Congrats to all Fit owners. Can you provide info on the engine rpms you see at highway speeds (e.g. 80mph); MT vs. AT?

 

MT--40 MPH at 2,000, 80 MPH - 4,000

 

Yikes, 4k rpm at 80mph? This is in 5th?

The AT has different ratios right, so shouldn't it be able to cruise at somewhat lower rpm?

I mean, there's always the option of a custom-cut 5th gear, but....ugh, I don't want to contemplate what that would cost.

 

Mathematically, based on ratio's, tire size, etc:

MT @ 80 mph = 3730 rpm
AT @ 80 mph = 2880 rpm

While there are other factors that come into play (tire deflection at the bottom which causes ACTUAL rpm to be greater than mathematical, like is said with gas mileage figure - use for comparison only.

I drove a MT Fit last night, and 4K rpm at 80 mph should be somewhat accurate - depending on the accuracy of the speedo and tach.

Therefore, AT @ 80 mph would probably realize a real world approximate of 3000 rpm.

 

Yeah, thats in 5 th. Pretty wierd Heh.

 

It's not that weird.

Think about it. The Sport MT has cruise control, right?

The Fit is the least powerful vehicle in Honda's lineup.

Depending on where you live, the interstates may contain some serious hill/mountains if you are along the Rocky Mtn or Appalacian Range. With these conditions, the Fit needs to be able to main a set speed in 5th gear with the MT, since it doesn't shift automatically, like the AT (no pun intended) does.

The AT will downshift as the speed drops with the cruise on, so there is not much of an issue there. It can have less rpm - meaning less power, and simply shift when needed to maintain an appropriate speed.

The MT Fit simply has to be in the power band, meaning higher revs, to maintain its speed on an upward incline.

 

Why would you rev the car so high for 99.99% of the time when you are not going up a steep hill. I have driven a Corolla (1989) with 74 hp that turned about 2300 rpm at 60. It had cruise and it was not a problem.

If cruise can not take you up a hill in a really tall gear it will let the car slow down 5-10 mph and then it will cut out. You will have hit the clutch and downshifted before then anyway. It is a manual, and is made for shifting, so what is the huge problem with the extremely occasional shift on the highway.

 

If you lived in an area where there were hills you would understand.

I'm in Western KY, where there isn't much of a problem; however, when I travel to the eastern part of the state, the hills/mountains are significant. You go down one and right back up another - cruise would be useless in the manner that you describe.

For example, if I were to drive from my home to Washington, DC, then I would be without cruise for over half of the trip while going through northern WV, and western MD.

I had a '99 CR-V, and it had a 4-speed AT, 146 hp 2.0L engine. It typically shifted down to 3rd going up an incline on a regular basis doing just normal driving around 75 mph. In western MD, there was a very steep incline for several miles, where it actually downshift to 2nd gear!!! Now, being fair, the vehicle was very heavily loaded, which is another thing to take into account.

Just food for thought.

 

On really steep hills you still may need to downshift even with the high revving engine.

Besides the base does not even have cruise - why does it need to rev so high?

My Integra is a little heavier and more powerfull than the Fit, and has a similar (though slightly better) power to weight ratio. It also revs about the same as the Fit, yet I still have to downshift on the steepest hills. If I have to downshift anyway, why not be relexed the rest of the time?

The engine revs are what I like least about the Integra, and I fear the Fit would be the same. That does not mean I won't buy it - other cars have worse problems.

 

The idea of a manual is that if you come to a big hill you downshift, The Basic does not have cruise, why not have reasonable gearing setup that would allow good gas mileage ?

 

As a new Fit owner I was a lttle disappointed in the RPMs in top gear, but I have to say I kinda understand Honda's thinking. This car is rated to carry an 850 lb payload. Now, I only wiegh a wopping 150 lbs, and the car feels like it needs one more gear at highway speeds, but I'm convinced that it would be entirely different with anything close to a full load (haven't tried it yet). I'm still beating the heck out of the rated MPG around town and can't wait to give it a try on a long trip, so maybe a taller gear isn't needed. I guess we have to remember that this is really an economy car/grocery getter and not a Buick Roadmaster.
Got a question though. Where are all these people driving their cars where they talk about RPMs and handling characteristics at 80 and 90+ MPH?. Hate to sound like an old fuddy duddy, but five over the limit is all I really need.

 

The Fit DEFINITELY needs 1 more gear.

 

The M/T Fit's gearing is pretty much the same as was my '05 Civic M/T.. It was around 4k @ 80mph also. it's high but still nowhere near redlining it, and I still got decent highway mileage in my civic.

 

epic bump from the dead...

my rpm's are high due to smaller tires im using as well. 195/50/15. great for surface roads though (99% of my driving with the FitS).

 

08 Sport MT
Fifth gear

70MPH=3200RPM=39.5MPG

 

Retarded owners who don't know how to downshift just had to buy an A/T.
Why would we all pay the price of higher noise level and fuel consumption because of a few people who bought the wrong gearbox to save a few bucks or to feel younger?

 

Retarded? Hardly. I grew up having to row through the gears manually. I would imagine that most of the folks here don't know how to drive a column shifted 3 speed.

That said: I purchased a AT Fit because I had no other choice. When my pickup failed I needed transportation in a hurry and didn't like any of the other cars we looked at. There were a total of four Fits within 100 miles of my home that were for sale and the only MT was a used and abused Sport that reeked of weed and cost more than a new Base.

The reason that the AT is geared better than the MT is parasitic loss through the transmission. The AT is less efficient in transmitting power to the wheels because it is fluid coupled instead of mechanically coupled to the differential. By changing the final gear ratio, the two transmissions should get similar mileage under identical conditions. A well driven MT will always get better fuel mileage than a AT under identical conditions. This is why OTR trucks have mechanically coupled transmissions. (no, the durability is not an issue. Most of our buses have slushboxes)

OT: Observed rpm at 80 in 5th gear with my AT is 3,000. At 4,000rpm observed in 5th, my GPS indicates 104 mph.