Thanks. It does help.

I never exceed the speed limit or at least never exceed it by more than 5 mph, and the speed limit around here is 65 mph. I don't generally drive especially carefully to maximize mpg, but I don't drive horribly aggressively either.

​​​​​​​I've never owned a diesel ... that is something to think about but from what I understand they are pretty hard to start in colder weather. But it is something to think about.
Thanks again, the replies are quite helpful.

 

Diesels have glow plugs for cold weather starting, as long as I waited several seconds with the key one position short of cranking over, it started fine. If I just hopped in and tried to start it up, no good.

 

Generally it will get better gas mileage than a MT, mainly due to less rpm on the hwy as others have said. City driving mpg is not that great as David Lawrence says. I can see a MT beating a CVT in stop and go traffic. As far as EPA estimates, I've averaged 3-4 mpg above the 40 mpg it's rate at.

Don't know about a MT but when I drive the 18 miles to reach I-75 on my 500 mile road trips (twice a month) I average about 48 mpg during this stretch and it's all hills and curves. Why it does so well on this kind of terrain, I don't know. Maybe it's because I don't drive with a lead foot.

Here's what the CVT is capable of:



It was an experiment using some hypermiling techniques. Believe it or not others here have had higher results than this. So there is a lot of potential for some high mpg numbers with the CVT. So if mpg is your main concern, you can't go wrong with choosing the CVT.

 

wow 53.1 mpg on a 94F day.. so much work just to save a few bucks on fuel..!

 

Thanks, BenQuick, that is a lot of helpful information. I think I'm finally beginning to understand why the CVT saves on fuel at higher speeds (because of fewer rpms).

My only remaining problem is whether it is worth saving a few mpg to go with the CVT or to get a manual and still be content with having reasonable gas mileage even though it is not as great as with the CVT. That's something I'm going to have to decide for myself.

 

I would think that the manual will surpass the CVT at low speeds because of it being a more efficient drivetrain. CVT's are about the highest for reciprocating loss, but make up for it with the near infinite ratios.

 

on a car like the fit, if i had to drive one everyday i would choose MT over and over again.

 

The EPA ratings for city driving show the CVT beating out the manual. Read into that however you like

https://automobiles.honda.com/fit#specifications

 

Just to add my $.02 to the OP's question - I've driven a MT ever since my first car (a VW Rabbit) when I was 17. I love the fun and control of a MT!

But when I started looking for a new car to replace my '88 Saab 900 turbo, I decided I wanted gas milage to be a high priority. I first looked at EVs, then hybrids. I test drove a Prius C, (which is the size I want) but hated the gutless acceleration.

More and more looking led me to the Fit, which gets mileage comparable to a hybrid, but is soooo much cooler in so many ways!

Like the OP, I compared the MT with the CVT and in the end, went with CVT for a couple reasons:

1) My next car will for sure be an EV or hybrid and they all have CVT transmissions. I figured this is the future and I should see if I like it.

2) Better mileage for the CVT

3) Reports of the weird gear ratio at the top of the 6-speed MT. Coming from my 5-speed Saab 900 turbo, I really didn't see the benefit.

4) Because of the MT gearing, CVT would be quieter at freeway speeds

5) Probably most important - the dealer had the exact year, model, and color Fit I wanted at a fantastic price!

After about 8 months with my CVT, I have to say, I'm totally fine with it. Much easier to drive on SF's hills and when I want kick in the VTEC on the freeway, it's there. I've even fooled around with the paddle shifters on some country road drives, but they're kinda a gimmick.

For the kind of driving I do in the city, it looks like the consensus is I'd be better off mileage-wise with a hybrid. But I love my Fit and am having a blast, CVT and all.

As far as the choice between MT and CVT, as the other posters have said it's all about what you value in your driving experience. If you really like the control and feel of MT, probably the difference in mileage costs is negligible. But if you value the ease of CVT, you'll get a quieter ride and a bit better mileage. I still think the CVT is plenty fun to drive, but that's just me - YMMV

 

thing is still loud. not much of a benefit imo for road noise.

