Read this today in some car magazine at my friends garage.

Really surprised Honda didn't give the car a true O/D but it's water over the dam Now i guess.

They also said the older model handle better but since I never drove one I won't no the difference .lol

 

Also drove a Mazda 2 today they had no 3 manuals in stock, after only going 3 or 4 blocks I returned it. It was priced like 2000 more then the jeep and I would take the jeep all day long over that car.

 

2400 rpm at 75, about 2600 at 80 with the CVT.

 

Dadgum it! That's just unacceptable! I'll still test drive one to verify, but dang it, think about the difference made in 10 years of driving at that range, vs. ~2300 in the CVT. One thing's for sure, the transmission will certainly last longer than the engine.

 

From the same magazine


13 0 - 60 8.5

15 0 - 60 8.0 not sure if was a cvt or stick


Think it was the manual

 

I would be surprised if the 130HP Fit was nearly breaking into the 7s for 0-60. Was this downhill with a tailwind and dropping the clutch at 5K rpms?

 

What makes you believe that? The cruising gear ratio is practically identical to the older generation Fits, and they don't have any particular tendency to puke engines (or manual transmissions, for that matter). With reasonable care, I'd expect both the engine and the transmission to outlast most of the rest of the car, certainly here where they salt the roads in wintertime.

You're putting more revolutions on the engine, but it's not generally under a huge amount of strain when cruising down the highway, so the additional wear is quite minimal. Short trips (with lots of cold starts) would be a whole lot harder on the engine than the difference in gear ratios.

 

Force scales with velocity squared, so there is no getting around the physics that higher rpms is harder on the engine. It's just an annoyance that if the slushbox could be geared nice and low, that the manual could have been geared lower than it was, clearly.

 

Could have....... definitely!!

Was it.......... definitely not!

Can I live with that???????????? With the two FF owners of GK M/T getting 38 MPG w/ A/C on, driving at 80mph, that buzzy note will be tolerated. For me at least!!!

 

LOL we've been saying this before the GK was released, idk why people are surprised. All you have to do is look at the gear ratios.

MT Fit has no problem doing low 8, even the GE. I would suspect the 6MT could do better so i'm not surprised at all at the 0-60 times. No you don't have to dump clutch at 5k, just know how and when to shift. If you think about it you're only using 1st and 2nd gear in the GE to get 0-60.

The engine will be fine.

 

Pretty sure you'll bounce off the rev limiter just before hitting 60. I know I do.

In the few times I've attempted to do 0-60 times, I had to use 3rd, even if only for a moment to technically hit 60 mph.

Although they set it up to have 6th gear having the same ratio as the GE's 5th, 2nd gear is still the same ratio for both (1.870) and with the same final drive, it also means you'll have to use 3rd gear momentarily.

Unless you can push your RPM up to about 7240.

 

There are plenty of used manual fits for sale with up to 200,000 miles on them. I was concerned, but after researching it I dont think itll be a problem. carfax check on a 200,000 miler didnt show a clutch rebuild or anything

 

Is there anything wrong with just putting larger diameter wheels on the Fit to resolve this issue? (Speedo off..yes I know but outside of that)

 

3600 is peanuts.......... most motorcycles I owned rev to 8,000 to 14,000 rpm and I never blow one up and I owned over 25.........I had a ninja 250 and on the highway sometimes the rpm would be over 7,ooo sometimes 8,0000 for miles and miles like 50 miles at a time..... never even had one use much oil.


We are not going to live forever and either will the fit .........better to just buy one if that's what you want to drive and put gas in the thing and go where you going.... no reason to sweat the small things in life ...

 

This is dependent on tire diameter, you are probably right on that. I don't know about stock size because I never tried to 0-60 on 175/65 and I had them on for about a month before I tossed them lol

 

another thread discussed this and the difference was pretty small, like a few hundred rpms

 

Past experience with a vehicle that spun up pretty good at 75mph.
Maybe some of you good with math can help:

1. Compute how fast one of the pistons moves at 3500 rpm, then at 2500 rpm. Express this as some unit of measure (mm, inch, foot, yard, whatever) per second.

2. Use this data to compute total distance the piston travels in 60 seconds.

3. Extrapolate out for, say 30 days and see what the delta is.

Now think about what that delta means to the engine's life. Yes it was foretold how bad it might be with the new 6MT, but this just does not pass the "common sense" test...usually a trademark of Honda!

 

1. I don't get it , so what's the point / advantage of having 6 vs. 5 speed if it's the same final ratio?
2. Also I can't comprehend how the 6 speed manual or 5 speed manual (previous fits) for that matter could even come close to the same highway mpg as CVT ( 37 vs 38 mpg hwy on EX, EX-L) when it's revving so much higher?? thanks..Tim

 

The distance travelled will of course be 1.4 times as much at 3500 rpm vs. 2500 rpm. Yes, there will be slightly more wear, all other things being equal. (However, it is worth noting that the stresses on the bearings due to the force of the power stroke will be lower at the higher rpm, since the engine needs to develop less torque for the same power.)

In terms of actual engine wear once warmed up, though, it's very close to a negligible difference if the lubrication system is working properly and there is sufficient oil, as the moving parts are not actually metal against metal, but rather separated by a minute film of oil. The vast majority of engine wear occurs when the engine is cold, particularly when it's first started; cruising at highway speeds with a warmed up engine, at either 3500 or 2500 rpm, a modern well-designed engine will last more or less indefinitely.

Mind you, I am in no way suggesting I think the new 6MT gear ratios are at all superior to the previous 5MT. I have never ever, with my GE8 5MT, said to myself, "Self, I wish these gear ratios were a little closer together, so that there were more of them"; but I have more than once said "Self, you should upshift now that you're on the highway," only to discover I was already using the top gear. If I had a new MT Fit, I might investigate how feasible it would be to change the final drive ratio a good bit....

 

1.) You can market the car as a 6MT, most won't do the research; I mean, think about how long it took to convince ROTTBOY that the same gear ratio, final drive and tire height would mean the same RPM.

2.) Manuals are more efficient, less power wasted, lighter, etc.

CVT will sit a lot lower when cruising.