Great stuff here BUT, if we can keep this to specifics, WHAT IS THE REAL BENEFIT OF MT'S VS. AT'S.

Does one have to really play GAMES getting some milage out of the MT to be worthwhile?

Let's cut to the real answer. Any clues or direct responses desired. Thanks

 

the benefits of MT are fun factor + 150lb less weight + insignificant gain in mpg, maybe 1 or 2 if you're not driving like a grandma

 

heck, appreciate your response, but FUN? well that can also be holding your gals thigh!..or an icy soft drink/whatever turns you on!....NOT SHIFTING.

I guess I'm looking for the folks that have really played with the nuances of these little cars to SAY: MT's can get this with..."fairly normal behaviour behind the wheel", vs. the same thing on the AT's.

I'm not a super milage guy but would just like to know the thoughts of the "enabled" of you to pass on some thoughts. KISS is just fine. thank you. ron

 

I don't know what you're looking for. Sounds like you like AT. Driving enthusiasts prefer MT for more person-car interaction. Auto is utterly boring.

 

man, you are a fast responder! OK! I love stick shift/an old drag racer/motorcross racer etc. but.....AT's have their place. Actually, a very solid place with all the paddle shifter stuff etc., but...

I had read so much stuff about High Milage with the MT's, that I thought just MAYBE, it was worth a few questions to the 'enthusiasts', as to how to get serious milage out of these cars, or is it "IF" one can get 'some' additional distance?

You seem to be an active writer; so, from what you know, are the MT's and AT vehicle close on milage in everyday driving- without hiper milage concerns or on the other side 'sporty driving'?

 

without hypermiling bullshit, yes, they are on par with each other as far as mileage on a tank goes. If you are 50-50 city/hwy you should be average around 300mi. I'm in NJ and pretty much at sea level and that's what I get. Lowest mpg I ever got was in the first few thousand miles and that was 27mpg, now I consistently get between 32 and 36mpg at 12,600mi. There is a thread somewhere for everyone to post their most recent mpg

 

You might look at the sticky MPG Poll threads in this section, add up the percentages of folks that get say 36 mpg and above from the AT thread and then the MT thread.

You can also search the thread 'DEFCO'
Scangauge threads are also good reading.

I've had for example Nissan V6 engines in both AT and MT and like them equally well. But with the low torque/HP Fit motor, I think the manual gets the most out of this little engine. Perhaps a second faster in the quarter mile also. Honda makes sweet shifters and clutches!

Also people here like the 'sports car feel' of the Fit.
Might be reasonable to think of it as a Miata with a butt load of cargo room.
What tranny would you choose if you were buying a Miata??

 

I would choose a MT for anything, period. Until I'm so old I can't operate stick anymore.

 

mt for the feel and controll in the corners... my feet are 2big for heal toe... so its big toe/small toe shifting 4me... as for mpg.... u picked the fit.... that is 90% of the battle right there...

 

automatics of the non-CVT type are less efficient in transferring power to the ground so they will get less mpg than manuals for the same weight, engine, and gears.
Comparing us racer types we get about 4 mpg better with manual than automatics around town -28 to 31 vs 30 to 34 . They are pretty equal o n the interstate at 38 to 41 mpg because the automatic is much higher geared both in gears as well as final drive. So for long distance on level interstate its the automatic, for around town or mountainous interstate.its the manual. And the auto gets better mpg in Sport than Drive. And theoretically the auto should last a lot longer than the manual's clutches.

 

You CAN get the best mileage and it is easiest to get the best mileage if you hypermile using a MT, can't pop the clutch or bump the clutch in an AT.

In the end it depends on what you are looking for.

Good luck

 

After reading threads and posts, it seems clear to me the m/t gets better gas mileage. All the complaints about poor gas mileage I have read (oustide this forum on other internet rating sites) have all been a/t that say mileage sucks in their fit.
Also, the m/t is more fun to drive, you have control of the car, i have never owned an a/t, clearly i think a m/t fit is better in gas mileage than the a/t.........

 

fueleconomy.gov
2010 base
AT 28/35
MT 27/33

I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the "fish stories" I read around this board.

 

This is surely a lie! A/t never beats m/t in fuel economy ! Get real!

 

In the case of CVT, which you can call "an automatic with no gears" I have seen them beat MT's at MPG. If you equip an AT with mucho gears that's a possibility too. But still, I'm depressed that I'm stuck with AT now, but I bit quickly at the first Fit my Honda dealer got in. Everything, especially the color impressed me about it, so I made the compromise and settled for AT. Although my motorbike still allows me to do my own shifting, but you can't do 1 - 3 shifting or stuff like that with it. I can start it in 2nd gear though.

 

Fish stories indeed.


Do you think this picture was taken in an auto or manual?

 

Over how many miles was that reading obtained? Also, was that reading obtained before or after the update to correct the overly optimistic mileage meter? I've had readings like that on my '09 MT before having the update done, but even then, it was under unusual circumstances (one way travel with a tailwind, etc.).

Still, impressive.

 

For the first 20,000 miles of driving my '09 MT Fit Sport, I averaged 37.8 MPG (total miles driven/total gallons of gas purchased). I don't recall playing any "games" to do it, either. Except this one:

Is that worthwhile?

 

About 250 miles on that trip. The meter has not been updated so it is about 10% high. I got that number while driving up and down through the Colorado mountains. I have found mountainous terrain either has no overall effect on mpg or sometimes actually improves it compared to driving on flatlands.

 

so you don't get that mpg under normal driving conditions, and that is exactly what the OP was NOT asking for.

that's all I'm saying