General Fit Talk General Discussion on the Honda Fit/Jazz.

2009 Fit has higher gear ratios

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #21  
Old 10-25-2007 | 10:18 AM
Arisenfury's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,398
From: CT
Do you only like to read what you want to read? Non of your arguements make sense. You also still fail to come with a valid reason on how you would actually get the car to move anywhere with a taller 5th gear. It's not that we consider the Fit a fast car, in fact it's the exact opposite, the Fit doesn't have enough horsepower to be dropping the RPMs any lower. There's two things we can figure from this, you believe yourself to be smarter than Honda engineers and think that you could improve on the Fit's MPG and still let it be driveable, or when Honda decided to make the 5MT Fit have close range gears they designed it in a sporty manner and it was their intent to make the lower horsepower car a more enjoyable drive. Sporty does not equal fast.

So which is it?
 
  #22  
Old 10-25-2007 | 10:54 AM
carlosalicea's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 599
From: Puerto Rico
Originally Posted by Arisenfury
why does everyone want a taller 5th gear for? it will essentially make 5th gear only useful for cruising and anytime you want to pass you'd have to either do it incredibly slowly due to poor acceleration with the taller gearing, or downshift to 4th which would probably negate the little fuel you save from cruising in a taller 5th gear.
Damm youre right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guive me a whole lot more hp and the hell with the gas!!!!! I want more speed!!!!!!

Anyway the Fit is very frugal........ if fellow freakers want more mpg..... take the bus
 
  #23  
Old 10-25-2007 | 03:35 PM
Chikubi's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,131
From: Desk
Originally Posted by Arisenfury
Do you only like to read what you want to read? Non of your arguements make sense.
He doesn't get it, does he? I tried . . . .

To bring things back on topic, Honda will not make a lower 5th for the Fit, period. They like the car just the way it is because it's a good balance that suits the needs of a wide variety of people, and, as Fitty McFit put it so eloquently, "You aren't going to do much better in the U.S., fuel-economy wise, unless you get a hybrid. I think the Yaris and Corolla beat the Fit by a couple mpg, but the Fit is pretty close to the top as far as how many mpg they're squeezing out of a standard engine."

That it's sporty, fun to drive, and has good potential performance-wise is just icing on the cake.

And now for a few gratuitous shots of my favorite 64hp, 0-60 11.7 sec, 106mph top speed, $18,000 sports car, just because I can :



 
  #24  
Old 10-25-2007 | 06:00 PM
Fitty McFit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
From: CA
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by Chikubi
That it's sporty, fun to drive, and has good potential performance-wise is just icing on the cake.
In what way is it "sporty"? (Hint: I'm talking about the actual Fit, not any modified car or any other brand of car)

I think your definition of "sporty" is what you wish it were.
 
  #25  
Old 10-25-2007 | 06:14 PM
Fitty McFit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
From: CA
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by Arisenfury
Do you only like to read what you want to read? Non of your arguements make sense.
Please quote a specific argument and explain why you don't think it makes sense. I'll be waiting....

You also still fail to come with a valid reason on how you would actually get the car to move anywhere with a taller 5th gear.
It's called inertia. A body in motion has inertia. When a body is moving at any given speed, it requires less energy to keep it in motion than it took to accelerate it to that speed. That's how we got a spaceship to the moon. If it took as much force to go all the way to the moon as it took to get it out of the atmosphere, we never would have made it.

That's why overdrives can work. You couldn't start out in 5th gear and get your car up to 65 mph, not without damaging the engine anyway. But once it is moving at 65 mph on level terrain, it requires much less power to keep it moving. If you have a close-ratio 5th gear that's designed to give a lot of torque for passing and hill climbing, you're basically wasting that power when you're just cruising at a constant speed on level terrain. You can have better gas mileage by having a higher 5th gear. The question was asked, "why do people want a higher 5th gear?", and that is the answer.

Hope you didn't have trouble understanding that.
 
