Just picked up our BOM MT Fit on Monday and driving it's been a blast. I wasn't sure about getting a manual with all the stop and go LA traffic, but it's been a lot of fun. Today I had my first occasion where I was wishing for an automatic, which was having to stop in traffic on a really steep hill. Had to use the e-brake to hold the car still to get going again and I still managed to stall it once, with a stream of bad words to go along with it.

 

Have Honda ever explained why they haven't introduced the CVT in the Fit in the US? The Honda Hybrid has the CVT transmission in it (but without the manual mode and paddles). The only thing I can think of is that autos are still less common and popular in Europe than manuals so perhaps it's more the case that they introduced it here because otherwise an auto option might not sell.

My only gripe with it remains the hesitation when attempting a jack-rabbit start from stationary. That seems to be a special case since it's fine if you are creeping when you floor the accelerator. Other than that the control around town is good. I can still drive around town without using my brakes and I don't think it was that easy in the last automatic I drove..although that was a while back before I took advanced driving lessons with the IAM.

 

Nonsense. Changing gears takes about as much conscious effort as breathing, once you've done it long enough. The "better" you are at it, the less conscious effort it takes, like any other often-used skill.

I make no claims to being anything other than a "here-to-there" driver, but I find it far more mentally taxing to listen to an automatic transmission not-quite-there-now-wait-for-it-almost-there-CLUNK! through the shifts than just making the changes where I think they should be.

 

I agree 100%, but the 'once you've done it long enough' part is the big out for the majority of the American driving public. Most American drivers haven't driven a MT much, if at all, and just don't want to learn for whatever reason, bogus or not (too hard, inconvenient, just plain don't want to, etc., etc.).

Once you get used to it, it's no more work than remembering to put out your blinker before you turn. Come to think if it, that's hard for a lot of people too, at least around here.....

I really have to work hard driving an AT to remember to only use my left foot when I actually want to slow down/stop. It's all in what you are used to....

 

"Nonsense. Changing gears takes about as much conscious effort as breathing, once you've done it long enough. The "better" you are at it, the less conscious effort it takes, like any other often-used skill."

So you agree with me then. You are admitting that it's a difficult skill that takes time to master. That's good because it's what any driving instructor will tell you. That's probably also why the UK driving test lets you pass with an automatic but places restrictions on the license.

All that training and hassle...and for what? So you can push a silly pedal, pull a silly lever and end up in approximately the right gear? Even an expert is only ever in approximately the right gear. Even Michael Schumacher is only ever in approximately the right gear.

As for the comment about "almost-there-clunk" - I'd agree with that as well. Conventional autos are bad. They often make poor choices and are usually attached to an inneficient torque convertor.

OTOH you might want to read my posts a little more carefully. You'll notice that I'm praising a particular type of gearbox. It has three initials:

C
V
T

Unlike Mr Schmacher. Unlike /you/ I am always in exactly the right gear. Even if that gear 2.123rd. Better yet - I don't have to push a silly pedal down. I don't have to pull another silly lever. I don't have to blend the clutch and match my revs. Not even approximately. Oh and you have quite good engine braking at least with the clutch Honda have given us.

My only regret is that I wasted fifteen years perfecting that skill before technology finally delivered a proper gearbox into my car.

Using a manual gearbox properly is a great skill to have. It can be fun once you have the knack of it. But just because you happen to be good at it and happen to enjoy it doesn't mean that it's ideal for everyone. They will always exist for the enthusiast

 

I used to be a fan of manuals, back when changing a clutch was a half day job in the driveway. Now that a clutch change is a makor job (on front wheel drive vehicles), I take my chances with automatics. My experience is that automatic transmissions last longer than clutches.

 

It takes no thought on my part to change gears... or to the ones near where I should be. But it does take some time. Autos (the 5-speed sport) are going to be faster gear changers than almost everyone. The only problem with Autos (5-speed and CVT) is the lag you have when you floor it. I know the CVT lag is more pronounced than the 5-speed. Which I think the majority of the 5-speed lag is just because the engine is small.

