Taller/Custom MT 5th Gear for 2009-12 USDM Fit
#1
Taller/Custom MT 5th Gear for 2009-12 USDM Fit
I'm presently interested in acquiring a USDM 2nd generation(09-12) Fit, however, I loathe how poorly geared the very short 5th gear is in these cars? Does anybody make a taller 5th gear, and/or know of companies that make custom 5th gears? Are any of the overseas transmissions running a swappable 5th gear that is taller?
#2
Not really confident anyone makes aftermarket gear boxes or gears for our Fit. There really isn't a demand for it. I personally like it, it gets into the power band around 75 in 5th so there isn't a need to downshift.
That said, the CRZ has a .689 6th gear compared to the Fit's .73. I really doubt the transmissions are direct swappable but worth looking into
That said, the CRZ has a .689 6th gear compared to the Fit's .73. I really doubt the transmissions are direct swappable but worth looking into
#4
Because Euro road speeds are so high, Euro Fits must be running taller gears than US or Japanese fits that putter around at 80mph. Also cotinental Europeans are accoustmed to slow acceleration but brutal high speeds and very stiff suspensions.
I think the Euro engine management will be set to the different gears, emissions, etc. so don't think this would be a simple box swap for optimal performance.
I think the Euro engine management will be set to the different gears, emissions, etc. so don't think this would be a simple box swap for optimal performance.
Last edited by Fiting; 12-02-2019 at 03:16 PM.
#6
Because Euro road speeds are so high, Euro Fits must be running taller gears than US or Japanese fits that putter around at 80mph. Also cotinental Europeans are accoustmed to slow acceleration but brutal high speeds and very stiff suspensions.
I think the Euro engine management will be set to the different gears, emissions, etc. so don't think this would be a simple box swap for optimal performance.
I think the Euro engine management will be set to the different gears, emissions, etc. so don't think this would be a simple box swap for optimal performance.
1st: 3.308.
2nd: 1.870.
3rd: 1.303.
4th: 0.949.
5th: 0.727.
Reverse: 3.308.
Final Drive: 4.620.
The Euro and JDM editions of the 1.3L manual trans both share the same ratios, albeit different from the 1.5L:
I 3.307 (14.2)
II 1.75 (7.51)
III 1.171 (5.03)
IV 0.853 (3.66)
V 0.727 (3.12)
Final Drive: 4.294
India had a 1.2L engine as an option but I can find no information regarding transmissions. In any event that would be extremely expensive for Honda to use more than one version of a transmission dependent on region. I used to build engines and transmissions for the previous generation Mercedes GLE, GLS and GLE coupe and they all shared the same transmissions across regions, with the only variations being between engine types. If Merc can't justify a different set of cogs for an 80K luxury SUV I guarantee Honda wouldnt for an economy car.
#7
Not really confident anyone makes aftermarket gear boxes or gears for our Fit. There really isn't a demand for it. I personally like it, it gets into the power band around 75 in 5th so there isn't a need to downshift.
That said, the CRZ has a .689 6th gear compared to the Fit's .73. I really doubt the transmissions are direct swappable but worth looking into
That said, the CRZ has a .689 6th gear compared to the Fit's .73. I really doubt the transmissions are direct swappable but worth looking into
#8
I'd be downshifting anyways lol. That's the appeal of a MT. I'm not that lazy. Lol. An added 7-8mpg would be a nice trade off, when I could cruise with 1200 less RPM.
#9
I've looked at that, and it helps, but honestly it's a mild improvement of a couple hundred RPM. All I need 5th gear to be is an overdrive, so I'm looking for about 1200 less RPM, and I'd rather keep the acceleration gears the same, albeit if they made a significantly taller final drive, I'd be interested.
#10
I dont buy that Euro roads warrant a different transmission. So much so that I went and looked. The USDM, JDM and Euro Fits with the 1.5L manual all share the same internal ratios:
1st: 3.308.
2nd: 1.870.
3rd: 1.303.
4th: 0.949.
5th: 0.727.
Reverse: 3.308.
Final Drive: 4.620.
The Euro and JDM editions of the 1.3L manual trans both share the same ratios, albeit different from the 1.5L:
I 3.307 (14.2)
II 1.75 (7.51)
III 1.171 (5.03)
IV 0.853 (3.66)
V 0.727 (3.12)
Final Drive: 4.294
India had a 1.2L engine as an option but I can find no information regarding transmissions. In any event that would be extremely expensive for Honda to use more than one version of a transmission dependent on region. I used to build engines and transmissions for the previous generation Mercedes GLE, GLS and GLE coupe and they all shared the same transmissions across regions, with the only variations being between engine types. If Merc can't justify a different set of cogs for an 80K luxury SUV I guarantee Honda wouldnt for an economy car.
