$1000, the difference between the manual and auto sticker prices will buy you about 400 gallons of gas. drive the car for 3 years, 10,000mi a year, and average 30mpg with either a manual or auto, and you'll use 1000 gallons of gas. factor in the cost of gas, and the effective manual "mpg" is 50... considering you get a 400 gallon boost from your $1000 savings.

winner, manual.

if you're lazy and/or rich, buy an auto.

 

Mountainous terrain IS my normal driving condition. On the flatlands I usually get high 30's to low 40's.

The question in the first post was "WHAT IS THE REAL BENEFIT OF MT'S VS. AT'S."
Better fuel economy is unquestionably one of them. EPA figures are skewed for some reason, could be the testing methods used.
Start averaging out the "mileage reports" threads and you will see this.

 

YOU FORGOT THE THING CALLED "REALITY"
Sticks are rare, so they are marked up and cost more. I paid 15,738 for a 2010 fit sport A/T and I'll bet you can't find 5 people who paid less for the manual which supposedly costs $1000 less.

Winner= Auto, and that's also for purchase price and resale in case you've forgotten

If you have ADD/ADHD, buy the stick

 

YOU FORGOT THE THING CALLED "EMPIRICAL DATA"
Go here and start averaging up purchase prices for autos and manuals. You will find people typically paying over $1000 MORE for AT (actually closer to $1300).

Winner = manual.

 

I have the manual. NO regrets. There are the obvious concerns that others shared, but I have had other Honda 5spd's that are geared low. My 2004 Element was geared about the same. RPMs around 3000-4000 while driving at real interstate speeds. It grew on me, and The engine was never unhappy at all. It is a HONDA. By the way, my 2009 M/t sport delivered 37.24 MPG on my last tank. Not bad, and A LOT MORE engaging to drive.

 

Both are awesome. I originally wanted the manual (wife wanted me to get the auto), but the auto has grown on me... I really really like it!

 

So that's your list of winners and losers? How cruel

 

I'm one of the 5? Lol. Being patient and shopping around works well.

You forgot a thing called "not making baseless assumptions". Your average manual will be $1000 less. I'm sure there's a standard deviation there... but just because something's rare doesn't make it more valuable. Supply/demand cuts both ways.

(I did have to wait for mine to come all the way from Japan though).

ADHD has nothing to do with it. Of the past 6 vehicles I've driven (or ridden) they've been manuals, it's just my preference. There's no winners or losers in this discussion (although my $ says you are one of those in life) however it's foolish to ignore the $1000 sticker difference. If you're looking to save money, up front during purchase, at the pump with mileage, or in the shop with repairs, the manual is the cheaper option.

Again if you're old/lazy/uncoordinated/a gimp, by all means buy the auto.

GLHF.

 

Sorry, my bad. I forgot this isn't in the 2nd-Gen forum... I am referring to '09-'10 sport. I was wondering why you were saying $1k when that's not the MSRP split on the GE. Cheers

 

vastly taller gears in the a/t make for similar numbers to the m/t when driven by non hypermilers.

Set cruise control and lock that baby up.

Also driving an A/T is a humbling experience and builds character.

 

The A/T is worse in town but better on the interstate. Our auto and manual Fits consistently get better by as much as 5 mpg with the manual in town but as much as 5 mpg worse than the auto on the interstates. Its the gearing. And the calm makes the auto preferred for long distance driving.
With paddles there is as much fumn driving the auto as any manual.

 

We have both an auto and a manual Fit; guess what: overall mpg isn't much different, maybe 1 mpg. Both generally run in the 28 to 32 mpg range and on the one occasion we took both on a 300 mile trip the auto got better mpg.
Guess that makes us both frugal and lazy rich.

 

What are "normal driving conditions?"

Some folks say "city" when they really mean "low density suburban edge-city." Some say "city" and mean sitting in near gridlock for hours, with the A/C running full bore. For me, my "city" commute means sitting through a line of traffic at a light, hopping onto freeway that is marked at 65 mph but may be as fast as 75 or as slow as 10 depending on the traffic, a section of stoplights, through downtown, followed by a 400+ foot climb through a residential neighborhood.

And I've found the opposite re: hills and mountains. They kill my mileage. It seems like you should gain back whatever work was required to ascend an incline when you descend again, but damn if it works that way for me! If I stay on flatish ground, I almost always stay above 30. If I've got my commute mixed in,, 27-28. If I'm not being careful about my starts and stops, 24-25.

 

I think you nailed it. Its like, for those with more money to spend on an economy car, the TDI vs hybrid argument. One is best for city and the other highway.

My commute is mostly surface streets. I find the M/T very easy to drive economically and still be among the fastest cars in traffic. On the freeway, especially with the A/C on, it is impossible to keep the mpg meter at 40.

I dont know what shift points are mandated by the EPA City test cycle, but 27mpg is low for real world. On the other hand, my A/T Tundra 4x4 cannot get its rated 15 City no matter how I drive it. It beats the 18 highway estimate easily when I set the cruise at 65-70, even with A/C.

 

How are you getting only 32 mpg average in a Fit MT? I've never gotten that low ever in 30k miles (all calculated). If you're averaging between 28 and 32 mpg in a MT, you'd better look at your hand brake... it must be on.

 

Crap man, by that logic I could have gotten a used Tahoe and gotten an effective 100 mpg! ;-)

And seriously... Even a loaded Fit is a under 20k. Rich?
I wouldn't let a $1k diffrence in MSRP make my decision on which version to buy and pay on for several years.

edit: Also, if you want to compare actual value, nothing tops the intellichoice 5 year ownership costs, which not only figures in the associated costs, but also the retained resale value after 5 years.

23336 manual base
23607 auto base
25117 manual sport
(they didn't have enough data for the auto sport)

and just for fun:

25004 Civic lx sedan -mt

(I think we all know the Civic is just as good a value - Honda did a great job of offering two cars with very different strengths and personalities. I haven't owned a notchback in almost 9 years, and don't plan on owning another.)

 

With the locking torque converters of today and 5 speed autos the advantage is really getting down to personal preference. I just feel like the cars a lot more peppy with the manual. Being able to push her up to 7K and downshift when I want plus an unhealthy love of manual transmissions makes me choose manual any day. We had to search for ours. We got ours in blackberry pearl M/T on a trip to see my mom 5 hours away.

You've gotta search to get the manual you want. Getting rid of our 6 year old Durango we're pocketing $100 more per month, cut gas usage in half but raised payments.

Manuals and Auto's are soo close today its all preference. In smaller lower power cars Manuals are just a hell of a lot more enjoyable IMO.

 

i get over 40mpg IF i did all highway. M/T (my tires are like 50psi tho.. might be the reason why)

but i got a manual for preference really, i mean if i ever turboed this car, i would rather it be manual then automatic as well... plus some modifications cannot be performed on a automatic fit like it can on a manual, for example the space of of the automatic could also be a disadvantage into modifications.

If your planning on just keeping the car bone stock.. yeah i would do automatic 100%... or if you had a family or something then yeah. an automatic is much better.

 

MT hands down for the mileage. Just shift under 2500 rpm you're set, and don't worry too much about mpg just drive it!!!

 

Our a/t gets better interstate mpg while the m/t gets better city mpg. Based oin gearing thats pretty much what to expect.