No, there's nothing weird about it, but the stories about why they are better are pretty much entirely down to "well I like it better." Okay, that's fine.
But statistically, CAFE standards aren't being met by manuals, but by automatics and other advanced drivetrains. People can yell "but physics!" all they want, but the aggregate data is showing clearly that manual drivetrains are not the path towards increased efficiency. So clearly physics are favoring non-manuals.
As I said, high end automatics can outperform manuals in lab conditions. This is because obviously they can choose to perfectly and optimally shit up and down gears in a lab better than a human can.
That does not mean that they can do so in real life. A human knows what conditions they are driving in. A human knows if they need to stop in 50ft, a human has all kinds of intelligence about upcoming torque requirements that a gear box simply doesn't. So I am highly doubtful that "physics are favouring non-manuals" because an automatic is not a magical device that can somehow know these things.
I'm surprised that people are suddenly treating emission labs as sources of factual accuracy considering recent events.
So that's efficiency. You can dismiss the superiority of manual for driving on gravel, snow, ice or anywhere as "I like it better" but frankly it is consensus that driving on a manual gives more control.
Consider that if an automatic gave better control, then in situations where control is very important, such as, I don't know, rally driving, people would use automatics. But they don't. Because it doesn't. This isn't "I like it better" - if automatics were better there would be a huge competitive advantage to using them and manual drivers would be outcompeted and swiftly become history.
Having more control isn't something everyone values: some people would rather focus on where they are going than the process of getting there. By that metric automatics are far better.
Absolutely. I'm not saying manuals are better. Like any technology choice there's a trade-off. In this case the trade-off is it makes driving a car less complex, which is good, at the cost of some other things.
I just find it curious the notion from some Americans that driving a manual is inherently old fashioned and thus inferior in every way. Maybe it is a technology bubble thing as well.
But statistically, CAFE standards aren't being met by manuals, but by automatics and other advanced drivetrains. People can yell "but physics!" all they want, but the aggregate data is showing clearly that manual drivetrains are not the path towards increased efficiency. So clearly physics are favoring non-manuals.