Deepends, a lot of auto's now come with "lockup", and that would save
some gas on long runs. But the alternate small cars, with manual gear
change, are usually more economical and practical around the city.
Mind you the small cars on long runs are even more economical, if you
can stand the vibrations which a big car soaks up.

That difference is largely due to the automatic Epica being equipped with a
larger 2.5L engine, while the manual has only a 2.0L.

The short answer is that automatic equipped vehicles use more fuel than
manual equipped ones all else being equal.

That depends entirely on the vehicle in question.

Some, like Commodores and Falcons for example, tend to command a higher used
price for manual versions rather than automatics. The same could most likely
be said of any vehicle with a "sporty" image.

Personally, I don't think there's anything "difficult" about driving a
manual, but they're a pain in the arse to drive period. I'm quite happy to
let the box decide what gear it wants to be in for "around town" driving,
and I'm often amused by comments of "I like to do the gear changing myself"
or "drivers have no control over an auto".

Manuals are quite okay in performance cars that get driven hard, but for
daily commuter stuff why would you bother?

--
Regards,
Noddy.

Depends really.  For instance, most SS Commodores are sold as autos,
but the sort of people who buy them secondhand - younger drivers,
mostly - tend to prefer them as manuals.  Lots of people prefer manual
small cars too.  I'd agree with you if you had something like a manual
Camry though, given that nobody who is vaguely interested in cars
would buy one so Camry buyers would overwhelmingly prefer autos.

Marco

Agreed, providing all things are equal such as driver habits.

Take for example Holden's medium car

Agreed, although the difference is not usually THAT great. $2,000 more
expensive in most cars is about right except the Falcon and Commodores.

This is an argumentive point with me.Recently, I sold an automatic Elantra
and was told by the same salesman who sold it to me that the autos don't
really fetch that much more on trade. When I reminded him that when he sold
it to me that he said I should buy the auto over the manual because the
resale value of the auto will more than compensate the extra at new price
when trading, he just shrugged his shoulders and said it only applied to
certain cars.

My other car is a 6sp manual Ford Typhoon which has a very hard clutch on it
and in Brisbane City driving is a pain over the autos. However to have
manual control over such a powerful beast is well worth the inconvenience of
a strong clutch. My points I would like to mention here as opposed to one
another are...
1. I don't like autos with cruise control switched on. The reason? If you
are going up a hill and around a bend the gears change down so quickly to
maintain speed, it could be construed as being dangerous. A manual is much
more sedate (and safer) in the same situation.
2. In most 4cyl autos when you are passing a car and you accelerate even
only slightly, the down change of gears is usually by two (on a 4sp auto)
and the subsequent lack of acceleration and engine revving is somewhat
discerning especially if you only wanted it to change down 1 gear.
3. A car like my Typhoon will appeal to some as a manual and others would
prefer it as an auto. Usually the younger drivers with such a car would
prefer the manual, whilst the older baby boomers would prefer the auto.
4. A car like my ex Elantra would mainly appeal to older drivers, therefore
the auto SHOULD give a better resale value.
5. My replacement of the Elantra was a Honda CRV automatic and whilst I was
somewhat concerned about the effectiveness of an auto in 4WD conditions, I
found it to be perfectly tuned for sand and other 4WD use. However it also
suffers from the same problem as in #1 of my list yet as it is a 5sp auto,
it doesn't suffer the same condition as #2 and I am much more comfortable
with it.

To get back to your original question, it has been a well known and
documented fact that manual vehicles give better fuel economy especially
models of years ago. However, todays much more sophisticated (computerised)
equipped vehicles have reduced the margin substantially.

I hope this info is of some benefit to you and others.

DAVO

It really depends on how each manufacturer has set up the overall
gearing on manual and auto models.
If gearing is the same then in most conditions there shouldn't be a lot
of difference.
On 2001 Corolla's a manual trans was more economical for city driving
but less economical on the hwy.
This is due to overall gearing, the auto is geared higher so its revving
less at hwy speeds but the lower geared manual gets it off the line
easier so it uses less.

Daryl

Nope, not always
The 3.6V6 Rodeo that I have is rated worse than the auto, as is the Hilux
range.

Autos these days are pretty damn good as the motors can be kept at a
constant optimum rev range where a manual take a lot to do that. (And its
boring as hell trying to do it so ya just fang the crap out of em anyway!)