manuals are still inherently more efficient than fluid couplings, and they are going to weigh 60-150 lbs less than a traditional automatic or dual clutch transmission. also the "small cost difference" is $1000 or more on all the new cars I've looked at recently.

They may be inherently more efficient, all else being equal, but ... all else is not equal. Automatics now get better fuel efficiency than manuals, so expect the trend of automatics taking over to continue.

i would like to see a source on this. i often see DCT or CVT versions of a car that are more efficient, but afaik, traditional fluid coupling automatics still have a hard time beating a manual transmission in the same car.

It's reached the point the inefficiency of humans reduces the overall fuel economy of a manual to equal or below a modern automatic

https://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/18/greenlings-why-do-automa...

Modern automatics spend very little time with the fluid coupling. They engage a lockup converter as soon as possible. Combine that with more gears and a computer choosing the shift points, and they are now more efficient than a manual transmission. It's been that way for perhaps the last 10 years or so.

Want a source? Start perusing the manufacturer specs and fuelly pages for cars that still have both options.

Traditional fluid-coupling automatics are not the only ones on the market. A lot of cars now have dual-clutch automatics, and there are others that combine a fluid coupling with a computer-controlled clutch.

Fuel economy tests in many different countries have confirmed that automatic transmission can indeed be more efficient than the manual transmission in the same car.

Isn't that because of the new generation of CVT and DSG automatics?

I don't think so. At this point, honestly, the modern slushbox outperforms CVTs and DSGs as well (though perhaps not the Porsche Tiptronic, which might still be faster). Modern automatics shift extremely fast, routinely have 8 or more gears, and have lockup torque converters that don't just lockup in overdrive on the freeway, but basically as soon as you're going more than a few mph.

As a die-hard manual enthusiast I persist in buying manuals for myself, but for the last 5-10 years I have had to grudgingly admit that I have no claim to performance or efficiency, I only do it because I like to drive manuals. If I cared about speed or MPG, I'd get an automatic.

You may be right about the numbers in Europe but it certainly is the case in Italy where automatic cars are nowhere to be seen (except some luxury sedans). I’ll argue this is because is way more fun to drive a manual transmission.

Aren't most Italian exotics DSGs these days?

I wasn’t talking about high end italian cars, I was talking about cars most people use in Italy. Last time I was there I forgot my driving license and was traveling with a friend from the US, we had to rent an automatic Volvo S60 for twice the price of a manual VW or fiat (automatic is rare and in premium cars)

That's an insane price difference. In Switzerland I rented an automatic (for a family member not comfortable with a manual) for only about 10% more, and they had multiple decent options. I suspect automatics may be more common here, though, particularly in the future as electric cars are gaining popularity.

Actually, a lot of cheaper VW group cars now come with the option of DSGs (just ordered a Skoda with a DSG).