.........

Yes, you're right. However, when many thousands of shifts are performed, and many of them are performed rapidly and aggressively, some poor fool will eventually make the fatal error. 99.9% effectiveness is not good enough for an event performed 1000 times. I will support the palm position concept. When aiming for first or second gear, the palm should be facing you. When aiming for third or fourth, the palm should be facing directly downward. When aiming for fifth or sixth, the palm should be facing away from you.

 

Zero wear would be nice - I want that oil

I think an "all else being equal" assumption is missing in the original statement - if all else is equal, 20% higher rpms will cause more tear. But of course, all things aren't equal - if the AT delivers the same work at lower rpms, it must be "pushing harder", causing more tear per rev?

 

.....

And that is the reason that the torque converter 'flexes' as soon as there is any serious pressure on the pedal. Instantly, the 2100 rpm at 60 mph becomes 2500+, and that prevents lugging the engine, which is, in the real world, a source of extra wear.

 

Like I said - when the oil is doing it's job, there's zero wear. i.e. no metal parts contacting any other metal parts . . . unfortunately it can't do that 100% of the time (cold starts, severe duty, etc.), so wear obviously occurs.

 

[quote=ThomP;646047].....
Originally Posted by ThomP
Zero wear would be nice - I want that oil

I think an "all else being equal" assumption is missing in the original statement - if all else is equal, 20% higher rpms will cause more tear. But of course, all things aren't equal - if the AT delivers the same work at lower rpms, it must be "pushing harder", causing more tear per rev?
quote]


Good point. That's why I mentioned "based on piston travel alone". Of course other factors play a role in wear, one of which is load.


It would be nearly improssible to hypothize on the rate of wear speculating with variables such as piston travel, load difference on AT vs AT and specific oil.. You are talking about an expensive research project...

In the ideal world, the oil is suppose to create a thin layer which would prevent metal parts from directly rubbing against each other. But we are not living in an ideal world. Furthermore, compression rings are rubbing the cylinder wall without any direct oil lubrication.

That's why diesel engines last much longer on average. Diesel fuel is a natural lubricant, while gasoline, when burnt, leaves dry and clean cylinder wall.

 

If it makes people feel a liitle better about wear, I have a 1994 Accord with a 4 speed automatic. It spins about 2800 -3000 at 100 kph (about 62 mph) depending on the torque converter and load. It has about 320,000 km on it and it runs great, and does not burn a drop of oild between changes.

However I feel my Fit would be a little closer to a perfect car with a 6 speed MT (and an outside temp. gauge). I think I know why Honda did it (short gearing), they worried people wouldn't shift on hills, passsing etc. and would lug the engine. I really can't believe how flexable a car the Fit is on the highway despite having such a small engine, but I would like another gear, and I promise to shift down.

 

I'm not talking research projects at all - I'm just trying to say the same as you - it is impossible to make a meaningfull comparison because a lot of things aren't equal, and some of those are in favour of the MT.

In my opinion we just have to believe that Honda did their homework and made sure both the AT and the MT versions are built to last and be used - and I'm sure they did

 

A fit with AT runs about 2400 rpm at 65 in 5th; a manual runs around 3100 rpm ditto. It's the difference in gear ratios. The At engine turns 2.508 times per wheel rev; the manual 3.24 times.

 

So is there a consensus here? Could you drive at 4000 RPM all day long and get to 200000 miles without the engine burning oil ?

 

I guess in that case the question becomes "how much oil burining is too much?", since all engines use SOME oil, since in our imperfect world, piston rings and valve guide seals aren't perfect, either.

For the record, my '09 MT Fit sport burns about a pint of oil every 5,000/6,000 miles at the 50,000 mile mark.

 

YES

Oh, and the posts above are almost 3 years old (Holy thread from the Dead Batman). Most of the GE8's at that point had less than 10-15K miles.

Of note, Honda is using the L15 as one of their Racing Engines... That's how much they think of the quality of this engine.

I've had a prelude with a 2.0 engine(B20A1), Two integras with 1.8L engines (B18B1 & B18C1), a Civic with a 1.6L (d16Y8), and a Ridgeline with a 3.5L (J35A9) and now the Fit with the 1.5L (L15A7). RPMs have varied at highway speeds but most have been 3500 rpm or over at 70mph, some upwards of 4000 at 80 and I've never had any engine problems on any honda i've owned.

~SB

 

I replace my oil at about 5000 miles so that would be fine for me... but 50 000 mile... it looks like it is a lot of oil still... It's not like your Fit hit the 150 000 mile mark !

 

Thanks ! So basically I should not focus too much on RPM if it's under 4000... other than for mileage consumption...

 

I'd up that number to 5500. Once the engine is warmed up, it'll rev all day long for years.

Chances are, you'll trade the fit or upgrade to a newer vehicle before you have your first issue with the engine. If you want to drive it for economy, go for it, if you want to rev it for fun... that's good too. I did both in my prelude and traded at right around 315,000km. Traded the Integra GS at just under 200,000km and the GS-R (which often saw 8000rpm or higher) at about 143,000km. No engine issues on any... (wish I still had the GS-R)

Enjoy the car. Don't let it control you... it'll do whatever you want it to.

~SB

 

I have read some thread some time ago on this forum (can't remember) which talked about 2500 feet per minute been the maximum revolution the engine can do without any damage and that is on the Fit about 3500-4000 RPM. The guy said that it should be the maximum because anything over that can lead to damage on the long run.

I wish I could find back the thread...

But thanks... I feel more comfortable revvying a bit more... but maybe not up to 5000 RPM !

 

I dont know why you are so hung up on some magical rpm threshold where suddenly wear is an issue.

If anything is going to create problems.. its never red-lining your engine.

Certainly this may be counterintuitive but thems the facts, jack.

 

Heck, if you couldn't safely run a Honda up in the high RPM range, it wouldn't go anywhere, I get overtaken by minivans and Escorts if I don't shift at nearly 5k with my foot nearly on the floor. Heh

 

Nothing like driving a small engine'd vehicle. My GS-R had nothing until you hit 5500rpm but from there to 8200rpm, it was all sweet sweet music.


~SB

 

Damn it... I really should have taken the AT... 60 mph at 2000 RPM would be just fine !

 

Then you'd be stuck with an auto transmission that'll likely die at 150,000 miles, and be more expensive to fix than an engine problem.