2009 Honda Fit

[Rope-Pusher]

Tummy, the fuel mileage of a dry-clutch DCT should be right up there with a real Amish transmission, and it may even test better in the EPA tests, like some slushboxes do now, but it's hard to figure how it could ever be more efficient rolling down the road in a given gear than an Amish transmission because the parasitic losses are lower with an Amish transmission. I think they could test better in the hands of a skilled driver, but the EPA doesn't give them that advantage because not everyone is going to pay attention and upshift early like the skilled driver would.

[carsncars]

Tummy, the fuel mileage of a dry-clutch DCT should be right up there with a real Amish transmission, and it may even test better in the EPA tests, like some slushboxes do now, but it's hard to figure how it could ever be more efficient rolling down the road in a given gear than an Amish transmission because the parasitic losses are lower with an Amish transmission. I think they could test better in the hands of a skilled driver, but the EPA doesn't give them that advantage because not everyone is going to pay attention and upshift early like the skilled driver would.

In the case of automatics, at least, the torque converter allows the manufacturer to fit taller gears (especially first and fifth/sixth gear) because (a) the torque converter does the "slipping" instead of the (wearable) clutch, and (b) the torque converter allows the engine to rev up in top gear, giving more torque and horsepower when needed (by unlocking the lockup). With a manual the engine speed is locked to the wheel speed in top gear so it can't be as tall.

Because of the difference in gearing, it's fully possible for an automatic to get better fuel economy than a manual on the same stretch of road at the same speed.

Agreed on the "skilled driver" part, though. My sister won't shift until she reaches 3000 RPM on the dot--even if she's cruising along at 70 km/h at 2900 RPM. Every time she drives the MINI the average fuel economy goes up to like 7.3 L/100 km. However, the EPA ratings are supposed to reflect an "average" driver, so picking a competent (but not expert) driver is reasonable.

[Standardshifter]

Oh, automatics do have advantages, and in some cases, traditional automatics over the new computer-controlled clutch ones. Not saying manuals can't do the below, just that out-of-the-box, automatics can be easier/faster:

For example, towing is one, especially boat ramp situations. Other than heat, you have the torque converter to ease the shock of yanking boat out of water.

For launching, especially turbo cars, having a nice loose converter lets you launch boosting way above what a manual/computer manual with launch control can launch at, giving you amazing and consistent 60 foot times if you have the traction.

And off-roading, there are situations where having an automatic can be very handy at very slow speed.

[ElectroGhandi]

And off-roading, there are situations where having an automatic can be very handy at very slow speed.

I agree. If I, for whatever reason, wanted to try off-roading, I would look for the manumatic automatics that you shift, so I can still be in whatever gear I judge to be correct, but I don't have to worry about clutch manipulation when trying to traverse large pieces of rock at low speed.

[theholycow]

There are a few cars out now that get better fuel economy with the automatic than the manual (Honda Fit) and a handful that are faster with a CVT or DSG than with a manual.

There are even some faster with a modern traditional automatic (not CVT or DSG).

On a side note--driving in snow. My dad always told me a manual was better (as long as you're willing to sacrifice a bit of clutch) because you could rock back and forth, etc.; plus, if you lose grip, you can easily put it in neutral (clutch in) to regain traction. Which argument is true?

The clutch is indeed a better interface for putting it in neutral during an emergency situation than having to remove a hand from the steering wheel to put the automatic in neutral.

As for rocking to get unstuck...if you're willing to beat on your clutch, the manual can rock better (quicker going between 1 and R), but if you don't like the smell of burning clutch then an automatic will rock better.

For example, towing is one, especially boat ramp situations. Other than heat, you have the torque converter to ease the shock of yanking boat out of water.

For heavy towing, though, the manual gets the advantage. Automatics make a lot of heat and shorten their life when doing heavier work than they're designed for. An auxiliary cooler helps, and my truck has done quite a bit of heavy towing at or above its GCWR without any damage to its automatic transmission (now at 184,000 miles), so I guess the concern is really only if you don't have proper cooling.

If I, for whatever reason, wanted to try off-roading, I would look for the manumatic automatics that you shift, so I can still be in whatever gear I judge to be correct, but I don't have to worry about clutch manipulation when trying to traverse large pieces of rock at low speed.

I've never met an automatic that can't be shifted manually, though some have more convenient interfaces and some are more obedient. For off-roading, in the low speed situations that you suggest, an automatic's 1st gear is all you'll ever need and all it will use even in D.

[Rope-Pusher]

I've driven off-road with conventional slushbox and it was scary compared to driving same vehicle but of the Amish persuasion. When driving over the edge of a precipice, the slushbox lets the speed run away for quite some time before the torque converter catches up with things and you start to experience engine braking. In the Amish vehicle, the engine braking was there as soon as you let off the loud pedal, so the vehicle speed was more in control.
Also, was neat to be able to place front wheel up against bottom step and then shut off the engine and drive up a stairway on the starter motor (the engine came in to help right away). With the slushbox, climbing up that first stair was like brake-torquing - it stayed put until torque built up and then it oversped and bounced up off each step because of excessive speed.

[iDriveStick]

in my opinion the honda fit looks a lot like a transformer from revenge of the fallen.

but that's just me.

[cls12vg30]

I liked the previous Fit, mostly because everything I read suggested it handles like a Mini, and that trick rear seat made the interior so flexible. I haven't even sat in a new one, but IMO they look great, like a little bullet. But there's a curse to go along with that blessing. I take one look at that steeply-raked windshield, and the alarm bells go off. It looks like it will have the same forward visibility problems that were one of my big reasons for disliking the 2006 Civic we used to have. With those steep A-pillars shooting out way ahead of the driver, I fully expect it to have the tunnel-vision effect, and the resultant awful forward blind spots, as the Civic.