and what would be the huge benfit to switching to manual for a vast majority of people?

in terms of gas costs almost zero. Alot of auto trannys get better mpg ratings then their sticks.

and if the manual is better, its general 1 or 2 mpg's better.

Karl, opfreak is right. Since automatic transmissions are not much more efficient than they have been (although they now have more gears), the reason why many manuals are getting the same or lower economy than automatics must be gearing. (I noticed how shortly my manual Protege is geared compared to a friend's automatic version.) Manuals are geared much shorter, because......I don't know why!! If manufacturers start gearing manuals normally again, the advantage in economy would then reappear.

Karl, I've already changed my car plans.....well, sort of. It's highly possible I might be on the market for a new car in between 1 and 3 years. I've been eyeing the 2009+ Mazda 6. (The Accord is another strong candidate.) Until I read an article that predicted gas prices might get up to $7 in the next 2 or 3 years, I was aiming for the V6. I'm now not dreaming of the V6 anymore......I4 it is! I've even realised that at the current $4/gallon the V6 might still be too expensive to operate. [The lack of a manual for the V6 is another reason I'm not super-enthusiastic, but the fuel economy is the main reason.]

If people are turning off A/C and driving less aggressively and driving at slower speeds they are obviously doing things for a 1-2 MPG gain. Besides, the 1-2 gain is the RATED difference between manual and auto. Depending on where/how you drive you can do better (i.e. pushing clutch in as you coast to a stop is easier than having to put car in neutral, etc.).

"pushing clutch in as you coast to a stop is easier than having to put car in neutral"

Huh? Unless you have super strong leg muscles it's easier on you (and your throwout bearing!) to give a quick stab of the clutch and throw it in neutral.

However, either way you could be burning more gas than simply letting off and leaving it in gear. Virtually every car on the road today has a feature called DFCO (Google it) that negates any neutral coasting gains in many conditions. Basically if you're off the throttle, above idle, and in gear, (i.e. engine braking) the injectors don't operate. I'm manly speaking from a manual transmission context but it's used in automatics as well (but not as effective).

How about shifting to a higher gear or skipping gears as you accelerate? I do that all time when driving a manual (on level ground and not trying to race/beat anyone).

"Interestingly, when asked if they would consider a manual transmission vehicle to help cut their fuel costs only 20% of respondents said "Yes" while 56% said "No" (21% said they were already driving a manual transmission vehicle)."

Why would people buy manuals when they dont exceed the mileage of autos in most instances? On some small cars the automatic gets better mileage than the manual. The days of 2mpg+ advantgaes for manuals is largely done. The Cobalt XFE is one of the few exceptions. It actually would pay to get the manual in that case since it gets you about 4 additional mpg.

1487 yes, the coblat is a werid one... part of it, is the auto is still a 4 spd.

speaking of Karls favorite Car/company, lets look at a honda civic:

5-speed manual (26 city/34 highway)
5-speed automatic (25 city/36 highway)

In general theres no more manual magic.

I think black has it right, it appears that manuals are geared shorter then auto's these days. And from reading various car forums, it seems that at auto on the highway, will run ~300rpm + less, then manual version.

I think the reason is 'response', the auto can decouple the torque convertor and let the engine rev up instantly for more power... where as the stick needs to be there to get the same response

Manuals have a higher mechanical efficiency than automatics. If you strive to be efficient (not wasteful), then manual is your choice. Dual-clutch autos come close, but the wet-clutch versions still have parasitic oil pumps. Gearing is a big factor, though. You want to keep the engine at a speed where it is most fuel efficient. I suspect most companies put the greatest effort in optomizing gearing in the high volume auto transmission applications, and less so for manuals which are more of an afterthought.

Wherever that gas price photo was taken, it shows diesel at 10% more than regular. Since diesel has 10% more energy, they are equivalent in cost on an energy basis. Since diesels are 25-30% more efficient than gasoline engines, my choice in a new vehicle remains the same as my current vehicle: diesel engine plus manual transmission. Only difference is I'll be looking for a 3000-3500 pound car instead of a 7000 pound truck. In both cases, I fulfill my moral obligation to use the least amount of fuel for the work I choose to do with my vehicle (not be wasteful). In choosing a lighter car, I'm making a free choice to do less work with my vehicle.

Recent polls showing general lack of interest in diesels and manual transmissions means that most people's thought processes are different than mine, even when faced with skyrocketing fuel prices. To each his own, I guess.

