Perhaps already posted but I got this link from a friend at work who knows I ordered a sonic.
Bottom Line - Review: Chevy Sonic boasts flair of a sportbike
it reported a slugglish throttle response.
anyone hear that anywhere else?
msnbc review
- Thread starter beaslbob
- Start date
Perhaps already posted but I got this link from a friend at work who knows I ordered a sonic.
Bottom Line - Review: Chevy Sonic boasts flair of a sportbike
it reported a slugglish throttle response.
anyone hear that anywhere else?
Sonic Boomer
New member
The CNET review sounded disappointed with the Sonic's power as well.
I guess it is relative to what you are used to.
I don't give these reviews much credence on comments like that. The bottom line is every review that measured acceleration got 8.2 seconds to go from 0 to 60. The car magazines considered that pretty zippy (and best of the class, IIRC). I generally consider anything under 10 seconds comfortable and under 8.5 is very much "ample" power in my book.
As for the MSNBC review, it says:
"Also un-motorcycle-like: sluggish, indifferent throttle response that lags disappointingly on the application and churns onward after lifting off the gas with the inertia of a temporary government program."
Certainly in the context of a motorcycle it has slow response and the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if MSNBC wants to help along the prophecy that the government involvement will be the death of GM (I have no idea if that is what MSNBC believes - I do know Fox is hyping it).
I have only driven the 1.8L and I was happy with the power from it.
In the case of either the CNET or MSNBC review, if you do not take measurements, several factors can alter perceptions of a cars power.
First this is a very quiet car, so you do not hear (or have) the exhaust note (of, say, a muscle car) to reinforce the experience.
Second, my reading about this car indicates that the turbo's torque comes pretty full-on at lower rpms which could give a steady strong acceleration instead of having the secondary push you back in the seat that most small cars have when they hit the higher rpm's.
Third and last, This car may be a dog off of the line for all I know. I have yet to see a power curve, but, before the turbo spools up, you only have a normally aspirated 1.4L engine pushing a relatively heavy (for it's class) car. The 1.8 should be quicker for the first few feet until the 1.4L's turbo gets in the game.
Like I said, I'll put my trust in Car & Driver, Edmunds (Inside Track), Motor Trend, and Road & Track for performance evaluations.
Reviews from CNET and MSNBC are worth reading for their perspective on features, style, and comfort.
Last edited:
laborsmith
New member
Turbo lag. You get it no matter how low the boost is set to come on. One of the reasons I prefer supercharging to turbocharging.
But as the Sonic does not offer a supercharged version and does offer a turbocharged version, turbo it shall be.
My experience, a 1990 Eagle Talon Tsi AWD for turbocharged; a 2003 RSM installed Vortech 5 Cavalier and a 2005 Cobalt SS/SC for supercharged.
There are good arguments to support the use of each and the negative for supercharger is it a power parasite and the negative for the turbocharger is the turbo lag.
Laborsmith
But as the Sonic does not offer a supercharged version and does offer a turbocharged version, turbo it shall be.
My experience, a 1990 Eagle Talon Tsi AWD for turbocharged; a 2003 RSM installed Vortech 5 Cavalier and a 2005 Cobalt SS/SC for supercharged.
There are good arguments to support the use of each and the negative for supercharger is it a power parasite and the negative for the turbocharger is the turbo lag.
Laborsmith
Last edited:
Sonic Boomer
New member
Roger that!
