Has anyone else thought it's odd Honda uses such different gearing for the manual / auto Fits? If (as you MT guys always say) the AT is soooo much slower and inefficient compared to the MT, why is it that Honda decided to make the MT gearing so much more aggressive?

Because you MT heads expect your car to be more powerful and they made the AT too well, so they had to trick you with more intense gearing!

 

The manual is geared properly for the power levels and power characteristics of the motor.

In many respects, the automatic is geared far too high.

The reason the automatic is geared differently, is because of the torque converter. They can get away from using such low gearing to gain efficiency because the ability of the torque convertor to slip and act as a torque multiplier allows the car to have "half" gears.

For example, on the freeway locked up in fifth, the car is turning low RPMs and delivering good MPG figures. If you need to accelerate, the torque converter unlocks allowing for more RPMs per given speed and more power as well, without actually downshifting to a lower gear. It a sort of half step that only an automatic can provide and once that bit of acceleration/power is no longer necessary, it locks up again returning better efficiency.

The constant drive of a clutch does not allow such an occurrence, and with only 5 gears available, has to be geared properly for the motor.

 

Then put in a 6th cog and let the driver decide when to shift for power on hills.

I for one like the low RPM's of the automatic.

 

Agreed, since I too preferred the lower RPM's of the automatic, I chose the latter.

Would've been a harder choice had a 6-speed stick been offered though.

 

A 6th gear would be fantastic with the final drive ratio of the manual. It still would have had more than enough power for the highway, and 5th for the hills.

 

How many RPM does the MT turn in fifth gear at highway speed? The AT does about 2500RPM at 70 MPH with the torque converter locked up.

 

If I remember correctly add about a thousand RPM to your auto and thats what the manual is doing. I think my manny is spinning about 3200 or so at 75, goes up to about 35 or3600 at 80.

 

I figured because the MT is running RPM higher, the fuel mileage would suffer but I guess it doesn't.

 

secondspassed, by your avatar photo and the marginal coherence or your post I'm guessing you are about 16.
So, no one has taught you how to drive a stick yet? It's really not that hard, a few lessons and you will have the basics down. If you are ever in Colorado give me a buzz and I will show you what you are missing.

 

My Mt Fit Sport turns 3000 rpm at 60 mph. Which would be 4000 rpm at 80, 5000 rpm at 100, etc.

 

RPM doesnt have that much to do with fuel consumption. Think about it, at 75mph the AT will be at a lower rpm, having less power. The AT will have to apply more throttle/gas JUST to maintain that same speed. Plus the MT weighs less. This is why MT's get better gas mileage.

 

i wouldn't call the AT "inefficient" since it gets better mileage than the MT.

 

I pull 35-37 MPG each tank with my MT. I just put a SRI on my car and got 40 MPG on the nose. My sister's AT is pulling 33 MPG max. You can't compare AT to MT its all about the driver.

 

Only if you go by the EPA ratings. I don't know what the testing methods are, but they are completely out of whack.
Check the mileage reports posted here and you will see the MT getting better mileage than AT. In some cases MUCH better.

 

huh?

if you are on cruise control, you are at a level speed. your statement in applying more gas or throttle to maintain a speed applies to any car with most any type of transmission.

on a flat highway, set on cruise, the automatic is using less fuel because of the way its geared, compared to a manual fit driving next to it under the same parameters.

 

Except it uses more fuel. Yes RPM does matter. However, in real world driving (not EPA testing) the higher internal energy loss of an auto appears more important than the RPM difference.

 

I wouldn't say the AT is more "inefficient". I've just heard that the AT gets better highway mileage, and the MT gets better mileage on the streets. I have the MT and I'm at 3500-4000RPM from 65MPH-80mph. and I get 30-31mpg(275miles when the light goes on). But I do feel bad about my gas when I'm hitting 3.5k-4kRPM. =/

 

Actually throttle position affects mpg more than rpm. Drive in first gear at a constant 6000rpm and I guarantee you'll get great mileage although your engine wouldn't last. Same with the MT vs AT. The MT will be at a higher rpm producing more power at the same speed vs an AT. The MT will require less throttle to overcome the wind resistance because its making more power. Even though the real time fuel gauge is kind of crappy in the Fit and play with it to see how its mainly throttle and not rpm that affects fuel consumption.

 

as long as you're speeding you'll always be disappointed with mileage results.

 

you could tell me the MT gets 5 less mpg, and I'd still choose it. That goes for any car, until I'm so old I can't do it anymore