Karl, people in general are changing their driving habits. I see a lot of cars with the windows down, driving slower in the highway like 60mph on 70 mph highway. Now I have notice more people using motorcycles,walking to work AND riding bikes.

Of course you will have those that gas is not a problem yet. Other tips to save fuel is to shut down your engine when you are waiting at the express car line at the bank. For those with regular automatics manual shift the transmission as long as you are not driving a POWERGLIDE. Holding the clutch down to coast for a long time is not a good idea because you are wearing out your clutch. Put it out of gear and coast.

The most popular stupidity I see the "SLAM A RAMA". People that will slam the gas to drive half a block and then slam the brakes. Waste of energy and wear on your car.

There are automatics that are as fuel efficient as a manual would be. The problem with this type of automatic is that every time someone drives one, it gets blasted because it wants to shift into the highest possible gear at all times, meaning it's killing the power of the vehicle.

You can even see some of that on the posts here at Edmunds.

Giving the post the title "95% of Respondents report Changing Lifestyle" to me is silly and is close to being a scare tactic kind of news reporting. Of course people are going to adjust their lifestyles when the average american is now spending 100$ a month more on gas.

A better way to improve your fuel economy at the bank is to park the car, turn it off, and walk inside to deal with a teller. The express lane usually isn't much faster than doing that anyway.

"Recent polls showing general lack of interest in diesels and manual transmissions means that most people's thought processes are different than mine, even when faced with skyrocketing fuel prices. To each his own, I guess."

Well I'd submit to you that a lack of interest in diesels has alot to do with diesel costing about 75 cents more than gas (or more) - that pretty much kills any real incentive to go with a diesel engine option. And as has been mentioned, many automatics are far more advanced than they used to be, and many are now getting just as good gas mileage as a manual tranny, so again, there really isn't much incentive to go with a manual - unless you just prefer them (which I do, as a rule).

Gas prices have altered my habits slightly - not making near as many small trips as I used to, for example. But I don't care how much gas is - call me spoiled - I'm NOT turning off my A/C and cranking my windows down (in 95-100 degree heat, that's insane), I'm NOT gonna try and trade for a cheaper econobox, I'm NOT supporting any measure to try to go back to a 55 MPH speed limit (if YOU want to drive 55, fine - just stay out of my way).

Karl's favorite car/company is Honda? I thought it was Mazda:

3s 5sp Man 22/29MPG
3s 5sp Auto 22/29MPG
6s 5sp Man 17/25MPG
6s 6sp Auto 18/25MPG
RX8 6sp Man 16/22MPG
RX8 6sp Auto 16/23MPG

Anyway, continuing down the Honda line:

Accord Coupe EX V6 6sp Man 17/25MPG
Accord Coupe EX V6 5sp Auto 19/28MPG
Acura TSX base 6sp Man 20/28MPG
Acura TSX base 6sp Auto 21/30MPG

So what was this about a manual transmission helping to cut fuel costs?

"Recent polls showing general lack of interest in diesels and manual transmissions means that most people's thought processes are different than mine, even when faced with skyrocketing fuel prices. To each his own, I guess."

There are few diesels on the market and diesel fuel is higher than premium gasoline. That plus the fact that most manuals offer few efficiency gains over manuals explains why few folks in the US are driving diesel powered cars with manual transmissions. Lets not forget that aside from the new jetta there arent many (if any) 50 state diesels. I believe the 2009 MB models will be 50 state legal but they are very expensive.

Manuals only exist to allow automakers to advertise lower starting prices (even though few manual equipped cars are stocked) and to appease enthusiasts. The efficieny benefits are nonexistent at this point. Modern automatics have more gears and are more efficient than their predecessors. On some cars that offer manuals and automatics there isnt even a price difference between the two transmissions. I believe the TSX is one such car.

"Karl's favorite car/company is Honda? I thought it was Mazda:"

Mazda, Honda and BMW are all candidates. This is true for all auto writers, not just Karl. I think they would be hard pressed to claim which is their favorite because all are so good in their own right. If money is not factored in BMW would win hands down.

"Well I'd submit to you that a lack of interest in diesels has alot to do with diesel costing about 75 cents more than gas (or more) - that pretty much kills any real incentive to go with a diesel engine option."

I know. That's the thought process I'm talking about. I pick diesel because 40% better mileage (10% from fuel energy content, 30% from inherent engine efficiency) far outweighs the 10-12% cost increase per gallon. I'm paying 30% less at the pump (40%-10%) and I'm using 30% fewer natural resources. Diesel vs. gas is a much bigger efficiency difference than manual vs. auto. BTW, where is diesel 75 cents more than regular. 46 cents in the photo posted, 50 cents by me.