  #26  
Old 10-25-2007 | 07:30 PM
Arisenfury's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,398
From: CT
Every arguement against Chikubi that proves a point that in other markets the Fit is not the low man on the totem pole that it is in America, it also participates in many other countries in track and racing events. You write off all these arguements because it's a different country. Obviously a taller fifth gear would be better for cruising, but American highways are not straight and flat, as it is it's a pain in the ass to pass or go up a grade in 5th gear on the highway unless you're already doing 75 or 80. If you're cruising at 65 I ALWAYS have had to downshift to go up a grade or to pass someone, so if 3000rpm at 65mph is bad for gas, 5000rpm in 4th gear is going to be worse. The point to be made is that the Fit DOES NOT HAVE the power to fully utilize a higher 5th gear effeciently. No one has disagreed with you that the car is slow. The only people who could utilize a higher 5th gear would be the people going 55 in the right hand land.
 
  #27  
Old 10-25-2007 | 08:02 PM
Fitty McFit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
From: CA
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by Arisenfury
Every arguement against Chikubi that proves a point that in other markets the Fit is not the low man on the totem pole that it is in America, it also participates in many other countries in track and racing events. You write off all these arguements because it's a different country. Obviously a taller fifth gear would be better for cruising, but American highways are not straight and flat, as it is it's a pain in the ass to pass or go up a grade in 5th gear on the highway unless you're already doing 75 or 80. If you're cruising at 65 I ALWAYS have had to downshift to go up a grade or to pass someone, so if 3000rpm at 65mph is bad for gas, 5000rpm in 4th gear is going to be worse. The point to be made is that the Fit DOES NOT HAVE the power to fully utilize a higher 5th gear effeciently. No one has disagreed with you that the car is slow. The only people who could utilize a higher 5th gear would be the people going 55 in the right hand land.
You prove my point. It's a weak engine, and if you want any power at all, you're going to have to downshift. A close-ratio 5th gear makes no sense on this car, because it doesn't have the guts to generate any kind of torque in 5th gear. These little Japanese engines only have power when you get into the higher rpm's. Ideally, it should have a 6-speed like the MINI, but the next best thing would be a higher 5th gear. What you're failing to realize is that a lot of folks ARE buying the Fit for its fuel economy. I know some kids are buying them under the delusion that it's a sporty car, but it's really not sporty at all. It's pretty much a gutless wonder. You can delude yourself into thinking you have a badass street racer, but you're gonna get smoked by pretty much everything out there. So don't cry when a Hyundai beats your ass on the street, O.K? I love the Fit, but it just...ain't...sporty. Sorry.
 
  #28  
Old 10-26-2007 | 12:03 AM
spoonek4's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,564
From: Vancouver, BC
I was looking into 06+ civic Si, Honda Fit & Toyota Yaris before I decided to go for the Fit. FYI I had a 00' EM1 Civic SiR coupe before. I had 98spec typeR final drive done (4.785 vs stock 4.4) to have tighter gearing. It's roughly around 4000rpm or so when I'm going 110kph.

Man it was sooooooo much fun with that setup. Yea L15A was never fast, I think it's gutless in one way, and so is the B16A. It's not better by much other than the hi rpm power & higher rev limit. My civic feels totally different after I had the bigger FD put in. It's ALIVE! Throttle response is SO much better around corners & on the highway. I do plan to swap in 4.5/4.7 FD into the Fit too. Too bad ACT/Excedy etc don't have clutch available yet coz I wanna do everything at the same time.

I chose Fit over Si coz it's fun to drive. It's never fast, but it's fun IMHO. Gas mileage wise, I really can't complain. It's AWESOME! I can do 350km or so per tank(all city driving, using 5w30 oil) while it's about the same mileage on my civic while the civic got a bigger tank. Gas mileage is the SAME either with or without the bigger final drive setup.

I prefer tighter gearing ratio myself. Might as well make use of all the response from 0-150kph or so while I can. When I can max out the Fit on the circuit then maybe I will think about getting something else.

Try the JDM 4.1 final drive on your car Fitty McFit. See if you like how the car drives & the gas mileage u get from it.
 
  #29  
Old 10-26-2007 | 03:15 AM
Chikubi's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,131
From: Desk
Originally Posted by Fitty McFit
Ideally, it should have a 6-speed like the MINI, but the next best thing would be a higher 5th gear.
You do realize that 6th on a 6MT would be running rpms very close to 5th on a 5MT, right? 6MT isn't about 1 extra gear for economy, it's about more gears closer together for flexibilty, response, and performance in order to drive the car harder. Case in point, the std. Mini Cooper in 6th @ 65mph turns 2712 rpms; the MT Fit is at 3026. Yes, the Mini is somewhat lower at the same speed, but to put it into perspective the AT Fit is at 2287 rpms @ 65, which is a whole helluva lot lower than even the Mini. The Mini w/ 6MT is by far closer to the MT Fit in terms of performance than the AT, and top gear in either will probably feel fairly similar all things considered.


