No, more the midsize sedans and 2dr coupes. The Kei cars were everywhere, my buddy had a 660cc turbo kei car, lol.

I owned, a 92 Skyline GTS-T, 2 JZX90 Mark 2 Tourer V's, a JZX100 Chaser Tourer V, Toyota Vitz(wife's car), R33 GTS-T, Couple different 180sx/S14's.

Not all at once, some were missiles(cars you beat to death at the track and junk them), others were I owned them just to sell them for friends PCS'ing.

 

I don't mean to change the subject, but I don't fully agree that MT necessarily leads to better economy. There are way too many variables, also I've been reading and it seems that most modern ATs are beginning to surpass MTs in terms of efficiency. Maybe this doesn't apply to the fit, but I've seen many AT owners here surpass 40 MPG

Greenlings: Why do automatic transmissions now get better fuel efficiency than manuals?

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/...ck-shifts.html

http://www.cartalk.com/content/today...myths-debunked

 

They claim to get better than 40 mpg, however the few auto owners I know (both GE and GD) struggle to average beyond 30-32, whereas I've only been to that mark in the dead of winter/with a lot of city driving.

Also, just like in the What did you do to your GE today thread, those claims mean nothing without verification (ie some maths); every time I've asked an auto member for that regarding 40 mpg they: A) go on the offensive B) State they didn't do any

 

Hmm that's not very good, I guess it really depends on how one drives too. I don't track my fuel economy religiously, but I do avg 35-40 with mixed driving. Highway driving is always above 40. This is of course going off the display which I know can usually be 1 or 2 mpg off in either direction( I reset at each fuel up). Fwiw, I am always watching my instant mpg display though. I doubt the other forum members would lie about their mpg

In any case, there are a ton of sources out there that are saying modern autos with lockable torque converters are beginning to surpass manuals in terms of efficiency. EPA numbers are beginning to show this in some cars as well. I don't have any reason to think everyone is lying about this either, autos already outsell manuals so there isn't really a need to make them seem better than they are.

I'm just telling you what I've read and heard from many places, and I think it would be valuable to others to hear about this too.

 

I wonder how many folks go by the computer; ie: it says they are getting 40 MPG and they don't check what the real mileage is. I fill up until the nozzle shuts off and then stop. Next fill up, same thing, just to where nozzle shuts off. Then I do the MPG the hard way, divide miles driven by gallons and that is giving me a real world MPG. I think the Honda computers (and most other cars) are "optimistic". heh

connor55, no offense to you. Just realized you said you go by the computer, so I wasn't trying to be mean spiriterd. Just that I have read some comments that say Honda computer can be off by more than 2-3 MPG sometimes.

 

No worries, I'm aware that the computer can be off. But from what I've seen it can be pessimistic as often as it is optimistic. Overall it's pretty close though.

For earlier model years, there was a bug that reported 10-15% higher. That has since been corrected, so keep in mind some people may still have that bug.

 

Yes I manually calculated for some time just to verify the dash gauge but found it accurate enough for me to stop hand calculating it.

Oh no, I may have only gotten 38mpg instead of 39, what am I to do?!?!

Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

I got time for dat if it means I drive like that every tank and replicate dem MPG's y0.

Connor, autos of today are nice, however:

-Durability is still a question, I can drive a 20 year old manual Civic and still have perfect shifter feel; meanwhile I recently test drove an 08 Fit Sport 5AT that shifted worse than my GF's 2001 Kia Rio.
-EPA ratings mean nothing to me, real world numbers are everything; and I get better numbers than most with manual. Dat advantage doesn't exist in autos.
-Autos are not fun in slow cars, they never will be.

 

That is true as autos are far more complex pieces than manuals, however if it's really shifting that poorly, it's probably due to lack of maintenance more than anything. I have a 20 year old accord with An AT at 450000KMs that still shifts fine, and obviously the AT design and fluid have improved drastically since then.

They aren't realistic for the actual numbers you get, but they ARE good for relative performance since the test is standardized. I also get better numbers on my AT than EPA estimates, so again it comes back to how you drive.

True, but I still have a blast driving in mine

 

Just based on the computer, my AT has a 33.8mpg. Hawaii is mostly stop and go (considering our freeway is almost always rush hour) so if I had more open freeway like the mainland, I'm sure I'd get an easy 34mpg. Better than my previous cars so I'm happy with it.

 

I was reading about the 2015 Fit. The Hybrid model has a 7 speed auto shifted manuel that only comes with Hybrid. I thought that would be a great tranny for a regular Fit. Article said that when new Fit gets here, will have 6 speed manual or CVT. I think the "automated manual" would be the best of both worlds. Ford has one in the Fiesta, but it's jerky sometimes.

Also, one morning I was going to work, and there was a Phoenix Police motorcycle alongside. It was a Honda, and I was listening to how it sounded when he first took off, and what it sounded like when he shifted it. That bike really made a good impression on me. So, get the engine & tranny outta the bike and put it in the Fit.......

 

That's kinda how Honda automotive got started. In the '70s the first Honda imports I noticed (there were imports in the 60s too) had air cooled engines very closely related to their motorcycle offerings. I'm not sure I want to go back to those days...

 

Interesting, lessee...

FUEL ECONOMY (CTY/HWY) 22/28 mpg
CAR TYPE Sedan
TRANSMISSION 4-speed Automatic
BASE ENGINE SIZE 1.5 L
CAM TYPE Double overhead cam (DOHC)
CYLINDERS Inline 4 VALVES 16
TORQUE 98 ft-lbs. @ 4500 rpm HORSEPOWER 96 hp @ 5800 rpm
TURNING CIRCLE 30.8 ft.
(link)

So a 1.5L DOHC 4speed auto "shifts better" but gets 22/28mpg.