On a related note, at this point, why do we need three grades of gasoline? There's only a five percent spread from regular to premium. Why not just sell premium, save some money on the logistics of keeping the three grades separated..

I think on the manual issue, it appears that we're completely ignoring the actual question. The question was "if" it would decrease fuel consumption by 20%, would you. Not "because" it would decrease.

This is merely a hypothetical question, not a leading question. The question may as well have been, "If keeping a rubber duck in your back seat would decrease fuel consumption by 20% would you do it?"

All it does is point out how people are so lazy to actually learn to drive a real car for any purpose, not that suddenly the typical American consumer actually picked up an automotive journal to learn more about modern transmissions and the benefits to them.

I've gone from driving 1200 miles a month to a little bit over 800. This is just going to and from work and for short errands within a 20 mile radius. Unfortunately, even if gas goes to $5 bucks a gallon or higher than that, I cannot fit buying a new car nor buying a used car into my budget. I'm pretty much stuck with what I have, which I love despite the lower-than-average mileage for the size of it.

I definitely take fuel prices into consideration. I look carefully at the MPG ratings. I think for the sub-$30K market, one tends to look at everything- meaning good room, practical, reliable AND great MPG's. Low 20's (MPG) doesn't cut it anymore that's for sure.

It reminds me of the MPG wars in the early 90s with the Geo Metro and Honda CRX HF. I believe those were getting 50+ mpg's.
The closest thing is the Honda FIT, which is cheap, reliable, well built, nicely styled, practical and great mpg's... all the things that made Honda the BIG H in the first place!
I hope they come out with a new CRX Si...

I currently drive a manual but will be getting an auto tranny on the next purchase because my wife cannot drive a stick.

It is just easier and does seem to not affect MPG's on some models. In fact, it seems to be THE choice for some: like the DSG GTI.

"Karl's favorite car/company is Honda? I thought it was Mazda."

I find it funny that some of you nag about a persons preference when you each have your own.

I don't know how they drive a manual during EPA testing, but it seems to me that a manual driver can do things that an auto can't, such as coasting down hills in neutral (interesting point bbechtel16, but I still am inclined to believe that 800 rpm burns less gas than 2300 rpm, no matter what), skipping gears, and not downshifting to accelerate.

And even if they are the same efficiency, let's not overlook the $800 surcharge for an automatic, which could buy six months of gas for the Civics and Fits that everyone is desperate to buy.

And not to mention the money that we would all save if people were focused on driving rather than texting, eating, drinking, yakking. Manual drivers tailgate less, which smooths the flow of traffic, which improves everyone's mpg. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

"Mazda, Honda and BMW are all candidates. This is true for all auto writers, not just Karl."

Oh yeah, good point:

135i man 17/25MPG
135i auto 18/26MPG
550i man 15/22MPG
550i auto 15/23MPG
650i man 15/22MPG
650i auto 15/23MPG

"I find it funny that some of you nag about a persons preference when you each have your own."

How about I try to employ a little less subtlety next time I'm being facetious? :-)

Interesting states, 7driver, but I'm sure there are many more examples where the manual beats the auto.

Also, look at combined mpg, not just city and highway. For example, Honda Fit Sport:

City/Highway/Combined
Manual 28/34/31
Auto 27/33/29

The difference grows, for some reason, from 1 to 2 mpg in combined driving.

"In terms of driving habits, over 44 percent of respondents are driving slower and/or less aggressively."

No doubt that driving less aggressively saves fuel. But I dispute the old belief that driving 55 mph on the highway vs. 65-70 mph saves fuel. That might have been the case back when cars had 3-speed automatic transmissions. But with 6-speed transmissions, many cars are at optimal efficiency at higher speeds. So driving 55 mph in 5th gear, or lugging along in 6th gear, would result in higher fuel consumption vs. 70 mph in 6th gear. At least it seems that way in my car. Am I wrong on this?

The days of manuals delivering better fuel mileage are long gone, now that most automatics are six-speeds. The only reason these days to drive a manual transmission is for love of three pedals and a gearshift lever that falls readily to hand. I will drive a manual for as long as they build them. The wife can learn. Or buy herself an automatic.