It's pretty much a gutless wonder. You can delude yourself into thinking you have a badass street racer, but you're gonna get smoked by pretty much everything out there. So don't cry when a Hyundai beats your ass on the street, O.K? I love the Fit, but it just...ain't...sporty. Sorry.
. . . . . I quit. Time to go masturbate instead.
 
  #30  
Old 10-26-2007 | 04:34 AM
Fitty McFit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
From: CA
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by Chikubi
You do realize that 6th on a 6MT would be running rpms very close to 5th on a 5MT, right? 6MT isn't about 1 extra gear for economy, it's about more gears closer together for flexibilty, response, and performance in order to drive the car harder. Case in point, the std. Mini Cooper in 6th @ 65mph turns 2712 rpms; the MT Fit is at 3026.
Dude, do you even listen to yourself? You say 6th on a 6-speed is the same as 5th on a 5-speed, then go on to prove that it ISN'T.
Yes, the Mini is somewhat lower at the same speed, but to put it into perspective the AT Fit is at 2287 rpms @ 65, which is a whole helluva lot lower than even the Mini. The Mini w/ 6MT is by far closer to the MT Fit in terms of performance than the AT, and top gear in either will probably feel fairly similar all things considered.
Your irrational attempt to compare apples and oranges (manual vs. auto) aside, the 2007 MINI base model actually has a .1 liter BIGGER engine than the Fit, but gets BETTER highway mileage with a manual transmission. I am, and have always been, talking about a MANUAL transmission.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
 
  #31  
Old 10-26-2007 | 04:52 AM
rekcah's Avatar
Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 261
From: Sacramento, Ca
Mr Spoon himself describing the FIT chassis.
Is it the fastest car that I own? No.
Does it handle well. Yes
Sporty does not mean 0-60 time. Sporty is how a car feels for the power that is has. The Fit handles its power or lack of power well. I can zip in and out of traffic faster than most cars due to the FIT's size. Power wise it is more than my old 79 Accord or even my 98 civic but a lot less than my RSX.

So many people here complain about the FIT. If you don't like the car why did you ever buy it?

For me it is my 8th Honda. I first saw the FIT in 2002 and wanted one. Finally it came to the USA. To me the Fit is the closest you can come to a pure JDM car. Why a pure JDM car? Most cars in Asia are smaller. The FIT and cars like the FIT are very common.

Out Fit comes with the largest engine of the FIt/Jazz class. Non US and Canada FIT's come in a 1.3 - 1.4 non vtec and the 1.5vtec

It is unfortunate that we don't get the CVT-7 (if you don't know I am not going to explain it)

This forum is turning into a bunch of complainer and flamers.

So flame on I could care less

 
  #32  
Old 10-26-2007 | 10:18 AM
Arisenfury's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,398
From: CT
Well this arguing is to no avail. However, we will still get to keep our shorter 5th gear... teehee =P
 
  #33  
Old 10-26-2007 | 02:04 PM
Chikubi's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,131
From: Desk
Originally Posted by Arisenfury
Well this arguing is to no avail. However, we will still get to keep our shorter 5th gear... teehee =P
Ageed, it's like throwing rocks at a brick wall. Time to move on.
 
  #34  
Old 10-27-2007 | 12:02 AM
kusojiji's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 111
From: USA
Hi, is it too late to jump in? Seems like the fire is burning out.

I have the 5AT and cruising at 65-70 @ 2500 rpms (yeah, the extra 5 mph doesn't up the rpms by much on the tach), I can pass and merge easily enough. If I do need to really punch it, it does downshift, but that's only when I feel like being an A--hole and feel the need to jump in front of somebody and slow them up. But normal driving at speed and merging smoothly, the car stays in gear.

Uphill is a lost cause as it has to downshift just to maintain 65 (don't know what the grade is) and passing is a no-go, so I don't even try.