"I really have to work hard driving an AT to remember to only use my left foot when I actually want to slow down/stop. It's all in what you are used to...."
Okay, when you drive a car, you only use your right foot for the gas AND THE BREAKS. You shouldn't be using your left foot for anything in an auto. Well... except a few buttons for like high beams which arn't standard anymore... Even when I try to push the clutch, that imaginary clutch, there isn't anything there... and if your using your left foot for the breaks... well, its really dangerious and I urge you not to do that.


"I make no claims to being anything other than a "here-to-there" driver, but I find it far more mentally taxing to listen to an automatic transmission not-quite-there-now-wait-for-it-almost-there-CLUNK! through the shifts than just making the changes where I think they should be."

well, then I push the shifter button to go up or down if it matters to me that much. Best part is that most of the time, my hands don't have to leave the wheel. Although at times, I wish I had a button or two where the shifter in an MT would be. But thats just force of habit.


Every had a clutch go bad on you driving? I have... its not fun. I'll see what happens when the auto goes up... if ever. (knock on wood)

 

Okay enough already, there's no winning this argument because there's not one right answer. There's a different right answer for each person and their situation. Enjoy your Fits.

 

Actually, I equate driving stick with posting a trot, since riding horses is my, er, "hobbyhorse". Posting a trot isn't a particularly hard skill to master, and it became habit for me long ago. Manual shifting isn't a particularly hard skill to learn, and became habit somewhere in the first 100K miles.

All that "silliness"! I'll have you know my levers and pedals are quite the epitome of rugged seriousity, and there ain't a frivolous bit of automobile anywheres. Well, except for the goofy Hawaiian seat covers. Other than that, my car's dead butch. Sensible shoes and all.

What training and hassle? Learning to manual shift took about 20 minutes. Of course, I'd been driving about 15 years by then, so I wasn't learning to shift AND steer AND signal AND do the multi-number of other things actually getting a vehicle from here-to-there entails.

<shrug> I have no quibble with your assertions about CVT. Between two imperfect systems, I prefer to make my own mistakes (mt) rather than have them made for me (at). Were a "perfect" system like CVT available, I'd consider the cost/benefit before popping for a more expensive "perfect" transmission, but that's because I'm really cheap.

There may be many wonderful reasons to prefer CVT over a standard transmission, but the alleged difficulty of driving stick isn't one of them. If I can do it, pretty much anyone can.

"Every had a clutch go bad on you driving? I have... its not fun."

Nope. The transmission pretty much fell apart on my '92 Festiva at 127K miles, but the clutch was sound. That's the car I bought when I decided to "go manual", so it suffered as much from my learning curve as anything else. But it had its original clutch when the trans disintegrated, or whatever technical thingie happened. Sounded nasty, felt worse than nasty.

Losing a transmission going 70+ on the interstate isn't fun, either, not even in car small enough for a short woman to push down the road by hand. That little red econobox is still on the road, too, with a new(ish) transmission and one of my mechanic's assistants driving.

 

Yup, I use my right foot for gas and brakes. The thing that I have to concentrate on with an AT is not to use my left to go for the non existant clutch on AT's so I don't hit the brakes accidentlly- that's the 'extra mental work' for me being an MT driver ; for me it's more work remembering not to try to shift than the actual act of shifting!

Again, no arguments for AT folks from me, and as I said before, if the CVT transmission was available for the Fit in the US, there is a very good chance I would have gotten that instead....

 

1. Double clutching has been useless for decades on everything but 18 wheelers. If you're thinking of heel-toe shifting, that's entirely different.

2. CVTs basically stink for everything but economy driving.

3. The shift actuation method is completely and wholly irrelevant to shifting performance. It doesn't matter if you are hitting paddles, moving a lever, stepping on a button, or yelling "shift" into a microphone. Your shifting performance comes from the shift mechanism, and a clutch is going to trounce any torque converter sold in a consumer car. Hydro-electric clutches and DSGs are of course a different story.