Gas prices are no joke. They're about a dollar higher than they really should be, but that's because the dollar is pathetically weak right now. I traded up my 2003 Mazda 6S (V6, 5-spd manual) for a new 2008 Acura TSX 6-spd manual, and I must admit as much as I loved that Mazda, I don't miss the V6 one bit (well, maybe the sound of it opening up at 5000 rpm...). My TSX has been getting around 27mpg mixed driving, while the Mazda would barely get 26mpg highway.

The idea that 55mph is more efficient isn't related to gearing - it's because the power needed to resist aerodynamic drag increases nonlinearly at freeway speeds. At 55mph, you're spending about 7hp to fight against just the air resistance; 12hp at 65mph and 31hp at 90mph. It takes a number of hp to overcome rolling resistance and internal friction too, and we're usually operating at low rpm and therefore low power... that 5hp difference does use more gas.

In theory, you could get the gearing just wrong so that 55mph isn't better. The more gears you have, the less likely that is.

Anyway, no real effects on my lifestyle. It's saving up for a ridiculously expensive California home that's 'ruined' my budget. Fuel costs are small potatoes to me.

I've since had to change my driving habit to start using premium fuel and hard accelerations to put the traffic far behind me. Then I can start driving smoothly and save gas that way, without having to comply to the amateur driver in front of me who goes accel-brake-accel-brake-accel-brake while in traffic.

This lifestyle change is due to the reduction of the additional cost of 93 octane premium fuel from 20% to a measly 7% or less over 87 octane regular.
Now is a great time to guzzle the 93 premium! Full power!

Premium is only worthwhile if your engine requires it. My cars require premium, so it makes sense to get it. Especially as gas mileage and power drop with regular in a premium-required car. If every mile costs 20 cents (4.80 per gallon / 23 mpg - my cooper S is about 16 cents per gallon), then a 1 MPG drop opting for regular doesn't save any money and robs the car of power.

With my BMWs I found I got far worse gas mileage at 55 than 75. Put the car in 6th at 55 and the MPGs dropped like a stone. Get up to 75-80 and 31-32 mpg was easy. Hell even averaging 110 across Europe I would still get 28 mpg.

"Manuals only exist to allow automakers to advertise lower starting prices (even though few manual equipped cars are stocked) and to appease enthusiasts......."

The question is this: if everyone knows that the "starting price" is a stripper that they wouldn't want, who's gonna get fooled into rushing to the showroom? I mean, anyone who's ever shopped for a car know this trick, so why would they fall for it?

I just saw an article about a Honda Fit that said it would start at $15k. I immediately said to myself "it'll probably cost $20k the way I and most people would want it!" Who are they kidding?

Secondly, in most cases, the difference in price between manual and auto is between $800 and $1k. Not a whole lot!

I like the way Hyundai advertise their cars. They give a price for "nicely equipped" models and not a "starting price".

"The only reason these days to drive a manual transmission is for love of three pedals and a gearshift lever that falls readily to hand."

alfalfa33, Not quite. Most cars, especially compacts, are world cars....and these cars are overwhelmingly fitted with manual transmissions outside of the US and Japan. So there is a real use for manuals, just not in the US. I wouldn't advise anyone who lives in a developing country to buy an automatic.
It's only on mid-size and larger luxury cars where it seems manuals are getting obsolete. In fact, BMW seems to be the only luxury manufacturer that offers manuals on their larger/more powerful cars.

"The days of manuals delivering better fuel mileage are long gone, now that most automatics are six-speeds."

It seems so, but given that manuals are still more efficient than even CVTs, the question then is why manufacturers keep gearing manuals shorter, thus refusing to take care of their efficiency advantage. Or is it simply an issue in the EPA's testing methods like ahightower suggested? I really wish I could chat to an auto engineer about this!

I think some perspective is in order. Concentrating on tiny differences in fuel economy does readers a disservice.

I found avg family miles driven numbers from 1994 (what I could find quickly) of 21,000. Seems high to me, keeping in mind that not all families have two adults, but ok.

In 2004 the average fuel economy for vehicles was 24.6mpg.

So roughly, that's 854 gallons of fuel used per family per year.

So, when gas went from $3 to $4 per gallon, that caused a $854 rise in a family's annual budget over the year or so it took for that to occur. That's about $2.34/day. Not chicken feed, but hardly earth shattering in the big picture to above average income Americans.

2006 Median family income in the US was $48,200.
So, additional spending on gasoline is a 1.8% increase in that family's budget for the year.

Considering that CPI inflation for 2007 was about 4.5%, even factoring in fuel prices, I think it's a pretty sound conclusion that gas prices for personal vehicles is not the biggest concern.

