[Boldred25]

I currently drive a 2000W Saab 9-5 2.3t automatic, and love the gearbox. It's happily done 102,000 miles now, but it is super comfortable for 4, but it's surprisingly difficult to get 3 car seats across the back.

I am currently looking at a Ford S-Max for my growing family. I've taken both the 2.0l Diesel Manual, and the Auto in the same engine for a test drive. I liked both, but prefer the Auto.

In financial terms, the Auto for the same car is £55 more per year on the vehicle tax, and taking the quoted mpg (47mpg for the manual, 38mpg Auto), if I do say 6000 miles per year, the additional cost of running an Auto over the manual is approx. £200 pa including the tax.

This isn't massive, but it isn't peanuts either. What is the actual reality of these mpg's? Is it actually quite difficult to drive a manual at the quoted mpg, and with normal driving actually get better mpg than quoted with the Auto?

With my green hat on, the lower emissions, better mpg etc. is making me lean toward the manual despite preferring the auto...

[Sonic67]

Quoted mpg figures are done under laboratory conditions. A rolling road inside a building or something. In the real world you won't get as good a figure but it means a level playing field when comparing cars.

[shahedz]

i'm a poor driver and over rev a lot. i actually think an auto gearbox would save me money in petrol!

[DVD-Man]

The auto is higher on tax due to the emissions as it's heavier.

Is this the 2.0 TDCI? Auto is tempting given the ease, if your not fussed about mpg I'd go for the auto or if your only getting the S-Max because you can't fit 3 car seats in a Prius then go for the manual.

Liam