4. No one complained about DBW on the NSX in 1989 did they? How is the new S2000? When you're talking about results, the technology is used is irrelevant compared to the implementation quality. DBW works well and is fairly responsive on the Fit.

 

Not true. That's like those people who say that VTEC is only good for performance vehicles.

Both technologies can be tweaked according to purpose. VTEC can be designed to improve economy (as in VTEC-E) and a CVT can be programmed to change economically. A CVT can also be programmed to behave powerfully.

When accelerating a CVT can keep the engine running at peak power (or should that be torque? Whatever - it can run the engine at whatever speed the designer wants to 24/7) throughout. There's no way a manual box can do that. As long as the wastage of the CVT is outwheiged by this you'll gain.

David Coulthard tested a Williams F1 that had a DAF CVT fitted to it. He was very impressed with it and knocked a couple of seconds off the circuit lap time. The FIA (who govern motorsport) banned CVT so quickly that we never got to see one race. They obviously deemed it to be far too advantageous and consigned it to the same bin as active suspensions and (as of 2007 on) customer designed engines.

Just for reference:http://auto.howstuffworks.com/cvt2.htm

Half way down is an interesting animation

And also:http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed...rformances.htm

 

That is exactly why I said "basically". I'm sure you can find a good CVT for performance in prototype form or at an extremely expensive custom fabrication shop. Stick to what a consumer can find in a new car, though, and you're not winning any races.

Also the notion that F1 banned CVTs because the performance was too high is extremely flawed logic.

 

Please explain to us why it's flawed logic...

 

The guys doing Rally Cross in their Mini Coopers don't agree. In any case people that buy a new car shouldn't expect to win races. My Jazz performs like I'd expect a modern 1.3L engine to perform.
It's speculative but there can be only a few reasons why the FIA bans things:

1.Development cost.
2.Unsafe.
3.Detracts from the spectacle.

(1) and (2) don't apply to CVT.

(3)Is by far the most likely and the only reasons I have come across are:
(a)It sounds odd. Cars driving around a track at either idle or 19,000 rpm might be unpleasant.
(b)It removes the need for a large part of the driver's skill.

(b)seems far and away the most likely given that CVT would remove any need by the driver to consider gear changing. They don't even have to worry about wheight transfer under acceleration because it's constant. Plenty of spins at corners are caused by the gear change process when traction is suddenly lost. Heck - traction control becomes smoother because I assume the CVT can just lengthen the ratio slightly rather than monkeying around with ignition timing.

 

What is there to explain? There's not even any real argument here. There's an effect, and an outsider making up the cause for it and declaring it to be obvious.

 

I see............

 

Right, in a world where a 1.6L Mini and a 1.3L Jazz are race cars, the CVT is not the factor holding performance back.

Traditionally CVTs have limited power handling ability. Power is a key factor in performance. This is not complicated.


First of all I completely disagree that there are only those three reasons to ban technologies in F1. F1 is a sport with extremely tight regulations designed to focus the areas of innovation, increase the depth of it, and emphasize driver skill. They need no reason to ban a new technology beyond the notion that they simply do not want it. With most inner details of the engine all specified by the rule book, disallowing a completely different type of transmission should not be surprising to anyone.

Next, how can you say that development cost would not be a factor? Do you think CVTs capable of handling 800hp at 19kRPM all day are available at your local parts shop?

I also think that you greatly overestimate how much easier it will be to drive an F1 car given a CVT. It is going to be extremely difficult to handle that kind of performance no matter what the transmission is.

