Manual vs. CVT gas mileage
 

I'm new here and thinking about getting a new (2017 or 2018) Honda Fit. I am a little odd in that getting the best gas mileage is very important to me. I also prefer manual transmissions. However, I have read that the CVT version of the Fit gets better gas mileage than the manual transmission. Is this true? And is the difference as much as the posted EPA estimates?

Also, does this car ever do better than the EPA estimate? What would be a realistic gas mileage estimate for someone who drives mostly rural biways (with hills and curves) with the manual transmission? With the CVT?

I'm sorry for all the questions. I'm just trying to figure out 1. whether I should buy a Honda Fit and 2. whether I should buy a manual or a CVT.

Thanks in advance.

I have a manual transmission 2017 Fit. My daily commute is basically country roads and a short stretch of 70mph highway. During the winter months I drop to about 37-38 MPG. Currently I get between 39 and 43mpg depending on my right foot. I don't drive for maxim MPG

The CVT is going to get better millage, but that comes with a $800 or $900 premium. I don't remember the exact price?

Myself I'm good with 40mpg.

I guess you need to do the return on investment and see how many miles you have to drive to break even on the fuel economy difference between the CVT and the MT.

Personally, I'd buy whatever you like and not sweat 2-3mpg difference. Remember you have to drive it everyday, you might as well like it.

I have a 2016 CVT. I drive in heavy rush hour traffic every morning, and city traffic during the day. I'm averaging 35 MPG, at least according to the computer. I don't religiously drive to save gas, but I'm also aware of it.

There was an interesting thread about CVT driving habits. Someone said it makes sense to punch the gas from a stop to get up to speed, then let the CVT find the right gear and coast. That will supposedly yield the best gas mileage. I've been experimenting with that, but no definitive results yet.

Btw, on my way home I have clear traffic and normally drive around 80 mph. My tach is right around 2700 and my computer says I'm getting 35+ mpg. That's once I'm up to speed.

YMMV

I have a 2017 manual, and have driven about 1000 miles so far. It's about 70% freeway at around 60mph with plenty of up and down hills, occasional traffic and 30% city streets.

We usually try try to drive to maximize mpg, but are 5-10mph over posted speed limits. We are getting 39-41mpg over the 1000 according to car computer.

Thanks guys. I've noticed in some threads on here some people have gotten over 45 mpg. Is that even realistic for normal driving, i.e. not hypermiling? Or does the Fit stay close to the EPA estimates?

i will confirm my wife's GK is cvt and showing 37-38mpg on the obc almost all the time. this is a mix of surface and hwy miles. when i borrowed her car for a week for the commute, which is mostly hwy, i was getting 42mpg..

so in real world, i dont think there's much difference between the MT and CVT as much as there was with the previous gen GE and GD's. :nod:

What this tells me is that the EPA estimates are pretty accurate and that I can't expect much better gas mileage.

Thank you! That's good to know. I've always felt like if a manual were driven carefully then there would be little difference between the MT and the CVT. So much depends on the driver's style with the MT especially.

These were my last two fill-up numbers that were hand calculated versus the onboard computer. I'm also running wider 205 tires now:

44.999
44.257

Best tank mpg was last year September, 47.074 with the stock tires.

I'm happy with the CVT as I am in the DC metro area and traffic is awful. I'm at 49k so I've driven enough miles to have hit the break even for the extra cost of the CVT. The Fit is my commuter car and the CVT is great 80% of the time, the other 20% I wish I had a manual when I'm on the back roads.

I wouldn't say I'm a hyper miler, just have learned that driving more aggressively doesn't get me to my job much faster than driving chill. I'll not opposed to passing a slower car and I don't avoid running the AC lol.

Any Way To Get Better City Mileage???
 

My 2015 CVT with ~49K miles gets between 35 and 40+ mpg on the freeway, but in the city gas mileage plummets.:confused:

I'm lucky if I can squeak out 20mpg and for short hops around town. It really lowers my average. Check out my Fuelly stats in my sig and you can see the pattern. Freeway great, city meh.

Now I'm in San Francisco so there are hills and a lot of stop and go traffic. But I drive with a light foot and even pay attention to the ambient mileage gage. I like feeling VTEC on the freeway but around town, I'm easy on the pedal.

Is there anything I can do to improve my SF city mileage? Should I mention it to the dealer the next time I go in for maintenance? Or is 17-18 mpg in the city the best I can expect?

Thanks everyone. It seems like the fuel efficiency of this car varies wildly. I guess the only thing that counts is the average.

Wow, that's really bad. I think you definitely should consult your dealer. Hope you can get it taken care of.

I purchased it used from a Toyota dealer here in the city. It was in like-new condition with perfect maintenance records and priced to move. I'm super happy with it in general, but city milage has been disappointing. I'll definitely ask next time I need to bring it in.

I don't get this thread? Go test drive the car and if you like it buy it. Get whatever you prefer, either the manual or CVT. It's not that difficult.

