The computer shifts depending on how much throttle your giving it. If you apply as little throttle as possible you would get great mileage regardless of what rpm it shifts at. Also if you suddenly hit the gas and apply 70% throttle the car will downshift to the appropriate gear on its own.

By trying to accelerate at such a low rpm your straining your engine. Our cars have like 50hp below 3,000 rpm. For cruising anything below that is fine but if you want to accelerate you should let the computer shift when it wants too. The computer will take into account how much throttle your giving it and how fast your trying to go. If your giving it 50% throttle it will assume your trying to speed up so it will shift later, if your only giving 5% and just trying to slowly accelerate it will shift at lower rpms.

 

^I can't argue with anything you said there. I didn't mean to give the impression I upshift when I'm accelerating, I just mean there are a lot of situations where the computer isn't necessarily doing what is the most efficient / what I want it to do. The argument for having control of which gear your in doesn't disappear just because it's in an AT setup. That's all I was trying to say.

 

Yeah your right about that, but the biggest problem with the AT is that they require more hp to transfer it to the wheels. Drivetrain loss is much more significant with an AT. Not to mention the extra weight of the AT. I'm not trying to take sides here I'm just stating facts. Dyno's and 0-60 times tell the story here, regardless of which transmission you think is faster.

 

Yes I did test drive a Sport AT. Have you ever driven a MT Fit, sir?





Bwaaahaahaa! Sorry sorry, that was a low blow.

When I drive an auto trans car I am perfectly happy to let an automatic be an automatic. Doing otherwise is kinda silly.
All automatics can be manually shifted should the need arise. The paddle shifters only provide a simulated approximation of driving a manual without providing any of the practical benefits of driving a manual.
I prefer manuals for those practical benefits. Not some romanticized notion of "rowing my own".

 

Well I'll be shifting when I think it makes sense just the same, I guess it's okay that you think it's silly... one of the *practical benefits* of driving a manual is being able to choose when to change gears? And my AT has that.

 

Your ECU can tell when its best to change gears better than you can. Honda spent hours upon hours designing it and I'm sure they got it down... I think they would know when its best for the transmission to switch gears.

Being able to choose when to change gears isn't why people pick the MT. Its cheaper. It out performs it everywhere due to more power getting to the wheels and less weight which also increases acceleration and reduces stopping distance. Also it gets better fuel economy and costs way less than an AT to begin with. Plus the AT is much more complicated and expensive so if something goes wrong (which there's a better chance that it will) it will cost you way more than what it would cost to fix a MT.

Those are the reasons that *I* picked the MT.

 

When to change gears isn't a simple mathematical calculation that the ECU can take care of in an ideal fashion regardless of variables. It doesn't know what your intentions are further up the road, so that argument doesn't hold water. When the ECU thinks you want to accelerate harder than you really do and hangs in gear too long... or when it downshifts to slow you down when you're just about to let off the brake and coast. It's not God, it's a computer.

 

I heard too many Car and Driver reviews about how slick the tranny felt on Honda's, and I can't get over the fact that the car starts moving forward on level ground by itself. I know most other people would say I'm picky, but I like being able to row my own gears.

 

Well a MT can do that also, and it will cost you $1,000 less to purchase it AND in the long run. Plus all the other benefits.

 

The last time we had a MT car (Subaru Legacy) my wife went through a new clutch approximately every 35,000 miles. She said it wasn't her fault, but Subaru's have tough clutches. So, much as I would like to have one, MT just isn't an option in my house.

The Sport AT with paddle shifters meets her need to drive without a clutch, and mine for control. I drive a lot in the mountains, and sport mode with the paddle shifters is just the ticket. For around town, full auto is OK. For highway cruising, I prefer sport mode, because it doesn't downshift unless I want it to. Over the life of the car, multiple clutch replacements cost more than any possible difference in gas mileage between MT and AT.

 

You can do 2 clutch changes and you would still spend less than if you wouldve bought the more expensive AT car. A clutch lasts waaay longer than 35,000 if driven correctly. Honda clutch's can last up to 100,000 assuming you don't drag race or haven't a clue on how to properly drive a MT car.

 

94k on my clutch and still feels great, and I'm slammin gears with the best of em.

 

I'm not arguing that a clutch shouldn't last more than 100,000 miles. But with my wife driving, 35,000 miles is the most I can expect. She also fried clutches on our 1982 Accord. After 40 years, I've concluded this is a skill she will never acquire. Keep in mind that the parts and labor are only part of the cost of replacing a clutch -- my time to take the car to the dealership has some value to me. In my household, a MT just isn't worth the hassle, much as I would love to have one.

 

I drive a manual trans simply for the enjoyment it gives me. There are parts of the driving experience that can't be had when driving an auto. Working for days (or weeks) to master the perfect rev-matching blip on the entrance to a decreasing radius corner for example. Does this mean that the auto owner doesn't also enjoy mastering the same curve? No, of course not, just for different reasons and with a different skill-set. If you really want to learn and appreciate the art of driving a manual transmission learn to drive a Model A Ford. Three speed, no synchromesh. The shifter has twin steel forks that go directly into the top of the gearbox and actually manipulate the gears when you move the stick, which means you can FEEL when you have screwed up a shift in addition to hearing the wonderful grinding. Add the lack of synchro and the need to double clutch that results and you begin to understand why people say that driving a stick is "more involving" Of course our Hondas are like driving a video game by comparison, but it still beats the utter absence of tactile feed-back that comes from driving an automatic, be it a "sporty "one or not.

 

Shifting cleanly was very much an art on a 1970 Honda N600 with 4-speed constant mesh transmission.

 

So we have come to the conclusion that MT's are better than AT's?

 

I was never trying to open up a full debate about which is better. That wasn't my point, many of the benefits you guys claim I agree with. This thread was originally intended to address the idea of the AT having drivetrain energy loss. My point was that if that was the case, they would have needed to actually gear the AT more aggressively instead of the other way around. I don't think anyone here has changed my mind on that point yet. I understand the AT has the ability to make sort of half-steps in gears (I believe I read it's a clutch somewhere) and that allows it to be geared lower. That seems like a separate issue to me.

EDIT: I am not claiming there is no drivetrain energy loss with AT, just questioning the amount.

 

I am a MT fan through and through. Every vehicle I own is MT, except the fit. The AT was purchased due to family considerations.

Now, the area of the country that I live in is no where near flat. My passport, a v6 underpowered animal (nice gm engine in there) struggles to keep the speed limit (75) on anything more than a slight grade. So, if I have cruise on, I have to kick the accelerator down prior to the hill to avoid having to downshift.

In my Fit, I can use the cruise with the AT in the manual mode. I know its not a manual transmission. But, I can see what's coming up ahead. The car cant, regardless of how many routines are programmed into the transmission for efficiency. The manual mode allows me to drop to 4th prior to a big hill. Doing this, I can avoid the inevitable downshift to 3rd, which would happen as the AT slowly reacts to the increased effort required. Which do you think is more efficent?

I, for one, think that is pretty damn cool.

 

^Thank you!

 

On the issue of drivetrain loss, in a MT, once you release the clutch, the engine is basically connected to the wheels through the transmission. In an auto, this doesn't happen until the torque converter locks up; the rest of the time the torque converter, since it's a fluid coupling, isn't transmitting 100% of the engine's output. (Read up on torque converters if you don't understand.)

The reason the AT is geared differently is because the torque converter can multiply torque -- basically it acts like a reduction gear, so the AT is geared higher than it seems from looking at the gear ratios alone.