 

I think test drives should be seen as one of lifes quintessential Subjective experiences.On my initial test drive of an automatic fit sport,I was unfamiliar with the use of the paddle shifter,the annoying whine of the transmission as it high revved between quickly changing gears,compelled me to not purchase the vehicle.Later rereading the published reviews I noticed the vehicle tested was a Manual Transmission,it was also noted that Automatics on Small engines have a tendency to struggle at High altitudes,(I live and drive at 7,000 ft.)I had test driven both a Yaris and a Versa,but was waiting to try a Mt fit before deciding.Test driving multiple fits can be a challenge in an area where most vehicle allotments arrive presold,(though that maybe beginning to change).I was apprehensive,but open,I had read user reviews that bemoaned the lack of a 6th gear,and even stopped to converse with a fit owner,who spoke of that very lack as her only point of fault,in her otherwise perfect fit experience.So when an opportunity presented itself to test drive a mt sport fit in Az recently,I went with a predisposed state of mind.I went right to the freeway and into 5th gear,it sounded to me perfectly unstrained and fine,so I purchased the vehicle and drove it 600 miles back home going 80 mph the whole way.I consider an annoyance to cruising comfortably on the highway,not a minor imposition,but a major reason not to purchase a vehicle.Speaking from my own subjective experience,I was and am totaly delighted with the highway cruising characteristics of the Manual Sport.I totally agree that in trading for size/efficiency,the engine takes high altitude climbs without great struggle,but with a some noticeable effort.Steep climbs where I live are only brief occasional occurences,otherwise if they were a daily event I might prefer an engine with a larger displacement,more horsepower,and less fuel efficiency.I also would note that the difference in driving an automatic or manual fit,might lead one to believe one was in an entirely different car.For me the car of choice was the manual transmission,for another at another altitude or plane of existence (if you will) I can appreciate the fit of choice might be the automatic.If I may suggest to those considering a purchase,a radical notion,it is that They would be well served to forego any preorder or purchase w/out test driving both vehicles and deciding for Themselves which of the two is The Fit,and which the Mis/Fit.As to why the manual/with the same suspension and interior as the Automatic might seem an econobox while the later doesn't,I am confused beyond all comment.

 

I posted this awhile back in a different thread, but I dont think anyone read it:

Dont forget about torque multiplication. A Manual Transmission will multiply torque more then an automatic transmission.

Here are the Gear Ratios for a Honda Fit:

Gear Ratios
5-Speed MT 5-Speed AT
1st 3.462 2.996
2nd 1.870 1.679
3rd 1.321 1.067
4th 0.970 0.756
5th 0.757 0.550
Reverse 3.231 1.957
Final Drive Ratio 4.29 4.56

Here is the Torque Multiplication in each gear. Gear Ratio X Final Drive = Total Torque Multiplication.

MT AT
1st- 14.85X 13.66X
2nd- 8.01X 7.66X
3rd- 5.67X 4.87X
4th- 4.16X 3.45X
5th- 3.25X 2.51X

An automatic is slower than a manual because:

more drivetrain loss
(I think its around 15% for a Manual and 25% for an automatic)

It does'nt multiply torque as much
(see above post)

Its Heavier (about 80 lbs heavier)

also, with a manual transmission you can launch at a higher RPM, idealy where your peak torque is, also you can be in your powerband at 1mph(while slipping the clutch).
and automatic takes off at a much lower RPM, so your not at Peak torque, and you have to wait untill you climb to your powerband.

*this is done assuming 15% drivetrain loss for Manual and 25% for Automatic. I dont know the exact percentage*

A Honda Fits motor produces 105 lb. -ft of peak torque.
A Manual Transmission eats up ~16 lb.-ft of torque.
An Automatic Transmission eats up ~ 26 lb.-ft of torque.

MT= 105-16= 89lb.-ft
AT= 105-26= 79lb.-ft

MT 1st gear= 14.85 X 89= ~1322 lb.-ft
AT 1st gear= 13.66 X 79= ~1079 lb.ft

theoreticly a Honda Fit with a Manual Transmission applys 243 lb.-ft more peak torque then the Automatic in first gear.