Automatic transmission 'learn driver habit' multiplies the above, and yet everybody in this discussion ignores it. CVT comes closer to efficiency of manual, but it's not popular because "the car just doesn't have the power on demand dude".
This subject is a horse beaten to death, and then to a pulp, where people that have sporadic and rather incomplete knowledge, write novels based on what was on the car sale pitch.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2015_Scion_FR-S.shtm...
Now, perhaps this doesn't accurately represent real world driving conditions but nonetheless, physics notwithstanding, it does suggest that an automatic can be more efficient using standard measurements.
I see two explanations for this:
1) They're all lying
2) Technological progress has finally caught up to a system that is bounded by human skill and hand-foot-coordination.
(I'm betting on technology, are you betting on the human?)
All other points I mentioned - you don't care about neither. Just bashing swedish system because you don't like it from you own personal view (if you cannot skip gear and whine about it, you are complete beginner, there ARE good reasons they have it and it happens in real world). My opinion might be biased since I always drove manuals for my own car, and rental automats have been consistently horrible/mkay boring at most (this includes latest Porsche and Ferrari 458 btw)
And yet you didn't refute a single one of them, and only offered subjective preferences and personal anecdotes.
You like driving a manual. Bless your heart. Modern automatics still accelerate faster and are more fuel efficient than manuals. Just take a look at what the car manufacturers themselves report.