The biggest variable power robber on classic Automatics is the wet clutch setup. When the torque converter activates the Efficiency is almost the same as a Manual transmission but is less due to requiring a pump to keep the transmission cool. Where the Ford Dual clutch is so efficient is that it uses a dry clutch which also does not like slipping. Classic Autos generate a lot of heat from slipping and without an oil cooler would overheat, part of the reason that coasting with an Auto is so risky. The DCT is just as efficient as the Manual because it does not slip, but that doesn't make it better, it makes it just as efficient. The Manual Transmission is a piece of simplistic transmission design. One in which the CONTROL of the transmission is solely in the hands of the driver, something a computerized transmission cannot outdo because the driver is controlling the vehicle. The 5spd is approx 85% efficient depending on model, gears, etc, the Borg/Warner one speed box in the Tesla is 98% efficient because it is even more simple. Classic Autos slip and they require a cooler so they are not as efficient the better EPA score is purely from wider gears and taller final drive gearing.
The CVT is considered less efficient than Manual transmission from a driveline loss/speed perspective. But I haven't seen a report on the CVT's exact efficiency. They're more effective than Classic Automatics and can beat Manuals in EPA scores but that is because they're packaged that way.
Tjts, that's just not true, if you'd driven the car the car back to back with both gear ratios we would believe you. It's no doubt the taller final drive would make the car slower but even suggesting it's undriveable is purely subjective. One things for sure, on older smaller cars where the classic transmission would have the same final drive the Manual won in every case. The difference now is that Autos are geared taller to give better MPG and Manuals are geared shorter to give better acceleration.
Shovel, do you really think that Manuals are hard to use? The Automatic is a supreme exactly of laziness. There is nothing you can do better with an Automatic that driver skill and a Manual couldn't meet or beat. Yes, it's less work for an Automatic but that's because the "control" of an automatic car is accomplished with one pedal. Saying one is better than the other is subjective. Automatics are more expensive they're slower/except the actual shift which is 1/10th of a difference, and less efficient overall. If you believe "the dumbing down" is bad raise your hand
.
We're not saying that because we like Manuals you should all convert or die. We're saying that even suggesting that Automatics are more efficient is fallacy. Manuals are heavily gearing dependent whereas an Automatic wants/needs taller and wider gearing. On Factory cars most come from the factory with Automatics, sports cars are really the only outlet for 6spd Manual transmissions. Automatics get taller gearing because they affect the Company MPG score and Manuals are given shorter/closer ratios to appeal to those with more sporty ambitions.
This reminds me of the discussion where someone made the claim that FWD was Faster than RWD. Sure there's no discounting that a transverse engine is more efficient since it faces the same direction as the wheels but even suggesting that FWD is faster is a fallacy. The argument was that the FWD could handle corning at it's limits better and therefore take turns faster. The problem with that is the RWD vehicles he was comparing to were big cars with big engines and cushy suspensions. The point I'm trying to make is suggesting something and providing evidence to support it doesn't make it true, if it's still a fallacy because the conclusion is not accurate.