I bought the Fit for the mileage and the practicality. Has enough room for me, my family, and our groceries. Bought the Sport version because part of me doesn't want to admit my age - nah, it has the options that I was looking for.

The car does handle well enough on curves, but not on the freeway where it is affected a lot by the rakes in the road. The car jiggles a lot and has to be corrected continuously. I was getting tired of driving the car at first, but now I am used to the constant correction (arm must be getting bigger - balancing out the other arm from the 16oz curls).

One thing that surprised me is that the 5MT has a shorter 5th gear than the 5AT especially since the 5MT has a higher EPA rating on the freeway. Either the rating is done at a speed that the 5AT is in 4th and the 5MT is in 5th, or at a speed where the 5MT is running in the torque peak of the engine.

Any ideas?
 
  #35  
Old 10-27-2007 | 06:16 PM
Fitty McFit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
From: CA
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by rekcah
Mr Spoon himself describing the FIT chassis.
Is it the fastest car that I own? No.
Does it handle well. Yes
Sporty does not mean 0-60 time. Sporty is how a car feels for the power that is has. The Fit handles its power or lack of power well. I can zip in and out of traffic faster than most cars due to the FIT's size. Power wise it is more than my old 79 Accord or even my 98 civic but a lot less than my RSX.
This is complete b.s. It's better than your '79 Accord, so therefore it's a sports car? That's ridiculous. It handles better than a Model T, but that doesn't mean it's a Ferrari.
So many people here complain about the FIT. If you don't like the car why did you ever buy it?
When did I ever say I didn't like my car? I love it because it's efficient and economical, but not because I'm deluding myself into thinking it's a sports car. It IS fun to drive, but it's not a sports car. All of you dudes need to come down to reality here.
Out Fit comes with the largest engine of the FIt/Jazz class. Non US and Canada FIT's come in a 1.3 - 1.4 non vtec and the 1.5vtec
Yeah, I wish they had options like that in the U.S. - here, it's the smallest engine you can get in a non-hybrid Honda.

This forum is turning into a bunch of complainer and flamers.
Man, you just don't get it. When we say it would be nice to have the car geared a little higher, we're just discussing our thoughts about the car. A lot of people said they would like an armrest, and Honda actually listened to them. Are they all "complainers and flamers"? YOU guys are the ones doing all the flaming.

I mean, seriously - drive an S2000 or a Civic SI, and then you will realize that the Fit is not Honda's foray into the sportscar market. That's not a criticism of the car, it's just an acknowledgment of what it was designed to be.
 

Last edited by Fitty McFit; 10-27-2007 at 06:22 PM.
  #36  
Old 10-27-2007 | 07:22 PM
Arisenfury's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,398
From: CT
The Fit has always had an armrest just only in specific markets, one of which is not the US. The armrest is nothing new for the 2nd generation Fits, nor do we even know if they will include them in the USDM Fit when it comes in 2009. So that's not a valid reason, but if they do complain about not having an armrest then I can see no reason on why they would not be considered complainers, the only difference is it's easier to agree on something like an armrest than something mechanical in a car that would change the car's performance behavior.

[quote]All of you dudes need to come down to reality here.[\quote]
This is getting old, no one has said it's a fast car or even a sports car. At the most it was said that compared to other B-segment cars the Fit had a more sporty characteristic. In fact, many of us have agreed with you that the car is not fast in retrospect to many other cars out there. Get a different arguement; that's all you say and it has nothing to do with keeping a shorter or taller 5th gear. The simple fact is the Fit does not have the power to utilize a taller 5th gear effectively. Unless you want to prepare to pass someone 1/4 mile ahead of time, then you'll need to downshift with a taller gear and negate the gains of cruising in the taller gear.

And for the record, the Si is not a fast car either. The S2000 could be argued in the same fashion, hell even the NSX. But wait, they're considered sporty cars, why's that? Because they handle exceptionaly well compared to their competition... sounds familiar - oh yeah, the Fit does as well.
 
  #37  
Old 10-27-2007 | 08:10 PM
gotfitted's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 450
From: West Covina, CA
I wouldn't mind having the AT's fifth gear as the MT's sixth gear

Earlier, someone said that the Fit's tendency to oversteer is a reason why its NOT sporty...totally wrong. Econobox's tend to have their suspension set up for understeer because the car makers determined that its easier for the common folk to deal with it. Think about it: can you imagine your mother instinctively counter steering into the turn?

