A manual can actually be handy for holding a gear down hilling, but for most other situations automatics rule off road.

Manual

You asked "can an automatic be as much fun as a manual?" The short answer to that question is no.

However, if the question was different such as "which do you prefer" then you will see a lot of answers similar to those that you have already gotten.

Automatics are obviously more convenient and easier to drive than a manual. Manuals were known as a great way to create torque from an engine that may have been lacking or a great way to play with one that wasn't.

My opinion is that if you have plenty of torque and power to put to the pavement (ie my blown 67' Chevy II Nova) then I can create that driving on glass experience without the need of a manual transmission. Therefore, the car is "fun" to drive. However, if I did not have that kind of power and I was looking to create the feeling I was driving a fun sports car then I would most likely look for one with a manual transmission.

Automatic = convenience (unless you have lots of power).

Manual = more possibilities to have that sports car feeling.

Haven't driven a stick in over 10 years, and don't care to anymore.

For you guys spouting how "manly" and "more fun" it is to constantly yank on a gearshift, why not just beat off at home?

Strange that you would think one is a substitute for the other. :hmmm:
The only vehicle in my garage with an automatic transmission is Mrs. Radar’s Jeep Liberty. It’s fine for her but on the few occasions I’ve driven it, it gets on my nerves. I’ll downshift when I don’t want it too and takes too long to downshift when I do.
Recently drove a Dodge Caravan with an auto-stick transmission and I liked that I could hold a gear and downshift when I wanted but upshifting was still sending a request to an electronic nanny as the transmission wouldn’t actually shift up into the next gear until it felt like it.

This is wrong.

Manual transmissions don't actually do much (if anything) to save on gas anymore. In fact, very few people are good enough with their shift points to keep them from getting worse MPG. Either they shift too late and run the RPMs up or they shift too early and dog the motor. Either way, they're not as precise as the manual that's been computer engineered to shift at the exact right time depending on your acceleration and power needs.

Manual transmissions tend to be on shitty econoboxes that get good gas mileage, but an automatic tranmission with overdrive will easily get just as good MPG unless the motor is so underpowered that it has to downshift to stay at speed.

With engine technology allowing people to get decent power even from fuel sippers, and with computer adjustable shift points on modern automatics, there is next to no distinction between automatic and manual transmissions in terms of MPG.

That argument for manuals is dead and has been for a decade+.

As to the brakes arguments - brake pads cost $60 and over the life of your car, if you were to downshift at every single point coming up to every single stop light you might save yourself the cost of one set of brake pads. However, by using engine compression to slow your car as you downshift, you're adding wear to the seals, etc... in your motor and thus making your motor less efficient over time.

Is a manual more fun? Yeah, when you want it to be. The easy compromise situation is an auto-stick transmission paired to a flappy paddle gear shift on your steering wheel. When I want to do nothing but go home, it stays in auto. When I want to run the shit out of it, I knock the knob to the left and shift on the steering wheel.

Done and done.

Sorry but this is just incorrect.
Parasitic Horse Power Loss, everything run by the engine is taking horsepower to make it work.
Plainly put, it takes more horsepower to run an automatic transmission than a manual one.
Take two cars with equal weight, engine, gearing and aerodynamics, the only difference being that one has an automatic and the other has a manual and the manual transmission with get better gas mileage because it’s not spending horsepower to spin fluid pumps or to power shift servos.
This is why “shitty little econo boxes” are still running manuals.

The brake wear argument is that when you push in the clutch you’re mechanically disconnecting the engine from the rest of the drive line so the engine isn’t still trying to push the vehicle forward while brakes are applied.
I’m sure the extra engine RPM’s could accelerate engine wear but mostly using engine compression for braking just wasteful of gas as you’re spending money in the form of gas to decelerate when the brakes are perfectly capable of doing the same job.

I drove a vehicle recently with an AT that had an option to manually shift 1-6.

In my car (small convertible), it seems like a person should have a manual. Plus, it seems like a manual may be a little more flexible in snow and stuff. But in stop and go traffic, an automatic is sure nice.

I've never understood why manual is considered "fun." I'm not a car guy obviously.

I see those in rental cars but I'm never sure what to do with them.

That’s what I meant by “auto stick”. It’s an automatic but it has a mode that allows the driver to select the gear by moving the shifter either forward or back to up or downshift.

Grab a sports car and hit a windy canyon road. Stick wins everytime

Stuck in bumper to bumper traffic on 405. Auto wins everytime

I think DJ is right here. The difference in parasitic loss is what 18% for an auto and 15% for manual, that measly 3% is easily made up by a computer controlled trans. This argument was true 25 years ago when the auto's were power glides and TH400's. Today's autos are VERY efficient, If manuals truly were more efficient you would see them in cars like the Prius that ONLY come in an auto.