[Nate]

I was curious as to what people's opinions were on this. Personally I feel manuals are better for fuel economy. Automatics have a torque converter, which robs horsepower, and the shifts are not always timed in a fuel efficient way, because you can't really "short shift" an automatic except for lifting off the accelerator or using a Tiptronic shifter. However, shifting gears to lower your RPMs in an automatic takes power as well since they are computer controlled and jerky.

CVT's are great for their ability to remain within the engine's optimal rpm range, but they too require power to constantly change their gearing ratio. Manuals seem like the most logical to me, and returning to neutral and coasting is much more natural with a stick shifter than it is with an automatic drivetrain.

Sure, automatics and CVTs can go into neutral, but if my hand isn't always on the shifter, I'm not going to remember to put it in neutral at every hill or coast in neutral to every stop. In a manual on the other hand, this is natural for me. Also, automatics make an unpleasant jerk every time you switch from neutral to drive, especially during power transfer. With practice and a well maintained clutch, the transition from neutral to in gear is much much smoother in manuals.

The EPA might say that some autos and CVTs are surpassing manuals in city economy, but I believe this is due to their testing methods. With an auto at a stoplight, the RPMs are either at or slightly above idle and if you were to let off on the brake, the car would move forward without even touching the gas. This is wasted energy, forcing your brake pads to not only hold back the weight of the car, but the engine's low end torque/horsepower as well. Again, a manual wins for practicality when it comes to remaining in neutral at a stoplight, since you have to anyways, while most automatics and CVTs remain in first gear for when you lift off the brake.