[nick d]

I'm considering trading in my '09 Fit MT for a 9th gen Accord (2 kids now) and was wondering if anyone has real world fuel economy data between the MT and CVT Accords. I've searched and the thread below is all that I could find.

In my Fit, I'm averaging about 35-37 mpg (3-5 above EPA estimates). I took a new position and commute about 65-70 mi a day - 90% of it highway at 70-75 mph, so fuel economy is important.

I've also read conflicting information about the MT in the Accord, and no one around me stocks one. Car and Driver said it was one of the best MTs in the business for their long term test car, while others say its 'mushy'.

All else being equal, I'd prefer the MT, but I was impressed with the CVT I drove.

Thank you for any input.


C/D Long term Test Update: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ort-sedan-manual-long-term-test-update-review


http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showthread.php?t=74792&page=3

 

[Gearhead82]

I think the CVT probably is good for a couple more mpg on those long freeway drives compared to the MT since the cvt can run lower rpm on the freeway. Still, on my 25 mile freeway jaunts I usually end up between 35-40 mpg (for the trip) depending on conditions. I usually set the cruise control at about 67 on those trips though. 70-75 would cost a few mpgs.

One good tool is fuelly.com where you can see what other actual drivers are getting. You can look at all accords or narrow it down to 4 cylinder and then look in the descriptions of each car to see if they are cvt or mt. I'm averaging 31.9 mpg since I bought my mt in June (coming up on 6k miles).

 

[karfreek]

You will do better gas mileage wise on the CVT. I get about 36.5 hwy but many CVT owners get 40+.

I would not all any part of my M6 mushy. It's pretty much perfect.

Jay

 

[Accord207]

If you don't mind driving in traffic, MT. If not the CVT is a great option. I drive my CVT sport pretty hard with 50% hwy and 50% street , I average around 25-30mpg. If your mainly on the fwy in D drive, staying below 80mph you can easily get up to 600miles a tank. Its a great all around car with lots of features.

 

[nick d]

One good tool is fuelly.com where you can see what other actual drivers are getting.

Thank you Gearhead82 - I did poke around on Fuelly and the MTs are all over the place. However, the 36 mpg + club seems to only be open to CVTs. Even driving 17k mi/year, its only an extra 25 or so gallons of gas annually going from 34 to 36 mpg average.

I'm having an internal dilemma wanting to keep some semblance of fun and sporting character in a car while having a useful car for the family. Wifey tolerates the MT but would prefer an auto all else being equal.

I started with a Hemi Charger in discussing prospective purchases with her to defeat her suggestion of a used Prius to replace the Fit (which has been FANTASTIC).

 

[JohnnySasakiMGS]

I'd gladly sacrifice 25 gallons of gas in exchange for driving pleasure. 6M brother!

 

[DevilDogDoc]

My CVT gets a solid 32mpg in mostly hwy driving. 70 mph to work downhill and 80+ uphill heading home.

 

[nick d]

I'd gladly sacrifice 25 gallons of gas in exchange for driving pleasure. 6M brother!

Hopefully soon.

She would like me to look at the 2014 Accord Hybrid. Apparently it has different (better?) dampers than the gas-only Accords, but the payback period on hybrids for my driving style generally doesn't work.

Prudence also dictates we compare against a Mazda6, which we haven't done yet. We've crossed off the Fusion, and after spending 2000 mi in a 2013 Altima on a road trip, crossed that off as well.

Alex ***** at TTAC did a great review of the Hybrid. In the Youface video, he discusses the different shocks. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/10/first-drive-review-2014-honda-accord-hybrid-with-video/

 

[hondaguy2582]

6mt all the way. About a 1000 cheaper to begin with, 30+mpg, and fun as heck to drive. The CVT is nice, but the six speed gearbox is the best I have driven to date!

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

[fizmixa]

if you enjoy driving a manual then get the accord with a 6mt, assuming you're the only one driving it.

 

[shift]

If you don't encounter much traffic, go for the 6 speed. It's slick shifting, less problems now and down the line. If you're not convinced, go look at the CVT problems thread.

 

[Accord207]

If you don't encounter much traffic, go for the 6 speed. It's slick shifting, less problems now and down the line. If you're not convinced, go look at the CVT problems thread.

I think the CVT problems have been solved if you purchase any accord from here on. From my readings from this forum a lot of the cvt problems come from the first batch of owners. I recently purchased my cvt 2months ago and I've had no problems.

 

[2014EX6spd]

Nick, I was having the same thoughts last month.

I am also an original owner of a 2009 MT Fit Sport. I love this car and still own it along with the 2014 Accord 6MT EX and a heavily modified 2009 STI. We drive the Hondas daily and I only use the Subaru for weekends / recreation.

For clutch feel, I removed the clutch delay valve in my Fit and Accord. It was very simple on the Accord and I did a writeup on this forum a couple weeks ago. I enjoy the way they feel with no regrets. However, I wouldn't have called the Accord 'mushy' in stock form. If you like the feel of the Fit clutch, you will like the Accord. One of the best in the business in my opinion for daily use.

