For 2009, the standard five-speed manual transmission has a shorter shift stroke and lower gear ratios, while the (class-exclusive) five-speed automatic includes a torque converter that now locks up at lower vehicle speeds for better fuel economy.

City/highway fuel consumption ratings are 7.2/5.7 L/100 km with the manual transmission and 7.1/5.5 L/100 km with the automatic. That’s about the same as last year with the manual transmission but better with the automatic transmission.

 

When we got married, we only had a GS-R. I was trying to teach her to drive it but the learning plateaued. One day, I was away and she needed to go to a clothing sale across town. The GS-R was the best way there. I got home, I thought "what the...who stole the car!"

When we bought our GE8, she was the one who insisted that it had to be manual shift.

Current DSG do not seem to be all good and does not replace the manual shift for driving fun/feel. I've sat in a GTI and a Lancer Evo. The downshifting is very harsh. I let my Evo friend try our Fit. He was jealous and regrets not getting the regular tranny.

Auto and manual decisions are personal and there are benefits to both. Like other's have said, drive both and see which one you like. Or, buy one of each

 

Har Har.

 

« Four of twelve SUVs earn “good” rating in new roof tests
What’s New: 2009 Subaru Tribeca »



March 24, 2009 View full article on one page
Share |


Day-by-Day Review:
2009 Honda Fit Sport 5SPD AUTO
Day 4:

Click Image to Enlarge I didn’t burn enough fuel this week, so I headed out on a road trip, but even then, 600 kilometers later and the little Fit that could still had a quarter tank of fuel remaining. The 1.5-litre engine practically uses a sippy cup to drink its fuel; over the entire week, the onboard computer never read above 6.2L/100km average fuel consumption.
In the end, I managed 5.9L/100km, and this is while running winter tires in place of the stock all-seasons. I’d venture to guess I could have averaged 5.5L/100km or lower if the all-seasons were on the vehicle and the temperatures were a little warmer. I believe 5.9L/100km is the lowest I have achieved with any vehicle to date.

NOW THE 5MT
Despite the manual transmission’s short gearing, the Fit is as thrifty as ever. Transport Canada estimates promise fuel consumption of 7.2/5.7 L/100 km (city/higway) with the stick. During a week of around-town driving (including a few cross-town freeway jaunts), I averaged 6.7 L/100 km, according to the car’s trip computer.

More Support the 5SPD AUTO gets better fuel mileage then the 5MT

 

I am biased. I drive an MT and I chose it because of the percieved advantage in reliability.

I had a very troublesome experience with automatics in the past and know that they are expensive and difficult to fix.

The fun of driving a manual is also very important to me. With how easy the shifter and the clutch are, it's not hard to shift even in LA traffic.

Of course you chose whatever you are more leaning to, and I think down inside you know.

 

IMO, unless all your miles are highway, the MT will still deliver better mileage if you drive with that in mind. Also, the MT is likely to be cheaper in the long run. It may be cheaper to buy and it will most likely be more trouble-free, so cheaper to own if you keep your car a long time, like I do. When I was doing my research, I came across certain years of Hondas (yes, even Hondas are not perfect) that had AT tranny problems (civics and accords, IIRC). These involved replacing trannies no longer under warranty. That will cost $$$.

I don't buy the resale argument unless someone shows me statistics. Say you are looking for a MT used and you see 1 MT for every 20 ATs. Aren't you willing to pay more for it because of low supply? If not, where/when will you find another? Simple supply and demand so my guess is that the MT fetches a higher resale, not lower. MT people are a bit fanatical and we see our options decreasing so we will go out of our way and usually pay a little extra to get our car of choice in a MT. That all supports the higher resale value theory to me. But I have no numbers so feel free to disagree.

All that aside, I extend a hand to my Fit brothers and sisters that drive AT. We are ALL Fit freaks. Sometimes, we MT drivers become Talibanized in our attitude but it's just that we have so much fun driving our "clutch" cars and we don't want you guys/gals to miss out on anything.

 

With regards to manual selling price...

My 2009 Fit Sport M/T was totalled. The first offer was a joke (they compared my M/T to barely used A/Ts... and adjusted down because M/T sells for less at retail).

I spent a litte time doing my research, and it turns out M/Ts sell (compared to their list) a hell of a lot higher than A/T.

I actually got more back than I paid for the brand new replacement.

Not sure what would happen over the years though, this was for an essentially new M/T

 

I don't race or redline the Fit. This is my commuter car. THIS IS AN ECONOMY CAR!! I purchased mine for the very same reasons you did. I average a real world 37-38mpg. There is a reason why they still make manual transmissions. It's for people like me who love the interaction between man and machine. It's easier to hypermile in a M/T to get great gas mileage; and easier to cut through traffic when needed too. It's the more reliable transmission too.
I preferred to save my hard earned dough and get the M/T Fit for a more engaging drive with GREAT gas mileage too.
Frankly the auto is a great idea, but this car begs for a larger engine, like the Civic's. This 1.5 liter engines performance is merely acceptable in manual form, in automatic form it's unacceptable that it's 1.4 seconds slower then the outgoing GD3's auto time.