1st: 3.308.
2nd: 1.870.
3rd: 1.303.
4th: 0.949.
5th: 0.727.
Reverse: 3.308.
Final Drive: 4.620.
The Euro and JDM editions of the 1.3L manual trans both share the same ratios, albeit different from the 1.5L:
I 3.307 (14.2)
II 1.75 (7.51)
III 1.171 (5.03)
IV 0.853 (3.66)
V 0.727 (3.12)
Final Drive: 4.294
India had a 1.2L engine as an option but I can find no information regarding transmissions. In any event that would be extremely expensive for Honda to use more than one version of a transmission dependent on region. I used to build engines and transmissions for the previous generation Mercedes GLE, GLS and GLE coupe and they all shared the same transmissions across regions, with the only variations being between engine types. If Merc can't justify a different set of cogs for an 80K luxury SUV I guarantee Honda wouldnt for an economy car.
#13
I like the Fit but this would be a terrible car on contintenal European highways. Imagine running at 90mph+; fuel at $6 /gallon and noise make this a non-starter. The noise bothers me at 65 mph when we are on the highway here.
Historically, the Euro manufacturers (including Ford & GM) run more sporty suspensions, gearing and engines/tuning for European market cars.
#14
Good research @Red 05 !
I like the Fit but this would be a terrible car on contintenal European highways. Imagine running at 90mph+; fuel at $6 /gallon and noise make this a non-starter. The noise bothers me at 65 mph when we are on the highway here.
Historically, the Euro manufacturers (including Ford & GM) run more sporty suspensions, gearing and engines/tuning for European market cars.
I like the Fit but this would be a terrible car on contintenal European highways. Imagine running at 90mph+; fuel at $6 /gallon and noise make this a non-starter. The noise bothers me at 65 mph when we are on the highway here.
Historically, the Euro manufacturers (including Ford & GM) run more sporty suspensions, gearing and engines/tuning for European market cars.
#15
According to USDM fuel ratings the AT does better, and it is easy to explain why, however USDM fuel standards are not at a steady state of highway speeds. As a reminder, highway mpg ratings are not done at one constant speed and they are done at varying loads. My Civic VX is rated at 50mpg highway with modern estimates. 55mpg with old estimates, but I have personally hit 71mpg over 110 miles on multiple occasions.
#16
According to USDM fuel ratings the AT does better, and it is easy to explain why, however USDM fuel standards are not at a steady state of highway speeds. As a reminder, highway mpg ratings are not done at one constant speed and they are done at varying loads. My Civic VX is rated at 50mpg highway with modern estimates. 55mpg with old estimates, but I have personally hit 71mpg over 110 miles on multiple occasions.
I drove an auto GD for a few tanks, years back and hit 40 MPG once. The auto just isn't good in the pre-CVT cars.
#17
I'm talking real world. My GE is rated 33 highway and I've gotten 47 MPG in it, over a full tank of regular commuting. My GD was rated for the same and I had a couple month stretch where every tank was between 44 and 46 MPG.
I drove an auto GD for a few tanks, years back and hit 40 MPG once. The auto just isn't good in the pre-CVT cars.
I drove an auto GD for a few tanks, years back and hit 40 MPG once. The auto just isn't good in the pre-CVT cars.
#18
I'd be content with those fuel economy numbers, although I'd still strive for a taller 5th gear. It just makes no sense for 5th gear to be so wasteful at nearly 3500rpm at 70mph. My little VX with 25 less hp cruises at 2100 at 70 in lean burn, which is WAAAY less hp...along the realm of 50hp at the crank when the engine is at 22.5:1 air/fuel. I realize the Fit isn't a fuel economy vehicle, but I'd like to maximize it's potential for daily use.
Those old Civic VX were special things.
#19
it still is, although having hit a deer, then rear ending an Expedition, replacing the whole front clip only to hit another deer last week has me reassessing things for the future as I repair the front end...AGAIN. The added functionality, space, and quite frankly modern utility of the Fit is hard to turn down, especially in light of my 90s honda rust. My only real turnoff are the MPGs of the Fit, hence the thread. It doesn't do bad, but coming from a racing background, I'm not one to "settle" if I don't need to. I'll have to look into some companies and machinists to see if a custom gear is plausible/affordable.
#20
it still is, although having hit a deer, then rear ending an Expedition, replacing the whole front clip only to hit another deer last week has me reassessing things for the future as I repair the front end...AGAIN. The added functionality, space, and quite frankly modern utility of the Fit is hard to turn down, especially in light of my 90s honda rust. My only real turnoff are the MPGs of the Fit, hence the thread. It doesn't do bad, but coming from a racing background, I'm not one to "settle" if I don't need to. I'll have to look into some companies and machinists to see if a custom gear is plausible/affordable.