Automatics are more efficient?
 

Manual vs. Automatic Transmission - Consumer Reports

Of course, in my experience, people rarely accept facts from a reputable source.

I'm confused by their pricing chart at the bottom of the article. The article indicates saving when purchasing the manual but their chart indicates the opposite. Not one manual listed is cheaper than the automatic. I know a manual should be cheaper. I personally do not like automatics (especially repair costs).
Anyone know these prices? I think they switched the column headings.

Either that, or they only tested heavily-optioned manuals and base automatics. Each of those cars, the manual is far cheaper than the automatic ($1000-$1500 difference).

Kelley Blue Book shows the manual at $13,977 - $14,350 and the automatic at $15,142 - $15,547.

I knew a girl who called automatics "standard" because she said they "came standard."

Garbage in, garbage out.

Regardless if it's a manual or automatic, the gear spread and final drive ratio also have their effects over fuel savings, and those close-ratio manuals that are prevalent nowadays compromise too much between performance and fuel-efficiency.

Okay, sure, manuals are quicker, but why gear the top gear to also be quick? A cruising speed of 3,500 RPM in the Civic si is absurd.

exactly

Autos sometimes deliver better 'official' results as the OEMs can program the shift points for peak efficiency. Manuals have to shift at the prescribed points.

I have read that auto makers can tell the EPA how to shift. Someone suggested that they want to make the automatic transmissions look more efficient, so that people have another excuse to spend more money.