What you may be sensing in the Honda is more gears, and (at least in GEs) a torque converter that locks in all gears. It's somewhat busy but performs well.

I'm somewhat of an AT connoisseur having owned and driven them back to the 60s (about half my cars have been manuals so don't go all holier than thou on me). There is nothing finer than old American iron with 3speed turbohydramatic (or similar) trannies for smooth shifting and power curves. Coupled with V8s nothing came close. Efficiency wasn't an issue.

Honda's ATs do very well with what they have to work with in terms of source power. Yes they're somewhat busy; if this bothers you, you'll probably be a fan of CVTs especially ones that simulate shifts.

EPA numbers are useful for comparison. Do you test drive every car you buy for several tanks? As far as "real world" numbers, you're comparing your MPG with a MT with what? Random people on the web? EPA ratings? I get better than EPA ratings (most do, Honda is pessimistic on their EPA tests). The car continues to surprise me, I averaged 45mpg over 5 days and 300 miles driving flat roads at leisurely speeds without even thinking about it this fall in Florida. My daily commute used to be 36mpg but changing jobs and commutes dropped it to 33mpg. You can't compare MPG "real world" with another driver: everything is relative to its use (and more importantly its user).

For drivers with MTs that maximize MPG and are consistently good at it, they should be able to do better than an auto as friction losses on an auto can't compete (but they're getting close...). The auto's computer is consistent and should out perform a MT for your average driver day in day out.

Choose your transmission wisely (it's expensive to change). Fun is found in different places.

/rant

 

Steve244, what do you think about the "automated manuels", like the Ford Fiesta? Uses 2 clutches instead of a torque converter, but shifts like an auto trans. I'm kinda thinking this is where the stick and auto combine for the future, unless the CVT takes over. I know Ford has problems with their unit, but some hi-end cars have this trans, and it works very well. Always reminds me of watching Formula One on TV, and you see the driver hitting the buttons to upshift or downshift, and it's instant shift.

 

I've never driven a dual clutch auto, and had to wiki them to get a better understanding of how they work. I watch Leno (garage, not the tonight show) religiously and he constantly comments on dual clutch technology in the super cars he highlights (and owns). The impression I got from that end of the automotive spectrum is they are harsh and somewhat soulless. The few people here that have commented on the Fiesta's are the same; harsh shifting.

I think the future is we'll all be driving the equivalent of Chevy Volts with direct drive electric motors and a small combustion engine or fuel cell to replenish batteries on a long trip. Transmissions won't be part of the picture except on classic cars and race cars.

For the immediate future, dual clutch transmissions are probably going to be all the rage as they eliminate fluid torque converters and the associated friction losses. They may increase the clutch friction losses to make them shift a bit smoother though. And like it or not, I think a computer can shift better than I can.

 

Ahh, the pros and cons of fuel consumption.
1975, 45 mpg, beat up Honda Civic, bought used.
1980, used VW Rabbit, 35 mpg.
Both cars hit by other driver at fault, VW totaled.


And my Manual '08 Fit Sport, gotta love cruise control,
Was last month the casualty of "a lane too far" when pulling out of the
strip center trying to merge onto the freeway frontage road.
Lucky it only "popped" the left front wheel and smashed that fender.
Shucks.....[or words to that effect]


But, in Houston, Texas, burning EPA mandated fuel, 32-33 mpg was the norm. Get outside the five mandated counties and burn the different blend, I could see 35-36 mpg.


I endorse the Fit Sport for, at least, the cruise control. And. when facing further foot surgery, I would opt for the automatic transmission.
Of course, at 6'-3", there is no left foot room with the manual.
A second consideration should I find another Fit in my future.


At present found an '09 F 150 waiting in the used vehicle section of a dealer's lot. 8ft bed, Supercab. Just what I drove when contracting insulation and coatings in the '70's and into the '90's. Darn thing barely squeezes into the back yard behind the house.


And, you know, the Fit had more room to stash stuff inside!


[anyone want a set of the VW 15" wheels that came with my Fit when I bought it used?]

 

I've seen this general comment tossed around a lot around here, but I can't really find any reasons discussed...are the foglights really that bad on the Fit? What's wrong with them, too dim? Poor placement?

 

The big problem I find with the fog lights is that they really only light up the sides of the road and only project about 10ft in front of the car. So, they're helpful if you're watching out for things to the side or to the front if driving very slowly, but not very useful for looking out ahead at speed.

-Dustin

 

It's not just the Fit; most fog lights on American cars are of little if any practical value. The intention is to light the area right around and in front of the car with a low angle beam that avoids glare (such as the normal headlights produce) in heavy fog. They aren't quite bright enough to do that, and they only operate with the headlights on, which doesn't allow you to avoid the glare anyhow. I gather that they do help a little bit with illuminating the edges of the field of view, such as the lines along the road, in foggy conditions. In general, though, they don't enable you to see much of anything that you can't see equally well with just the normal headlights.

Again, this isn't unique to the Fit. US DOT regulations, I presume, prevent makers from having really useful fog lights; and frankly, I'm quite OK with that, based on the vast number of vehicles I see with fog lights on when it's not even remotely foggy. Things that prevent others from carelessly or needlessly dazzling my eyes when driving at night are not without benefit.

Here's a pretty thorough explanation of fog lights and their use (and misuse) in general terms: Daniel Stern Lighting Consultancy and Supply: What Good are Fog Lamps, Really?

 

at points i was gone highly confused while reading the posts but it do have enuf facts to consider upon and i am trying to get those