General Fit Talk General Discussion on the Honda Fit/Jazz.

Fit Sport AT Acceleration Test Results

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 8, 2006 | 06:23 AM
  #1  
cheffyjay's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 531
From: washington
5 Year Member
Fit Sport AT Acceleration Test Results

With 700 miles on the odometer I took my little black Fit Sport AT out to the country road tonight with my G-Tech. http://www.gtechpro.com/accuracy.html

There has been a lot of debate about acceleration figures for the Automatic here on this forum so I was eager to get my own data. Here we go:

Six Runs, 0-60
9.73
9.54
9.46
[B]9.23
9.43
9.18
AVERAGE [B]9.42 seconds

Each run was done in “S”, some with the paddle shifters, some without (it didn’t seem to make much of a difference.) The gas tank was completely full(heavy).

I tossed out the first two runs of over ten seconds because the book said I should. Interestingly, the fifth run was done in “D”. Perhaps you see a pattern here. The transmission seemed to be learning as we went along. I wonder what numbers I would have ended up with if I kept going? Average of the last five runs was 9.37 seconds, the average of the best two in Sport mode was 9.205. Yeah, that's it, we'll call it 9.2 seconds!

The G-tech also recorded maximum acceleration Gs of .29, a quarter mile time of 17.4 seconds, and 95 Horsepower at the wheel. (G-tech estimates based on the weight of the car, I entered 2650 lbs. I weigh 150# so I think I may have been a little off.)

Contrast these results with Motor Trend’s 0-60 time of 11.9 for the Sport AT. These times would have beaten the other cars in that test, including the Yaris, which Sport Compact Car said would ‘walk away’ from the Fit. Times aren’t that bad but nearly a second slower than the MT.

Before anybody gets cranky, these runs were done in a 60 mph zone, clear and flat, with turn signals, nobody around. I didn't break any laws except maybe on the quarter mile run. I was very careful and safe and I am a firm believer in keeping speed on the racetrack.

Nobody buys this car for acceleration numbers but it is a fun car to drive. It wasn’t so long ago that an under ten second 0-60 time was considered the break point for what was considered a ‘sports car’. I was really tempted to take a run with the air filter element removed, just to see what, if any, impact it would have but just red lining my new car over and over made me nervous enough! These will be interesting base line numbers and if I make any modifications (planning to buy lighter wheels soon-ish) I'll keep y'all posted.

Love that Fit!
 

Last edited by claymore; Jul 9, 2006 at 02:33 AM.
Old Jul 8, 2006 | 10:10 AM
  #2  
noflash's Avatar
New Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1
From: usa
Great work. Thanks!
 
Old Jul 8, 2006 | 11:53 AM
  #3  
mmm def's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 44
From: NJ
5 Year Member
I thought the car felt quicker than the 10.4-11.9 the mags got..
 
Old Jul 8, 2006 | 12:51 PM
  #4  
willmax11's Avatar
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 347
From: Manitoba Canada
5 Year Member
I sure wish you had the Canadian LX Fit so you could test the D3 AT and see what it compares to your model. Limits the gears to the first 3.
 
Old Jul 8, 2006 | 03:04 PM
  #5  
Fray Adjacent's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 450
From: Austin, TX
I'm wondering how it would do if you installed a CAI. I believe someone dynoed about 6hp and 7lb ft gain. Not a lot, but to a 109 hp engine, it's significant.
 
Old Jul 8, 2006 | 08:35 PM
  #6  
JT-KGY's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 60
From: Los Angeles, CA
How about the manual?
Anyone actually tested a manual Fit themselves with G-tech?
 
Old Jul 9, 2006 | 02:38 AM
  #7  
Packy's Avatar
Frequent FitFreak Poster
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 621
From: Portland, Oregon
Great information and details! Makes me that much more excited to get my Fit! Also makes me frustrated, since I have to probably wait two months <sniff>.

Go Fit, Go!
 
Old Jul 9, 2006 | 05:26 AM
  #8  
cheffyjay's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 531
From: washington
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by JT-KGY
How about the manual?
Anyone actually tested a manual Fit themselves with G-tech?
You can find a new-in-box first generation G-Tech on Ebay for much less than the $150 they sold for. The factory no longer supports them but they work just fine and can tell you a lot about your performance mods. I'm suprised they're not more common.
 
Old Jul 9, 2006 | 05:27 AM
  #9  
cheffyjay's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 531
From: washington
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by Fray Adjacent
I'm wondering how it would do if you installed a CAI. I believe someone dynoed about 6hp and 7lb ft gain. Not a lot, but to a 109 hp engine, it's significant.
Anyone else surprised to see 95 whp on a car rated at 109 hp?
 
