stop with the dumb threads, please. You are completely wrong about this.

 

...+2 ...

 

I want to buy a Fit. I have not driven an MT in 30 years.

I was going to get the AT but after reading a lot of helpful responses from some very knowledgeable people on this board I'm thinking of getting an MT.

But based on some responses I think the AT sounds like it will have better MPG on the highway. And I drive mostly highway.

A lot of these tremendous MPG from MT drivers I believe is from people who are very efficient at driving a MT. Obviously that will not be me. At least not for a long time.

So the practical side says go for an AT.

 

the people telling you the AT gets better fuel economy are complete idiots, no offense.

my suggestion is to get either one, VERY SOON. then you can stop starting threads discussing the comparison.

honestly, I don't think anyone has traded or sold their MT for an AT fit but multiple people have traded, sold, converted their AT for a MT.

 

id so much rather get the MT, the shift feel is so mch better than anything ive ever driven even save for a few S000s, and ive driven a few thousand cars in my life (i'm a tech at a classic car and general maintenance shopp). ive owned one automatic, an eclipse (which was great till the trans started slipping at 130k), my '12 base fit MT, and my 82 rx7 that is a 5 speed. IMO automatics are for people who dont want to enjoy driving and controlling a car.

 

fstyle, i average 30+ mpg in my fit and im still getting used to. 1 or 2 mpg is not going to affect you that much when a full tank of regular costs $30, especially if you can afford an E55. plus the automatic WILL go bad at some point, in a manual all you have to worry about is the clutch.

the fit is the best riding car in its class, i havent driven a chevy sonic yet but all the other cars hit the potholes, creases in the road, and anything else HARD. i test drove a '12 kia rio5 around my town and one manhole cover made up my mind.

 

Having wrenched at both professional and personal levels since the 60's lemme just tell you right here and now...your so full of compost your eyes must be brown. And "if you drive it long enough" the engine will go bad "and if you drive it long enough" the body will rot away. I have worn out numerous cars without ever doing anything but routine maintenance to the AT, drive a MT around long enough and you will be pulling it out to change the clutch plate or the throwout bearing long before the vehicle is ready to die. If you like pulling trannys on a FWD or like paying people to pull your trans for you, enjoy your MT. Just do us all a favor and stop trying to spreading your opinion as the gospel

 

Complete idiot here.

With the torque converter locked at highway speed, and the lower RPM, the automatic should be less noisy and get better fuel mileage. EPA estimates back this up. Around town, with the energy loss of the torque converter, the MT should have an advantage (if you know how to use it). Of course, YMMV.

Even though I commute in stop-and-go Atlanta traffic 90 minutes per day, I was enchanted with the idea of getting a "fun" MT Fit. I drove one. It was unfun for me. Throttle hang, clutch delay valve, and the spongy shift linkage made it feel like it was controlling me and not the other way around. Getting the automatic was a no brainer (good, because I am an idiot).

The last MT I owned was 1994. A VW Jetta CL and a Citroen BX in the wilds of Les Alpes Maritimes. Stateside I had lots of MT cars ranging from Toyotas, Izusus to Jeeps back in the 80s.

Technically the MT is vastly more simple than an Auto. But Automatics are vastly more sophisticated than they were 30 years ago. Not only is the Fit's a 5 speed auto, it has grade sensors to avoid too frequent shifts negotiating inclines, and the torque converter locks up in all gears above 1st to save fuel. This contributes to a somewhat busy feel with the auto. If you think you can shift more efficiently than the car's computer, more power to you.

My advice is to try a MT Fit before selling yourself on the idea.

 

The difference in cost per mile or cost per 1000 miles between the MT and AT is going to be so small that really you've got more important things to consider. Pick whichever you like better.

 

Beyond hybrids, the Fit is crazy economical in either version, so get the transmission that makes you happy. There are no guarantee's in life, but if you don't already know, the Fit is highly rated in major car reviews and a proven reliable car from a famously reliable car company.

If you've heard that MTs need more repairs, it's probably because enthusiasts are having fun hooning their rides a lot more! Seriously, just browsing this site, you hear way more comments of people regretting not getting the MT over AT and not so much the other way around. Perhaps ATs have gotten more reliable, but they still cost more up front and will cost more to repair. The mpg savings with the AT will be so minuscule it won't be worth if if you really enjoy driving. If you need more hands free while driving or are stuck in traffic a lot and find shifting to be a chore, then by all means get the AT and be happy with it...

 

To elaborate, assume that the MT gets 40 mpg and the AT gets 30 mpg (all highway) and that gas is $4/gallon.

Over 100,000 miles, the MT will cost $4 * 100,000/40 = $10,000
The AT will cost $4*100,000/30 = $13,333. That's a pretty small difference, then add in the extra cost of the AT and you're pretty much at a wash. Given that the numbers are likely much closer, you're arguing able something that'll be less than $1000 over 10 years/100,000 miles. Get what makes you happy.

 

It really is just personal preference, I wouldn't want to even start to calculate the cost, because there are many ways to approach the subject, with a thread title of "MT Needs More Repairs than AT" set the stage for people to come in swinging to defend their choice.

 

You also forgot about rolling starts with a dead battery, never seen an automatic be able to do that.

 

Did this to an old Accord once - an automatic... I have no idea how its done exactly but the guy who told us what to do used to repair trucks and vehicles in some really bad parts of the world. But it wasn't easy to do.

I do wonder if its possible to push start some of the manuals these days, haven't tried... remember, we have electronic ignition, fuel injection and the ECU controlling stuff now, not like the old days. As it is, the fuel pump gets primed when you turn the ignition on before you crank the car.

 

if you paid some school to teach you that, i'd hight recommend getting a refund.

 

With older RWD American cars you needed what was a "rear pump" type auto, when pushed they could pump the servos up hard enough for the bands to stop the planetary gears from turning, the pump was located to the rear of the tranny and pushing the car rotated the driveshaft intern turning the pump, thus allowing push starting of the car. I have no firsthand exp at this, it is what I was told (and my explanation may be a bit off, because it was described to me many years ago)

 

Auto's will always be popular with old farts like myself, how else are we supposed to get down to the grocery store to buy our Depends?

 

did i really just get trolled on a Fit forum?

 

If your referring to my response back a page, No you didn't get trolled, to cap lock and tell everyone their auto "WILL" fail at some point is true in the context that yes eventually all things fail with time, but in the context of the discussion to claim an auto tranny "WILL" fail is an untruth at the least. If your post was worded "plus the automatic will go bad at some point" OK fair enough, but to cap lock it as if its a given is BS when it's not true. So I guess it was the caps lock I didn't like...and how is your day going?

 

fair enough, but the eyes must be brown part was uncalled for. my days pretty good. hows yours?