When someone finds out what the 0-60 and 1/4 mile time (and trap speed) is for a 2015 Honda Fit CVT, please let us know. I have been looking for these numbers for days and can't seem to find it anywhere. Only one Car & Driver estimate of 8.5 - 10. And I'm guessing the 10 is for the CVT.

 

The current car and driver has a comparison test that includes the Honda Civic EX CVT. The Civic uses the same CVT as the Fit. It weighs 10% more and has 10% more HP and Torque.
So the acceleration results should be very similar to the CVT Fit.
Here is what they got when they tested the Civic CVT
0-30 3.6 seconds
0-60. 8.8 seconds
0-100. 24.5 seconds
1/4 mile 17.0 @ 86 MPH

The extra 13 HP and lower drag of the Civic will benefit it at higher speeds. So I would expect the Fit to match the Civic's 0-60 times, be a tenth or two slower and 1 MPH slower in the 1/4 mile and be maybe 2 seconds slower to 100

I expect the shorter gearing of the 6MT to produce an 8.0 second 0-60 and maybe a 16.2 second 1/4 mile at the same 85 MPH

 

Excellent info! I didn't realize the Civic uses the same CVT transmission. I may play with shorter gearing on the LX Fit by using a slightly smaller tire diameter than stock. 17.0 int he 1/4 mile would be worlds better than the previous model high 17's/low 18's though.

 

I'm still playing bench racer since there still are no LX's near me.

Anyways, here is some information about Edmunds test of the Civic -->
Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) 3.9
0-45 mph (sec.) 6.2
0-60 mph (sec.) 9.1
0-75 mph (sec.) 13.2
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 16.8 @ 85.6
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 8.7
0-30 mph, trac ON (sec.) 3.9
0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.) 6.3
0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) 9.3
0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) 13.4
1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) 16.9 @ 85.2
0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 8.9
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 29
60-0 mph (ft.) 118
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 64.3
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.83
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.79

Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) 2,868
Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) 2,811

Final-drive ratio (x:1) 3.94

From here --> Edmunds


Any thoughts on the difference in final drive ratio between the Honda Fit CVT (5.44) and the Honda Civic CVT (3.94)?

 

That is interesting how the final drive ratios of the Fit and Civic CVTs are not the same. I guess the Honda rep that said they were the same transmission, missed the mark. However, since a CVT does not have any fixed ratios, the final drive should not have the same effect it would on a conventional transmission.

 

I believe there are some fixed gearing outside of the CVT. Between the engine and the CVT and between the CVT and the wheels. This fixed gearing might not be the same on the Fit and on the Civic.

 

Motor Trend

 

I wonder what CVT mode they tested in (D or S)? And whether they know about the "tap" method? I find my CVT is snail-like off the line, at least the first few seconds - that's where slipping the clutch would really help. But once the CVT winds up, it stays right on peak power...

es

 

Edmunds said "EX-L models are only offered with the CVT... During Edmunds testing, a 2015 Honda Fit EX-L with Navi ran from zero to 60 mph in 8.8 seconds."

I remember reading 9.1 seconds for a 2015 Fit with a 6-speed manual transmission but I can't find the quote again.

Since the EX models are a bit heavier than the LX models, and since the moon roof adds a little bit of wind resistance, I think the LX CVTs should be a hair faster than the EXs.

The CVTs definitely accelerate from 0 to 60 faster than the manuals. The CVT has a slight loss of coupling efficiency due to belt slippage on the pulleys and due to the hydraulic fluid coupling (torque converter) to the engine, instead of a friction clutch, but this is more than made up for by the fact that less time is wasted with the engine being disengaged from wheels (clutch pedal depressed), and by better matching of engine speed to wheel speed at every incline condition and wind resistance condition. What I've noticed is that when you put the throttle pedal to the floor and leave it there until the car reaches 60 mph (or 70, or 80, or 83), the engine speed rapidly rises to near redline, and then stays put while the CVT does all the work of accelerating the car, does all the work of getting the wheels up to speed, getting the car up to speed. The engine does not have to drop down to a lower speed (when you shift into a higher gear) and then speed up again. Instead, the engine speed stays where it has more torque and more power (more watts, more horsepower). Not only does the CVT accelerate the car faster, but it does so using less fuel. This high-tech CVT with a computer controlling the pulley diameter in response to data it gets from several sensors, probably does a better job than a plain old rubber-belt CVT with just a simple centrifugal device to vary pulley diameter according engine speed. Some day when I have time I'll try to find out what sensors it gets data from.

When I merge onto the freeway, very often "considerate" drivers move their vehicles to the left to get out of my way, or slow down to let me in - possibly incorrectly assuming that I won't be able to accelerate fast enough to make their polite maneuvers unnecessary. But unnecessary they are. My little economy car seems to accelerate faster than they expect it to.

You could call the experience of being accelerated by a CVT "the rubber band effect" if you wish; or you could denote the same thing by using the phrase "the slingshot effect" - whilst providing a better connotation.

A cool thing about the CVT is that when you are accelerating, it doesn't feel like you are accelerating. At least, it doesn't feel the way I have been accustomed to feeling. I don't know why some people think that the sudden changes in G-force provided by manuals and planetary gear automatics are more desirable than smooth acceleration that you hardly notice. I guess they lack refined taste maybe, is that it? Maybe they just like being jerked around?

I am not trying to say that there are no disadvantages to the CVT. I am not saying that the contemporary computer-controlled CVT is beautifully designed and executed. I do not "love" my Honda Fit. Like most contemporary cars, I view it as a strange heap of oily and greasy metal, with plastic resin panels, stupid warning lights, and air-filled elastic resin tires similar to those used on every other car made during the last 45 years. I am certainly not trying to say that I think everything about the third generation Fit with a CVT is beautifully designed and executed. I'm only trying to say that, compared to other transmissions, and compared to other mechanical junk produced by contemporary decadent, industrialized cultures, the qualities and advantages of a contemporary computer-controlled, hydraulically-operated CVT often seem to be ill-considered, misunderstood, and under-appreciated.

 

I have the EX CVT, but every test I read show the manual about a second faster than the CVT's sub 9.