I'll state the purpose of the thread one more time. Fuel efficiency is important to me. It rises to the level of a deal breaker for me. You can't tell fuel efficiency from a test drive nor by looking at the car. So I'm hoping that people who own the Fit and who have experience with it can relate their experience with regard to fuel efficiency and whether the manual transmission really does get worse gas mileage than the CVT.

This is a waste of my time. You prefer a MT, but if the CVT gets like 3mpg more you'll buy that instead? I guess I don't understand the logic? 2-3mpg isn't going to save the environment, have a quick return on investment for the additional $800 spent for the CVT based on todays fuel costs. Besides it's dependent on driving style and the type of driving you do. So again this is pointless. Unless you find two people who live by you with similar driving styles. One having the CVT and the other having the MT this tread tells you nothing. It's a cheap car. If you don't like it, trade it for something else.

I can't fathom the idea of purchasing a car with the sole purpose of fuel economy.

I strongly recommend you purchase a Prius. That is the exact right car for that mentality. The idea of that being the only important factor in a car purchase is completely foreign to me. More power to you, but the Fit is not for you. It's designed to be fun to drive and have the ability to carry much larger loads than it's size would dictate.

If your sole goal is fuel economy, the fun to drive aspect and the storage capacity of the Fit is opposite of those goals.

It's not the sole feature that I'm looking for, but it is a very important feature to me. As far as the Prius and many other hybrids go, the trouble with them is that they get good gas mileage in the city where the electric motor does the heavy lifting, but out on the interstate, the gasoline engine dominates and if you look at the numbers, they are unimpressive. My driving is about 70% highway and 30% city.

Now a word about fuel efficiency and the Fit ... Honda and Honda dealerships apparently consider fuel efficiency to be important because they sure mention it a lot. If I weren't worried about fuel efficiency, I'd just buy an SUV like many others do.

I appreciate everyone who responded to this thread with their experiences. But if you don't want to respond or if you consider it a waste of your time, simply don't respond and move along.

If your driving is mostly freeway miles, then the CVT will win for economy because of the lower rpm at cruise. I was going to suggest fueleconomy.gov, but there's not many people reporting numbers for the Fit. Fuelly had no breakdown I could see of manual vs auto, unless you want to examine each user listing.

My average with a 2015 manual LX has been mid 38s with stock wheels and regular passenger car tires, and now down to around 36 since switching to sticky summer tires. Best tank with mostly freeway driving was almost 41, worst with a lot of stop and go in the city was around 34. Worst case is still better than the EPA combined rating at 32.

As much as I like the Fit, if freeway mileage is important, have you considered the Chevy Cruze diesel? Manual is rated for 52mpg freeway, and I can't imagine the EPA would let them on the market without some seriously in depth testing to make sure they don't pull a VW.

Chevy may be getting a bit of a pass on quoted EPA figures. Remember our government and GM are a bit intertwined to say the least. I do like the diesel suggestion though. Just need to factor in the cost of diesel vs unleaded to do an accurate comparison. If the Cruze truly gets 52mpg, I'm sure it still comes out ahead.

Speaking of VW, owners of the new 1.4turbo Jetta's are reporting fantastic fuel economy. May be worth looking at one of those as well.

Back to the manual vs auto Fit question, how fast do you drive on the highway? We find our manual Fit does well at ~73 or less. Fuel economy takes a dive if you run 80+ with the manual in our experience. Since ours is the old body GD, it also gets quite loud at higher speeds.

right, when i was doing 42mpg on my wife's cvt, i wasnt trying to get high mpg. i was just driving normally and it ended up with 42mpg. so with more finesse on the throttle and higher tire psi, i would guess one can get 43-44mpg if mostly hwy. really depends on how you drive and how much people/cargo you have onboard. it was just me on board at the time for one week.

the car gets very good mpg up to about 65mph on the hwy... my commute at the time i was only going 60-65mph tops due to traffic.

hope it sheds some light on wat you're trying to achieve.

I remember when I started looking for a commuter car and decided on the fit over the Prius c or Yaris (both built on the same frame btw). Initially I was going to get the manual because the manual always got the better MPG. I hadn't bought a new car in 11 years mind you, just going by past experience. I was surprised the CVT beat it out.

I​​​​​​ think it's mainly because the CVT is running at lower RPM on the highway. Around 70-75 the CVT is about 800 RPM lower than the manual, doesn't seem like a lot but apparently it makes a difference.

No regrets getting the CVT. If I want to snick through gears, I'll hop on the motorbike. The fit is strictly a commuter car so my priorities at the time were that it gets good gas mpg, low maintenance and insurance costs. The fit does all 3 and add surprisingly fun to drive, better amenities, while also being able cram a lot of stuff.

The reasons I didn't go with the Yaris or Prius C were that they felt unresponsive driving. The Yaris was slow, the C even slower. Brake feel felt wooden and suspension was soft. The C cost several thousand more but would break even in no time with the better mpg, but I didn't want to deal with the extra complexity of a hybrid.