I am reading the Fit Spec. and the EPA mileage estimates are:

FIT Fit Sport
Manual (City/HWY) 33/38 33/38
Auto (City/HWY) 31/38 31/37

Questions:

1. Why is the Auto Fit sport "loose" 1 MPG as compared with Fit? Added weight?
2. The gear ratios are so different between auto and manual. Why is that Fit Auto/Manual has the same HWY estimate (hugh RPM difference!)?

Still trying to decide MT or Auto...

- Tim

 

I am in the same boat.
The AT has significantly lower RPM at cruising speeds but rated lower MPG highway.

 

Any "mileage and gear ratio" expert care to explain?

I am leaning towards Auto now (I have been driving MT for 20 years!) knowing the mileage is almost the same, the rpm is relatively lower, and all I give up is the full maunal control. I would think that this is a no brainer. Are they other hidden factors?

- Tim

 

Something about the extra power needed to shift gears in an automatic tranny affects the MPG... That's all I know.

I've been averaging somewhere in the low 30s so far. Pure city driving. And I've been doing a lot of fast accelerations, since the novelty hasn't worn off yet. I have barely driven on the highway so far.

Tonight I will be filling up for a three hour drive, so that'll give me a better idea of the mileage I'm getting. My old car did the drive on half a tank. I'm hoping to use a single tank for the entire roundtrip.

 

I drive 370 miles to work (luckily I do this twice a month only). This is all highway on I-95, some hills, some stop and go. I find that 75mph is the ideal speed for the m/t. I have gotten 43mpg several times. When I average 80, I see 38mpg, 65 also is about 38mpg.

 

Auto's have lower MPG due to the increased rotating mass attached to the engine. Auto trans have more parts that the engine have to spin and thus the engine has to work harder to get the car moving. The extra energy used to spin the tranny results in lower mpg.

We're still working on our first tank of gas 300+ miles and just over 1/4 left of the tank. Probably will get gas on friday to see what she did her first fill up.

 

Filled up this morning: average was 32.76MPG with mixed driving. I'm sure the next tank will be better since my wife will more than likely be driving for the entire tank. We're looking for 35mpn average. I think we can hit it.

 

You have to know how the machinery works to understand why auto gets significanly lower mileage (the EPA's difference is too small)

Torque converter: in MT, the engine, transmission, and wheels, are all contected by metal-metal contact. In automatic, there's something called a torque converter. In layman's terms, the engine powers a turbine, which spins and creates a liquid vortex in the transmission fluid, which spins another turbine which is connected to the wheels. And this is how the engine sends power to the wheels. As you can see, as efficient as torque converters are, it can never be as efficient as metal-metal contact. Note: The fit locks on all five gears, the fit's auto transmission has metal-metal contact, so fit does perform better than a typical automatic transmission is. This is why you can engine brake with the Fit. (lower gears not only accelerate faster, but decelerate faster than higher gears. Engine braking is when you use a low gear to decelerate, useful when going down a hill and you dont' want ot wear out your brakes) Typical automatics cannot engine brake because they don't lock on all gears.

Shifting: Shifting takes energy, even if you use paddles. Same with the locking mechanism which is similar to a clutch. It takes energy to lock and unlock the torque converter

Weight: heavier

I'm glad I got the MT. I almost got an AT--I was reaaall close because I thought with today's technology, AT should perform as good as MT. I used to think AT was an automated manual. But once you realize AT is so mechanically different than MT, you understand even with better software and parts, it'll underperform compared to a MT. So whether AT uses better gear ratios or has a clutch for its torque converter, it can't match a manual tranny because it's just a different machine.

Note that AT CAN be good as, or better than MT, depending on the drive. If you drive a lot of highway, then it should get high mileage cuz it 1) doesn't shift a lot 2) the gear is locked, so in this situation, it almost does a good emulation of a MT car.

If you're too lazy to read all that, I'm just saying AT is a different machine. Comparing AT with MT is not just about who shifts, and what gear ratios/RPMs.

 

Good explanation!

Automatics use hydraulic PUMPS to control the gear ratios. It takes a lot of the cars' engine power to run them.

Even a CVT (continuously variable transmission) requires a lot of engine power to operate it's pumps. There is an interesting article in the new CAR and DRIVER mag about that (the issue that hit the stands April 1 2007)

The biggest difference to the driver is, power. The MT Fit goes faster than the automatic, even though the gas mileage is about the same. If this power difference is an acceptable trade off to the conveniences of the auto, go AT.

 

From my own experience on the road, overwhelmingly people chose MT vehicles (new or used) only because are cheaper than the AT ones, none of them really use the advantages of an MT in, for instance, take-off at a traffic light or a very fast passing of slow-moving vehicles on the open road... I think all comes down to what have been taught in the driving school, but all following the freaking defensive (as in the slower, the better) style and not the common-sense style, you'll never be able to know (and use in real life) the real difference btwn MT and AT... my opinion only...
Saying that, I have just one question for the experts: we have an MT Fit and a AT Sport Fit, who's got more power at take-off, the MT or the AT but using the paddle shifters from the very start (M1/2/3/4/5 in S mode)?
Chris

 

Well...from my exp, people who drive MT are usually young and want to feel young. But your'e right about a lot of MT guys not taking advantage of it. My old coworker he thinks he's good at MT, but he doesn't downshift right and launches his car all the time--or maybe he *says* he launches his car not knowing what launching is.