 

Even if it were true that the auto gets better gas mileage (which all real world tests show it does not), how long do you think it will take you to recover that extra $1000 - $1500 it costs you over the 5MT?

 

I'm glad I found this topic because I've been sold on the Fit Sport for a few months now and I've finally decided to buy it. I really really want the manual, but I've been looking for about 3 weeks now and no one near Georgia seems to have one in the Sport trim. I don't want to get the regular one, and I don't want to settle for an automatic because I've driven a manual for 7 years and I really like controlling my car. But, the unavailability of the vehicle is kinda dampening my spirits The salesman I'm working with found a few dealerships in North and South Carolina that have some, but no one wants to trade them because they're so rare-- so what's up with Honda? I was beginning to think no one was buying them anymore. Or do they assume that if a buyer wants a manual transmission, they don't want the Sport version? That's crazy! I gave up a while ago looking for a new one with Navigation. I would have to drive to California to get it new! So I'm settling for a Garmin instead. Did anyone else have this problem?

 

Where does that notion come from? I paid 15,738 for a new 2010 fit sport a/t in California. You cannot get a m/t that low afaik. I don't have to worry about noisy throwout bearings, clutch replacement, etc. Better resale too.

Yeah, I wanted a m/t but for multiple reasons including my inner cheapo I got an a/t.

How do you figure? The m/t gets more frequent fluid changes and requires a clutch replacement, and the throwout bearings are a weak point. I'm not aware of any a/t reliability issues on the GE... are you?

And if you missed it the first time, here's yet another person who knows that the M/T actually costs more:
Purchase: M/T costs more
Maintenance: M/T costs more
Resale: M/T worth less

thanks for playing!

 

something has occured to me:



Seriously, throw this topic in any automotive forum and you get the same thing.

 

Why do people put resale into the equation? I never will understand this. Not concerning just this subject, but cars in general. It boggles my mind, when I use something I use it and I'm not going to baby it hoping to sell it later down the road for a decent price. I guess I'm just not so cheap-minded or greedy even though I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

If one were smart and actually cared about their car with the AT, they would be doing as frequent if not more fluid changes. It's not an indestructible item and heat is more prominent in an automatic mission compared to a manual mission. Not only the fluid, but how many people with an AT ever have the filter replaced? Not very many at all. Why not, because it involves much labor, but it would serve to give that tranny a longer life. Though from the attitude of resale value, I would have to say that most people really don't care about the next person and only themselves.

 

LOL you are kidding right? Was that some kind of joke or insane rant?

It says you are from Japan, so maybe something was lost in translation.

 

Except for the part about the auto being cheaper. Just because it was cheaper in your case doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Look at the listing prices from Honda and you will see the MT is cheaper than the AT. Fact.

 

No I'm not kidding. I've junked cars and sold cars and parts way below what others sold like items for and they bitched at me about bringing the market down. That to me sounds like GREED.

It says my location is Japan, if it asked where I was from I would of put down my mother's womb.

Your facts are facts, but the other fact I presented is that AT's generate more heat than a manual. If I owned an AT I would be doing as frequent if not more fluid changes. I don't care what a book that comes with the car tells me. I've owned 2 AT Hondas in the past and both had tranny issues and the cars were junked.

Take it as a rant, roll all over the floor laughing, it's all good. Just because I don't care about resale value or see the reason why so many people do doesn't equate to insanity.

 

No you wouldn't, because that would be greedy, as you say, for trying to maintain the value of your car.

I think you would junk the car and sell it way below what others would sell it for, because that's just how you roll.

 

You want to fix the above, how would it be greedy if I changed the fluid more often? The 2 ATs I owned were used vehicles, who knows how they were actually maintained. So take your assumption filled self elsewhere already. If/when I am forced to own an AT equipped car, it will get the same level of treatment that I give to all my cars that I have purchased new.

 

I understand what you are trying to say, but if you read the posts before you, dealers know the M/T is in short supply, and the minority of drivers that prefer the M/T are paying a premium for that limited supply.

 

exactly!! finally some true works spoken about the manual transmission in a FIT. A 5MT is rare in the Honda fit sport and very rare in the FIT SPORT W/NAVI, that would probably be a special order. Not many people would buy a car fully loaded and then opt for a 5MT.
The dealers know this, and realize this and will not discount the sticker price as much as they will on a 5SPD AUTO, but in the used, resale world they go by the book value and having the 5MT is -700 of the the price.

Go with whatever feels comfortable for you. With todays technology the Automatic gets a fraction better fuel mileage then the Manual transmission , it all comes down to personal preference and cost.