 

Road noise yeah, but engine is quieter at 2000-3000 RPM than 4000-6000!

 

wat engine?

 

Which ones will yield better fuel economy depends entirely on your driving style.
If they are driven identically by computer and mpg only depend on loses in the transmission, the results might be so close it would be nearly indistinguishable. Manual is the direct drive, and so is CVT. I think noone can tell you which transmission has more parasitic energy loss.

 

This is not true.

Dyno operators across the entire globe have confirmed that two identical cars, one with manual and one with CVT, the CVT puts less power to the ground.

Here's a post by Hondata (a very reputable source) in regards to the actual Honda CVT, so this isn't even a stretch to some other auto maker...

2017 1.5 MT Dyno Results | 2016+ Honda Civic Forum (10th Gen) - Type R Forum, Si Forum - CivicX.com

Look at post 12.

Edited to add - they are also able to reach the limits of the CVT's power holding ability with just a tune. No limit found for the manual yet.

Not hating on the CVT as they have their place and work well. However, they DO have more parasitic drivetrain loss.

 

What do you mean by CVT power holding ability?

Also, the cars with the Manual doing more work "in your words - putting more power" is a premise for which conclusion?

We were talking about fuel efficiency. That means work the car that does the same amount of work with the least amount of fuel burn (gasoline fuel, no air).


Please respond to the following statement. Do you agree that Two identical new honda fit vehicle of the same model year, with only the transmission difference (cvt and manual) can be driven 5 miles, on the same track in such a way that the manual burns more gasoline and also the cvt would burn more gasoline. Do you agree it's possible to do that?


That was my original argument, that the actual efficiency (i.e. energy conservation efficiency) has more to do with the driving style than the transmission that is being used, especially when you consider the various styles and conditions in which people drive the vehicles with both transmissions. Hence the most accurate answer to the OP would be - it depends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy...ion_efficiency
P.S. Good move on removing a personal insult, this can allow for a rational discussion.

 

I don't believe you have an understanding of parasitic loss. Please read up on that and then it can be a better discussion.

Edit - you specifically said that it's unknown which has more parasitic energy loss, but that is not true. The CVT has more parasitic energy loss. That is different from total fuel efficiency.

The reason this becomes important is that, at a constant speed, with both transmissions operating at the exact same rpm, the manual will have better fuel efficiency due to less parasitic loss. Where things get very complicated is that the CVT has the ability to always be at or very near the ideal rpm for efficiency where as the manual is limited to 6 selections with the top one being numerically higher.

 

By power holding, I am speaking of the ability of the transmission to not break given a certain power level. The CVT has a much lower threshold.

Thanks to Honda part sharing, I suspect that the Fit uses the same belt material across platforms (no proof, just a guess). If that's true, the CVT in the Fit has lots of headroom where as the CVT in the CR-V has very little.

 

It sounds like you are not understanding some basic physical concepts.
Every transmission will convert some energy into friction, heat, break down of the gears, etc. That is I assume what you mean by parasitic loss. Fine, we can use that term.

Where do find which transmission is more wasteful than the other? Dinamometers are not good measures because they measure various engine running conditions.

I have no idea what you mean by "totat" fuel eficiency.
Transmission can't be "fuel efficient" it doesn't consume fuel. And as I said, you have to establish which transmission is losing more energy converting momentum from the flywheel to the wheels.

You are right that the amount of fuel used between two cars will depend on A LOT of factors, which depend in large on how the throttle is used.
The fuel/air ratio is constantly changing, so by running 1 mile at 5 parts gasoline to 5 parts air is going to burn more gasoline than running 1 mile at 13 parts air to 1 part gasoline.

People who say that "cvt is more fuel efficient" are the kind of people who say that "potato salad is the best food in the world" and then argue their point.

 

You mean durability. Ability to transfer torque without catastrophic failure.