I read on C/D about the speeds. 0-60 for MT is 8.6, and 5-60 is like 9. 5-60 for the auto with paddles is 1/2 second faster than D move. It's about 10 or 11. in this case, I'd say the gear ratios make it slower more than the torque converter. The gear ratios for AT are more for economy and less for acceleration--Certain cars like porshe 911 and corvette, the auto is faster than the manual in a straight line sprint. It's hard to compare the two until they both get the same gear ratios.

edit: i found the auto article (which refers to the manual article, one of the first reviews of the US fit) Short Take Review: 2007 Honda Fit Sport Automatic - 2007 Honda Fit Sport Automatic Specs - Car and Driver - July 2006
I think this zero to 60 is D mode.

 

Thank you very much Gordio for your effort to clarify this issue for me... so the MT is still a bit faster (0-60 and 5-60) than an AT (with paddle shifters or not)... unfortunately, at least 90% of all MT users don't deserve to drive (any) transmission, personally I would give them the Flinstone-type of transmission, in any way they do not care about all others stuck behind them... but what I hate the most is those young and very young Yahoos, with low and very low cars, huge mufflers noisier than a JumboJet, lots of expensive modifications, no problem with that, free country, your money, free to spend it in any way you want, but when they do 0-60 in 60 secs like they own the entire (public) road making everybody behind them wasting important time, that I cannot stand in any way, all I say is GET OFF THE ROAD, YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE, GET YOUR OWN PRIVATE ROAD!!!!
Chris

 

Do you really think so?

I paid extra for my '06 CR-V manual (only available in the EX trim) over the price of an automatic LX trim. 0 -60 ~ 8.8 seconds, 2 seconds faster than auto.

These days, the auto manufacturers must often charge the same for the manuals due to US certification costs, spread over a smaller number of vehicles.



+++++++++++

Gordio, thanks for the exact numbers from Car and Driver. I seem to remember that they publish the results of fully-automatic mode only, for comparison's sake.

 

You must live in the Land of Oz

An AT for Fit is US$800, in Canada is C$1,200, you don't have this money so just stick with the MT...
No idea about other models, Honda or whatever, as I do not work for any research or stats company...
2007 Honda Fit - Specifications - Official Honda Web Site

Chris

 

Surely someone who can't afford few percent difference would simply buy a cheaper car or a used car to get the transmission they want. When I've asked people about their new cars, it's either 'standard, of course' or 'automatic' with some excuse -- all they could find, wife can't drive, granpappy gots no legs, etc. Nobody seems to actually want an AT, or if they do, they're ashamed to admit it. I guess with the Fit Sport there's the paddle-shifter novelty as a justification, kind of like the push-button fad in the '50s.

 

As much as I hate all freaking progressive social liberal issues of today, I strongly and unconditionally consider an AT as part of the modern progressive technology, not in a million years I would go back ( and use it again) to the old MT technology... to make a kind of comparison, I have to chose btwn using the stairway or taking the elevator up to my apartment floor, guess which one is my daily pick
Chris

 

The Fit being a really small car is key in this discussion.

Small motor, just adequate torque, so the efficiency of the manual tranny pays off, no torque converter, no hydraulics, lighter too.

Now if this was a bigger torque motor guess what? The auto tranny can get better MPG, because the computer control of the auto shifter knows how to use the motors torque curve more efficiently than a human

 

I just don't see the point of getting the manual unless it was a close ratio 6 speed. Both transmissions are 5 speed. But you get the best of both worlds from the auto. The paddles are great once you teach yourself how to use them effectively. My car takes off very good from a dead stop when using the paddles. Also rips on the highway when using them as well. I'm a die hard manual guy. I pretty much use my paddles all of the time. I love shifting gears and actually miss it. But, when it comes down to it with this car I think the auto is the best choice. The paddles give it that formula 1 feeling and its highly effective in traffic too! Just shift to D and your good. Don't have to give your left leg a work out. But, one day when I build the fit into a competition race car (after I get a house)I will go with a manual! Say like a k20a with a close ration 6 speed!

 

To CB19, I just remmebered another argument for MT being purchased cuz of the price. MT always cost more in bluebook value. Bluebook value is determiend by popular supply/demand, meaning people are willing to pay more for MT than an AT. So used cars, people pay more for MT than AT cars.


I agree half and half. One bonus of driving a MT fit is u can make most of that tiny engine.

The second statement I'd half agree. Autos can be faster than manuals in a straight line, but mileage I wouldn't say so. The shifting mechanism isn't energetically free. If the person's not burning his own calories into shifting, then the car is. Drive by wire might make an automatic drive more fuel efficiently than a Manual, since its possible to program it to intentionally restrict the drivers driving habits to be more fuel efficient.

From reading (since I never drove an AT fit), the fit does OPPOSITE. i think DBW makes it drive harder, because I do hear for city driving the auto seems more powerful. the DBW in the AT might aim for performance for city driving. VTEC.net when the fit first came out, the review said something like "I never recommend an automatic, but for the fit, the automatic is better". and he said it's faster, the gearing is better for 0-60, etc.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself thank you
Happy Easter!
Chris