My old EF-based Honda City had a much springier, trickier clutch and a really vague shifter. Personally, I think it also isn't true that ATs are "easier on your legs" in traffic. If anything, I feel much more uncomfortable pressing and releasing only the brake pedal all the time with ATs, especially with cars that have aggressive creep such as the FA/FD Civic.

 

I wanted an MT but went with AT so my GF could drive it, now she's the only one who drives it. So it's a good thing I bought the AT with paddle shift. The car is a gutless wonder, but Cali has the worst commute traffic in the bay area and LA. If I had bought the MT, the 30k put on the car in the last year would have been hell, and my gf woulda smoked the clutch or got in an accident. In crazy traffic in a little car you have to be able to gas and brake cover at the same time. Plus, if I get hammered, my gf can drive no problem, and if you want to shift, hit the paddles(which actually surprisingly work well and quickly).

This is my first AUTO ever, and I'm not ashamed of it. I would definitely have enjoyed a stick for fuel economy and fun, but this is my swiss army car. It has to do everything, and survive my gf driving it day in and day out. And for what it's used for and it's intended purpose, the AT does work better. And it still gets 38mpg

 

yah, if my wife wasn't the primary driver the GE would've been MT for sure, but it's nice to have one AT car for those days that you're just frikken too tired to use all 3 feet.

 

My previous four cars were all manual. The first was a Muncie 21 rock crusher (1968 Camaro). 405 and LA traffic are annoying but not enough to eschew a manual.

I chose the AT so that others could drive even though it adds about $800 and 85 pounds to the car. However the gear ratios made the decision easy for me. Seems like the MT can't get the MPG at 65 the AT does with the locking overdrive, although this is counterintuitive. 2300 vs 3000 RPM ought to make a difference on a long trip. FitFreaks are all over the place with MPG so hard to prove it. I'm getting 33 to 37 driving to work. I'm sure I can beat 40 on a long trip.

A comment on the inferior hill climbing of the AT: consider that every 1% increase in hill incline requires 5 more HP to go 65 MPH. The manual is already at 3000 RPM, the AT hits 3000 downshifting to 4th gear, albeit with some slush pump loss. It takes about 16 or 17 HP to cruise at 65, so a 1% hill will bump that up to 22 HP. If you get 41 MPG cruising on a level road, a 1% hill will knock that down to 31.6 MPG (instantaneous) whether MT or AT. A 4% hill will reduce your MPG to 18.8. Provided the hill is mild, you should get most of it back on the downslope. The AT really does benefit by coasting in neutral when you are able. The engine adds another 6 HP of drag at 65 if it is not working.

I'd like to see some side by side AT vs MT MPG comparisons. Rumor is the MT is superior in stop and go.

 

my first 2 cars were auto, and they were cool. now my fit is a manual. i learned to drive stick on the fit. even tho i know how to drive manual, i sorta regret it. its 50/50 to me. cuz auto is easy to drive just put it in drive and GO. on a manual i'm always stressed out about if i stall the car. i think my next car will be an auto.