If you realize that the reason CPI is as low as it is (besides govn't manipulation of the formula for calculating it) is because some asset classes are falling in price (namely homes/equivilent rent), then obviously some other things besides gasoline are also rising in cost rapidly (such as food, health care costs, and education for example) and as a percentage of the family budget are much more significant.

My point in all this is that this constant harping on how one can save relatively small amounts on fuel overstates the issue and draws attention away from the real issue, monetary inflation.

People are succeptible to such distractions likely because unlike most things they buy, gasoline is tallied up for them on the side of a gas pump every time they fill up. But if their health insurance goes up $75 a month that's a bigger financial impact that gasoline's rise.

They also likely will see higher dollar increases in their food budgets in 2008 than in gasoline.

Rising energy costs affect us, but gasoline for your personal car is not your biggest worry. Harping on it w/o putting in perspective is simply hyping up ignorance. Energy costs other than gasoline(heating oil, electric, and natural gas bills, costs associated with transportation of goods, etc) will affect most families far more than will gas increases.

Finally, gas guzzler owners are more likely to be more affluent, so though they may see more fuel costs than average, their income is also higher, so the relative impact is the same or less. Tight budget drivers likely moved to fuel efficient rides long before this.

myob, great points. However, I think there are two issues here you didn't mention:

1. With gas prices, regarding personal transportation, I think the issue is not so much that gas is now $4/gallon, but the (justified) fear that it might soon get to $6 ot $7/gallon. If something moves from $2/gal to $7/gal in something like 4 short years, it is a huge impact.

2. While you rightly pointed out that a lot of things increase far more than gas prices (because of BOTH inflation and oil prices), gas costs are one thing I think people feel they can control (buy switching to a more economical car when it makes economic sense to do so). There isn't much the can do about food or health care costs......

I'm not so sure about affluent people being more likely to own gas guzzlers. I live in a financially-okay neighbourhood in West Texas and I'm about the only one who doesn't own a full-size pickup or SUV. Most household have tow or more of such vehicles. I cannot honestly describe any of my neighbours as rich or affluent.
And I know many college students who drive full-size SUVs....aren't they supposed to be poor? Well, the point is that most current gas guzzler owners are not affluent.

"I find it funny that some of you nag about a persons preference when you each have your own."

Newsflash: we arent paid to evaluate cars on their merits. If we were I would think our personal preferences should remain separate from our reviews.

"Well, the point is that most current gas guzzler owners are not affluent."

It depends on the ags guzzler. Sure many middle class familes drive Tahoes and Expeditions and Explorers but there are tons of pricey gas guzzlers that are primarily driven by the well off. And that includes luxury sedans like the S550, A8 and 7 series. There is not a huge difference in city mileage between a V8 luxury car and a BOF SUV.

"interesting point bbechtel16, but I still am inclined to believe that 800 rpm burns less gas than 2300 rpm, no matter what"

Nope. If the momentum of the vehicle is pushing the engine at 2300 rpm, the injectors are completely inactive. In neutral a tiny amount of fuel is required to maintain idle speed.

However, one also has to consider that you will coast much further/faster in neutral than you will in gear thanks to engine braking. So in the real world it is a case by case basis. Basically if you're coming down a twisty grade and/or you have slow people in front of you, it's probably better to engine brake since you'll have to slow down anyway. If you're on a gentle downhill grade and can maintain the speed you'll pick up by being in neutral, then that may be more efficient.

Confession...I've been mingling with hypermilers on the Internet lately :-O But don't fear; I still can't resist the lead in my foot, I'm just doing it slightly more efficiently.

myob - your analysis is good, but you are missing the big picture. Yet you have all the puzzle pieces.

(using your numbers). While the new cost in gas is 860 dollars more.

Now add on top of that a higher food bill, and a higher energy bill.

That all adds up, and thats just for maintaing your current lifestyle.

And heres the rub, those 3 factors are all releated to energy costs, which you directly see at the fuel pump.

Your housing energy bill shows the costs, but since every month you have a different number of days, different daily energy uses, etc, its harder to see. Food is also a hidden energy cost source.

S its easier to complain about gas cost and usage, since you are directly using the product.

Lets say the inceased costs for just the gas + energy + food, add up to just 1400 dollars more a year for a family of 4.

(thats ~860 more for the gas, and 540 for both the food/energy).

Lets say you had a vacation planned, well, that 1400 might have just been your vacation fund.

Just because the incearse of your total income is small. The fact that the inceased cost is just for maintaining lifestyle is annoying/hard, since you aren't getting anything more for more money.