Old Jul 9, 2006 | 09:54 AM
  #10  
FondaFit's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 606
From: Palm Bay, FL
Good job! Thanks for all your hard work plus a full rundown of results. I'd rather depend on our "real world" forum people reporting on their own car's performance.
 
Old Jul 9, 2006 | 10:54 AM
  #11  
watchful one's Avatar
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 36
From: minnesota
the last magazine I read states the auto sport runs to 60 in 11.7 seconds. I think it was motortrend. It picked the fit first over the yaris, and others... but over 11 seconds?? Interestingly the same article states the 0-30mph time of only 3.3, which was tied with the others, and I would believe that. My car seems to have broken in with the miles, and definately feels faster now. I must qualify that I think either I got used to the transmission, or it got used to me. It seems to hold the gears longer/at higher rpm now while in fully automatic mode in "D" until I get up to speed. I love my auto trans, and it's great to have it hum along at low rpm on the interstate while returning an average 38mpg!!
 
Old Jul 9, 2006 | 11:59 AM
  #12  
st3alth's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 28
From: Australia
nice consistent figures/runs there
 
Old Jul 9, 2006 | 01:32 PM
  #13  
HotIron's Avatar
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 484
From: Massachusetts, USA
5 Year Member
Awesome Work!

Yea, I picked up MT the other day, too, and I've been reading the magazine for over 20 years now, and I'd say that's the absolute worst 0-60 result they've ever tested for a car. Especially since just my seat of the pants testing yielded better numbers than they got.

I knew there was no way a Yaris could kick my Fit's butt. I have the Sport Auto too.


I'm glad you got such consistent numbers. I have been wondering how Motoring got 8.2 sec 0-62, and Motor Trend could be so far off from that number.

Anyway.

I'd have to agree that the more you drive it, and the more it breaks in, the better it gets. I have over 2400 miles now, and it's super smooth.

Also, one thing I noticed is the computer seems to learn. The tranny took forever to downshift if I just put my foot into the gas. On the highway, I had to really plan my passes at first. But once I got past the first 600 miles, I decided to try grabbing a gear with the paddle to pass, and it worked great. Wouldn't you know, the computer has adapted, and now when I put my foot down, the tranny shifts much quicker.


Love my Fit!
 
Old Jul 9, 2006 | 11:08 PM
  #14  
b17gsr's Avatar
Someone that spends his life on FitFreak.net
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,110
From: Ottawa, Ontario
I've had poor experiences with the GTech in the past. I wouldn't use it for anything other than fun factor.
 
Old Jul 10, 2006 | 12:21 AM
  #15  
BKKJack's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 507
From: NOVA
Originally Posted by cheffyjay
Anyone else surprised to see 95 whp on a car rated at 109 hp?
Since the 109 hp number is most likely for the engine, are you saying 12.84% driveline loss is good, or bad?
 
Old Jul 10, 2006 | 12:25 AM
  #16  
cheffyjay's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 531
From: washington
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by BKKJack
Since the 109 hp number is most likely for the engine, are you saying 12.84% driveline loss is good, or bad?
I guess I expected more driveline loss, especially with the AT.
 
Old Jul 10, 2006 | 12:55 AM
  #17  
BKKJack's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 507
From: NOVA
Originally Posted by cheffyjay
I guess I expected more driveline loss, especially with the AT.
You could be the Man! All you need to do is find someone with a manual Fit, same trim level, wheels, tires, amount of fuel, etc, and run back to back testing on the same road . If you remove all the variables and use the same g-tech in both cars, you could put the auto v. manual transmission argument to rest (or at least one part of it).

I still want the manual, though.
 
Old Jul 10, 2006 | 02:30 PM
  #18  
VelociRacer's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 59
From: Earth
Great info! Ditto for the back to back test between manual and auto.
 
Old Jul 10, 2006 | 03:42 PM
  #19  
cheffyjay's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 531
From: washington
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by VelociRacer
Great info! Ditto for the back to back test between manual and auto.
Unfortunately I live three quarters of the way to the edge of nowhere. There is a base Fit in my town and another auto sport. Lots of Prius/green/'hippy' types out here so I expect to see more soon. I'm sure the MT is going to be faster. For me it is about figuring out what mods make a difference. Mods might be a while though...I want to pay the car off within a year! (JLBMotorsports.com takes PayPal though, gotta sell some junk on EBay!)
 
Old Jul 10, 2006 | 09:24 PM
  #20  
Jimmy101's Avatar
Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 562
From: San Diego
5 Year Member
I just weighed my fit at the certified truck scales and got 2580 lbs with a full tank of gas. That for the automatic sport. Now you can adjust your gtech!
 



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 PM.