Anyway, I would have to say that the fit is sporty because if you have driven a true econobox, you'll realize that the driver's feels pretty removed from the vehicle. The suspension is often too soft and the steering feels very numb. Monster understeer is also often present (which is bad news bears when you're trying to take turns at speed). The Fit's suspension is relatively stiff (most ppl complain about this, actually) and you can "feel" the road through the steering wheel. Also, the fact that the gearing of the Fit is so short, adds to the sporty feel of the car because everytime you shift at redline, the tranny will put you right back in the powerband in the next gear.

Sure, this car may not be as fast or as sporty as say an Si, but for what it is, i believe it's inherited some sportyness DNA from Honda.

I forget who said it, but they knocked ppl racing fixed up base civics vs just buying an Si...well, though true that the Si comes better packaged right out of the box, it also has a sunroof and power everything. Ppl who want to race it sometimes would rather opt for a solid roof for a lower center of gravity and less weight and more structural rigidity. Why pay for a higher end model when you're going to take off the power windows and stuff anyway? The only additional stuff you get from the Si (as far as the EM1 and the new FD/G civics) is a better motor, slightly stiffer suspension, and rear discs. PPl who race old civics will tend to swap that stuff out anyway, so why pay the extra money when you're going to be replacing that stuff regardless?

So really, what i was getting at before i went on the civic tangent, the Fit may not be the sportiest of cars on the market, but it IS sporty for the market it's in. Btw, i canyon race with my stock fit and i am actually faster than my friend in his '07 Si sedan and i've left 240's and WRX's in the dust on the down hill and uphill.

Ultimately, regardless of what you think the fit is or isn't, it will still drive the way it does and i will still smoke you in the canyon XD
 
  #38  
Old 10-27-2007 | 08:15 PM
Fitty McFit's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
From: CA
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by Arisenfury
The Fit has always had an armrest just only in specific markets, one of which is not the US. The armrest is nothing new for the 2nd generation Fits, nor do we even know if they will include them in the USDM Fit when it comes in 2009. So that's not a valid reason, but if they do complain about not having an armrest then I can see no reason on why they would not be considered complainers, the only difference is it's easier to agree on something like an armrest than something mechanical in a car that would change the car's performance behavior.

This is getting old, no one has said it's a fast car or even a sports car. At the most it was said that compared to other B-segment cars the Fit had a more sporty characteristic. In fact, many of us have agreed with you that the car is not fast in retrospect to many other cars out there. Get a different arguement; that's all you say and it has nothing to do with keeping a shorter or taller 5th gear. The simple fact is the Fit does not have the power to utilize a taller 5th gear effectively. Unless you want to prepare to pass someone 1/4 mile ahead of time, then you'll need to downshift with a taller gear and negate the gains of cruising in the taller gear.

And for the record, the Si is not a fast car either. The S2000 could be argued in the same fashion, hell even the NSX. But wait, they're considered sporty cars, why's that? Because they handle exceptionaly well compared to their competition... sounds familiar - oh yeah, the Fit does as well.
Blah, blah, blah. Now you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Whatever...
 
  #39  
Old 10-27-2007 | 08:38 PM
Rudolf the Red's Avatar
New Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 10
From: Redding, CA
When I leave my gated community at the top of this hill, and floor it in 3rd downhill into three consecutive curves, and then proceed down the twisty, 4 mile road to I-5 at 75 instead of the 45 in my previous vehicle, I do not feel sporty at all. Just slow, economical, and dull.

 
  #40  
Old 10-27-2007 | 09:12 PM
Arisenfury's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,398
From: CT
Originally Posted by Fitty McFit
Blah, blah, blah. Now you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Whatever...
The only one that was adament about starting an arguement was you. The OP posted this thread about a taller 5th gear, I and a couple others posted against it, you wanted to argue against us why we were wrong. Looking through your other posts it seems all you want to do is argue - you complain about people not properly giving the form of an average mean, then when they correct it you go and complain about them using too many decimel points. If all you want to do is find ways to disagree and/or push everyone's buttons that don't have the same convictions as you, then just keep quiet.
 



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 AM.