I've only driven a few manuals in my life, so I'm at the other end of the spectrum. Like I said the paddle shifters are responsive. In auto mode the tranny seems to up shift at the earliest possible time for gas mileage reasons, so you really have to give it a lot of throttle to hold the lower gears. It feels a lot sportier to me in paddle shift mode since it will hold whatever gear you're in until it hits the rev limiter at redline on the tach.
I also use the paddles in auto mode from time to time to use engine breaking going down hills, etc. because it will hold the lower gear until you give it throttle again. Also, even if you're accelerating moderately in auto mode you can down shift with the paddles to give it a temporary boost in the lower gear. So, I find that the paddles have a lot of function even when you have the tranny in auto mode.

- Dustin

 

I was in a similar situation a few years back. I just showed my wife how to drive stick.
If she absolutely can't drive a MT then get the Fit sport auto.
We both test drove the 2013 and loved it.
You will also love the utility and reliability of the Fit compared to others.

 

I think paddle shifters are for the video game generation. If you feel the need to shift it yourself get a manual. The car's computer does a fine job shifting the auto with 5 speeds, torque converter lock-out in all gears, grade control logic, and shift hold control through the twisties with a puny 1.5L engine.

I had a succession of manual transmission cars from 1978 to 1994 and never felt the need for an auto, just that it wasn't as much fun. 1990 to 94 I lived in France and got burned out on MT and switched to automatics. That said, I drove an 09 MT Fit Sport before buying a base auto. I thought it would be fun. Quite the opposite: it had this annoying throttle hang (part of the newest pollution controls to avoid unburned hydrocarbons exiting the exhaust). The shift linkage felt spongy (more so than any other FWD car I've had, including Toyotas, VWs, and a French car or 3). I happily drove off in an automatic Fit Base and have not regretted it.

I've only taken it on one road trip, last summer to Key Largo from Atlanta. It was up to the task, but barely. It's not a good highway car. Noisy, hard seats. The short wheelbase and high profile make it a bit squirrelly. Our 97 Camry v6 and 03 Accord v6 are much better highway cars.

The mpg is good. 36mpg 70/30 hwy/cty. About 30mpg city. Sustained 75-85mph highway it gets about 34mpg; nothing to shout about.

When I feel the need to exercise my right arm and left leg, I jump in my son's '95 Miata and head for the two lane rural GA roads on a sunny day.

My advice is to drive the MT fit and see if it fulfills your fun factor. Again, maybe you're shopping for the wrong class of car.

For me, I was looking for a reliable economy commuter car to navigate metro Atlanta 50miles per day. It does a fine job of that. The hatch sealed the deal for me as it gives cargo potential our sedans (and miata) do not. And it only cost $16,500 otd.

 

There have been a lot of posts about the Fit being noisy on the interior, but the 2012+ models do have additional sound insulation that makes them a little quieter. I test drove a 2009 used Fit Sport auto before I bought my 2012 Fit Sport auto and the 2012 was noticably quieter at highway speeds than the 2009.

Also, the general consensus seems to be that the squirreliness on the hwy can be greatly alleviated with better/wider tires, an aftermarket rear sway bar, and even some Swift or other performance springs. I hope to find out for myself once I get some play money to start upgrading.

- Dustin

 

Better tires (Michelin Energy) and an alignment helped mine.

I wish there had been another model Fit besides the Base and Sport. I would have paid more for better seats, interior finish (carpet, panels), and sound insulation. More in line with the non-US market. I think this might have cannibalized sales of more profitable Civics and Accords here in the US which is why Honda gave us more spartan Fits.

 

If you love driving stick, you WILL miss it. I've been driving stick my entire life and so far the only car I own in auto is the MDX because it doesn't come in a stick (fortunately, it's got the paddle shifters, thank God for that). If you are the main driver of the car you should get what you like and if your wife wants to drive it every now and then she can learn how to drive manual; it's not difficult. My wife knows that all of my cars were, are and will be manual, and she just learned how to drive stick... and she does it in Chicago traffic with no issues.

If I were you, I'd get a manual; automatics just don't drive the same... even with paddle shifters.

 

As mean a bitch as my wife is, I feel fortunate that she wouldn't even consider driving a car without a clutch pedal. Being married to a control freak is bad sometimes and good at others...

 

+1. The other markets get all the good stuff!

 

Have you considered a Subaru Impreza? It might be a nice compromise between a fun hatchback and a more refined sedan. It is much less powerful under the hood than the accord though.

 

I once bought an automatic Jeep Patriot because my wife couldn't drive stick. She never drove the Patriot, and I hated the damn thing.

Needless to say, I now have a 5spd manual fit.

 

I own a 5MT base Fit, but had a 5AT Fit Sport as a loaner when mine was in for service (LMS recall).

Biggest difference in performance is in getting the AT launched from a stop. Once it's rolling, they seem to be pretty much the same, especially if you're willing to use the paddles.

The other difference in the driving experience is, if you're using higher revs in a lower gear, the AT sometimes feels like it has a "rubber band" between the engine and tranny due to the torque converter. Not a big deal IMO, just noticeable when you're used to things being locked up as with the MT.

I've owned only MT cars for my entire driving career. However, that AT Sport I drove shows me that I wouldn't mind owning one at all.

 

That definitely makes me feel better about my AT. So, the manual 0-60 is somewhere around 8.3 seconds and the auto is just a tick over 10 seconds from everything I've read. I wonder just how much of that 2 second difference is due to being able to rev the engine and dump the clutch from a dead start?

-Dustin

 

I had to jump in this, but the Fit has incredible amount of room. I took a long trip to Florida. I was able to fit two bikes, a mini fridge and 5 large suit cases. That was just from my experience.

 

A big chunk. Take a look at times to different speeds MT vs. AT and you'll find that the time lag doesn't change much. Once each one is up in its power-producing rev range they're pretty close.

 

Will you be very sad?

Why are you even asking? If she's making the call on this one? Then enjoy the paddle shifters.

 

I will say get the manual if that is what you want. My wife has a 2010 auto with the paddle shifters. I just bought a 2013 with the 5speed. The automatic really seems like it hunts around for gears a lot, and wants to upshift going uphill way too soon. So it seems like it's lacking torque (well yeah of course) but the slushbox just saps the life out of the engine. The manual, of course is in your control, but to me it seems like it has more power. Not much, but enough to notice.