While I cannot compare CVT to MT, I can compare Fit 5MT to Accord 6MT. On a tank of gas doing mixed 50/50 city/hwy (55-65 mph), I can average 41mpg in the Fit and 37 in Accord. On average I am taking a 10% hit to mileage in the Accord compared to the Fit. However my Accord is still being broken in, so hoping mpg will improve. Best tank on Accord so far is 41mpg with conservative 65mph freeway road trip South GA to TN. I can consistently exceed the EPA rating on the Fit and Accord.

We looked at the cars you described as well before choosing the 6MT Accord. The hybrid Accord didn't justify the higher cost with my conservative driving and goals.

In short my wife and I are very happy we chose the 6MT Accord. No regrets.

 

[Anachronism]

I am averaging right at 30 mpg, Probably about 50% back roads the rest a mix of city/hwy. I average around 37-38 mpg on hwy trips at 72 mph. Half my highway trips I do with bikes on the car, totally kills mpg, 33-34 mpg.

I wouldn't trade my MT for a few MPGs. The sport trim is relatively easy to find with MT, the EX trim you may have to have your dealer swap or order one. Power train is the same so you could test drive a sport and sit in an EX.

 

[Willverine]

My wife and I own both a 2013 Sedan CVT and Coupe MT and have found (no real surprise) that the CVT gets better gas mileage. I have driven both cars in near identical conditions commuting 80 miles on the freeway and found the CVT to get between 3-4 MPG better than the MT.
That being said, I quickly remember that I got the MT more for fun and not maximum fuel economy.

 

[socalkid]

i came from a MT 10' Fit Sport and i dont regret the purchase at all... that said, i've only been in the 13' Accord Sport MT for 3 months now so i might feel differently in a year or two, but i doubt it. i do miss the utility from the Fit and the street legal go kart feel it had, but i dont miss the general discomfort and lawn mower ride on road trips and longer commutes... that said, i'll keep my comments to what you asked about specifically in your post!

as far as mileage:
i drive a near identical commute as you and in my Fit i was averaging around 31-33 mpg, but my Sport had the 16" wheel size vs the 15" size on the standard model, and i was running larger 205/50 rubber than the OEM 185/55 that came stock. before the tire switch, i was averaging around 33-35 mpg but the added stability and improved driving experience for me was worth it. in the 3 months that i've had the Accord i've been averaging around 28-29 mpg, but with the larger tank there's less frequent fill ups. my simple math, its basically costing me $0.013 more a mile to drive the Accord, or at my yearly average of 22k miles, about $300, totally worth it for me:

Fit -- 10 gals x 31.5 mpg = 315 mi/tank @ $40/tank ($4/gal) = $0.126/mi
Accord -- 17 gals x 28.5 mpg = 485 mi/tank @ $68/tank ($4/gal) = $0.141/mi

just for pure speculation based on the numbers you quoted for yourself lets assume you'll get better mileage (5%) than me with the Accord, and considering your experience with the Fit, you'd be something like the below which shows your delta at closer to $0.022 more a mile to drive the Accord, or $490 more a year based on a 22k mile average:

Fit -- 10 gals x 36 mpg = 360 mi/tank @ $40/tank ($4/gal) = $0.111/mi
Accord -- 17 gals x 30 mpg = 510 mi/tank @ $68/tank ($4/gal) = $0.133/mi

obviously only you know whether or not that's worth it for you, but just something to think about.

as far as the MT:
in all honesty, i think the MT in the Fit has better feel and an overall better experience than the MT in my Accord Sport... that said, i still love the MT in the Accord. its just that in my experience (and ive driven everything from a Toyota Tacoma to an MX-5 Miata to an E36 M3 to various Porsche 911's) for overall driving experience, i think the Honda Fit MT is one of the best i've ever driven. if you enjoy the MT in the Fit i think you'll be fully satisfied with the MT that comes in the Accord, it's not quite as slick and direct as the Fit but it's just as smooth and enjoyable to drive. id personally stay as far away from the CVT as possible... i dont doubt others that love it, its just that in my experience with friends and family that have owned CVT mounted cars, long term, it almost never ends pretty. i'd like to give Honda the benefit of the doubt but in reality only time will tell if the CVT ends up being a solid tranny. for me, i love MT cars so i will always lean that way.

good luck with your decision and if you have any other questions with my specific experience just post em' here, i hardly ever check PMs

 

[Dudley]

Go for the MT if that is what you prefer. The $900 difference in price buys a lot of gasoline.

As far as fuel economy goes. The MT should match the CVT or best it up until about 55 mph, then they will be about the same for a bit. 65 mph and above the CVT will be better.

I have had some startlingly good mpg with the 6MT. 43.5 mpg for a tank 48 mpg for 120 mile stretch and 52 mpg for an 18 mile loop that I do. All of these are at speeds in the 55 to 65 range with the 52 mpg loop at 55 and under.

On the other end of the spectrum driving 75-80 gets 34-36 mpg. The CVT will do better there.

Really wish they had made 6th gear taller - then we could have the best of all worlds with the 6MT.

 

[mike7311]

I drive about the same as the OP. Love my MT, the performance difference alone makes it a no brainer.

 

[nick d]

Thank you all for the valuable information. I love the MT in my Fit, but with more time on the highway with the new job I think a bit larger car would be nice. Also, the Fit's back seat is just a bit too small for two car seats and I've got a 1994 Volvo 940 wagon hanging around for serious hauling duties.

Now onto making sense of the price paid and lighting upgrade threads...

Thank you all again.