Test drove a Sonic Sedan LT 1.8 Auto
Also, The headliner was loose agaisnt the roof of the car and the interior looked and felt cheap, you could push it up about an inch, it feels like it could fall on the backseat passangers. The horn was not like the Cruze and not very loud, also sounded cheap. Rpm's were at 2500 at 70mph crusing on the interstate. I did get 30 MPG for my 30 mile trip in the Sonic overall. It should of done 40mpg. My wifes 2010 CRV 4WD gets 28 MPG overall.
The drivers was not firm and as I was sitting in it, my left side felt lower, which made me think the seat was ackward in position, felt like it was sinking or caving into the left and I'm only 178 lbs and 5'7. The Cruze seats feel very firm and tight. The sonic seats also felt like they took a page from the HHR design as they were short (not really comfortable) and after the 30 mile trip my right leg hamstring hurt, which in the Cruze it did'nt.
I wish I could of be more impressed with the Sonic.
Maybe I should take a 50 mile test drive in a Hatchback and see if the results are different?
What do you think?
@Sonicchef,
Wow! Hey thanks for your review.
I test drove an LT Sedan 1.8L Auto the other day and at first I felt a little let down.
I didn't like how low I sat. But the next day I found out about the "Seat Height Adjustment" feature & came back to try it. What A 100% improvement!! Much, much, better!
I also thought the transmission shifted a little too soon for my tastes, but I understand if it's to get the BEST fuel milage.
I can see from a marketing point-of-view on hyping the 40mpg, but GM made it feel like that was going to be the entry-level standard, not what you would get if you buy the top-of-the-line model. GM should have tagged a disclaimer that the 40mpg would only be on the 1.4L Turbo 6-speed manual from the start.
I only drove the Sonic around the block and in doing so I had to try to put everything in perspective. This is an "entry level" car (albeit, I am curious on the arrival of the Spark next year). I didn't notice any problems that you mentioned above (but then again, I didn't look either).
I use to have a 2000 Chevy Metro Hatchback Auto once & thought the Sonic was built much better.
I tried sitting in the Sonic's back seat (I'm 5'11"), and I thought it was adequate for a subcompact.
Personally, I think one problem GM has is how the Sonic is being marketed. The interior colors are so "blah" inside. The gray is so 'ho-hum' that I think it reinforces that cheap feeling. There also needs to be a wider variety in exterior colors too. GM should have offered Blue right from the start. Even Green and a dark coco Brown would help too. If they're going for the younger crowd, I think they need to splash it up a bit.
In an earlier review on the interior instruments, I said I wasn't too thrilled but I would need to see it personally before rendering a verdict. Well, now that I've seen it, it's not as bad as I originally thought. I still think some gauges (digital or analog) on water temperature, voltmeter, oil pressure, would have been a nice option.
And while I may be a minority, the OnStar touch-screen interactive GPS display map with "Destination Download" like the one that's available on the 2012 Cruze, would have also been an option. It may push the price up an extra grand, but it gives the buyer a choice.
So far, the Sonic has met my expectation. I'll be waiting to look over the hatchback as that's the model I ordered.
-Tom
