higher

Hi Everyone
My question is what is real world fuel consumption like on the auto vs the manual
I am about to buy an E61. I have two shortlisted, a manual and an auto. both 520d. 177bhp, Europe model.
Can't afford the 3.0 and 4.0 engines our US colleagues enjoy with fuel over $4.5 per gallon in Eutope (little Jelous about that)
The published stats say the auto is 0.1 second slower than the manual (ie; not slower at all)
But the manial will do 85miles more per tank full of fuel than the auto, which is a lot more miles over a year of fuelling
So far poeple I talk to like the auto much more for some reason, but resale of manuals is also strong.
Any help or guidance very much appreciated.
Thanks.

v_therussian

I have a petrol engine, so I can't attest completely to this being true, but in my case fuel economy is about the same with manual as what other members have reported on here with Autos. It is marginally better, but if you prefer the Auto, IMHO, it is not really worth the difference. Again, I have a petrol engine car with a manual (530Xi to be exact).

swajames

Fuel economy really depends on how the car is driven, not the transmission. I also feel that despite the official statistics, most drivers will be faster, most of the time, in the auto. Most of us simply aren't comfortable putting the drivetrain through the stresses needed to get the "magazine times" with a manual transmission whereas the ZF boxes allow most of us to more easily extract the performance potential of our cars. It really boils down to which one makes you happiest.