Am i on crazy pills or something? i never knew that automatics saved more gas.. i thought it was vise versa.

2010 Honda Fit - Specifications - Official Honda Web site

5-Speed Manual (City/Highway/Combined) 27/33/29 27/33/29 (Models without Navi)
5-Speed Automatic (City/Highway/Combined) 28/35/31 27/33/30

whats up with that? if i knew that i would have gotten an automatic!

 

And the auto trans weighs 84-86 lbs more, and has more drive-train loss. I don't believe it.

 

Automatics are tall-geared. Change the final drive ratio on any vehicle, and mileage will suffer. The Element is the same - I had an '06 with a manual. At 70 on the freeway, its 2.4L was screaming along at 3500 RPM.

The rating spread is even bigger on there. 20/25 with the auto, 18/23 with the manual.

FOr a real surprise, look at a Nissan Sentra, with the 2.0L. 26/34 with the CVT (about the same as the Fit Sports 27/33) vs 24/31 with a manual.

 

ahhhh gear ratio that explains it. man that sorta sucks.. i wonder why they did that. cuz most of my driving is highway driving.

yeah i noticed my Fit's RPM was kinda high on the highway.. but i just figured "ehh its a honda... 3k is normal"

 

Yeah 3k rpms is pretty normal for a Honda. I've consistently gotten more MPG than all of the EPA estimates on all my Hondas (5, 4 M/Ts). The numbers for the Fit are low to begin with anyway and most are in agreement on this site on that. I'm happy with the MPG I get, but I'm not surprised, Honda is awesome.

 

Aye the automatic has taller gears cruising highway rpms are only 2.5k. The torque converter allows this because it can vary infinitly from 2:1 to 1:1 when the stator is locked. so although the gears appear taller at a 1:1 ratio they are fairly similar when the torque converter is considered. Regardless power is still lost.

 

With the Added weight and taller gear, the automatic may save a tiny bit on gas but seriously loses out in acceleration. I read somewhere there is a 2 or 3 second difference between the manual and auto in 0-60 runs, even with the paddle shifters.

~SB

 

i like the feel on manual cars still.. and yeah i got around 3k too..

 

When the lockup torque converter is engaged, it's a direct link, just like any manual. A clutch engages and there is no fluid coupling, so no parasitic losses. Since the lockup can unlock at any time, there is extra torque on hand for passing (as well as downshifts when necessary). Somehow I think there is a sizeable contingent that would scream bloody murder if they had to regularly shift out of 5th by hand.

If I cared a bit about 0-60 runs, I sure wouldn't be driving a little Fit. That's like noting that a Jeep Wrangler doesn't corner all that well, or that a Corvette doesn't have much in the way of cargo-hauling space! Still quite an entertaining little car!

 

yeah but seriously.. iam driving a honda fit.. i don't need it to be fast lol. if i wanted acceleration i would have bought a S2000, i got this thing to try and save gas..

in a way.. it doesn't really matter cuz i PREFER driving manual, but i think its kinda jacked up to how manuals suffer more on the highway. highway is about all the driving i do on this car. i guess i should have researched the car more before i bought it.. i basicaly bought this thing for looks and... hoping to save gas.

 

and thats why i bought the auto cause i do alot of highway also.
so far my average is 40mpg

 

AT gearing is much better than manual on the interstate. At 70 mph the manual rpm is 3500 rpm while AT is 2525. Theoteically thats 60% higher mpg for the AT compared to manual. The manual is much easier to hypermile than the AT thoough.
Around town the manual is more efficient but at interstate speeds the AT overcomes its mechanical deficiency with much better gearing.
Unless you drive mostly interstate you won't see that advantage.
Next time you buy you should check the mpg ratings first if its that important.

 

Well the interstates here are parking lots anyway so I still have the advantage ... cruising at 15mph.

 

EPA test methods are out of whack and worthless when comparing Fit auto/manual.
Go down to the ECO-Fit forum and look at the Mileage reports.
Average out the first ten Auto trans reports and I get 30.1 mpg. The first ten Manual trans reports gets 35.8 mpg.
Under real driving conditions the manual will almost always get better mileage than an auto even with the gearing difference.

 

ok... so for some reason everyone now thinks I'm talking about 0-60 runs as being pertinent... not so much. That was a reference to what I had heard elsewhere but, it does have some validity as it shows the power difference between the two. Where it will matter is dropping gears to pass or getting up to speed on a short on-ramp. It is in situations like these where the manual transmission will be much more capable. Imagine what the Auto would be like if it didn't have paddle shifters. The performance difference would also be beneficial if you decide to go on some canyon runs (country road runs here in VT). Granted, it's no S2000 or Miata but hey, I'm not dead, I want to enjoy the ride and save money. I think I made a good choice. I'd have kept the Altima if I was looking for more power.

If acceleration was important, you could also do alot better for the price of an S2000 as well. STI or EVO comes to mind.

~SB