Sedan vs. Hatch, 1.8 vs. 1.4 = Automatic ONLY

[SabreXray]

I'd say get the hatch with the turbo. If you are worried about space, get a cruze.

To all who say the 1.8 is "close" to the 1.4t....

Not even close. The 1.4t provides a much better power band and much better efficiency compared to the 1.8. Sure the 1.8 is adequate, but the 1.4 is by far the better engine. No question about it, spend the extra 700 for the turbo....

Do you OWN both? They are very similar cars to drive. They have very similar power for normal driving. I honestly can't tell a difference in the ole butt dyno between them. I like that I have a turbo. Does it deliver much in stock form? Not so much.

Dante, where do you live? At altitude (say Denver) the turbo will make a big difference. Sea level, not so much.

 

[otbiker]

When I was buying and test driving, I drove both at two different dealerships. A total of four cars. I found all four had the weird automatic shift points and jerkiness people on the forum reported. In normal driving, I found no difference in power between the two engines. If you drive hard, the turbo is superior. One negative about the turbo was a rough idle and corse engine sound. I ended up finding a loaded 2012 LTZ that had sat on the lot for 13 months. The dealership discounted $3200 off the sticker to move it.

 

[Calculon]

have the power to pass, climb hills, or just accelerate madly to merge speed... it's simply the better engine.

I pass, climb hills and merge all the time. I never noticed any deficiency in doing so.

I think where the 1.4L is worth it if you drive a lot of miles on the freeway. There you will get better mileage and the savings can add up. In real world driving the 1.4L won't make much of a difference for most drivers in my opinion.

I would have spent the $700 for the turbo, but Chevy wouldn't let me get the 1.4L and 16" wheels. To get them I needed to bump up the LTZ, which was a lot more expensive and I don't like leatherette seating.

I thought the 5SP manual was better too, at least the few I drove. The 6SP was more notchy.

 

[dante]

Dante, where do you live? At altitude (say Denver) the turbo will make a big difference. Sea level, not so much.

Chicagoland area. The 1.8 sounds like it will be fine at this point. My feeling though is Chevrolet shot themselves in the foot by not giving the option of a 1.4 on the LS. I might have splurged $700 on the LS to acquire an American made motor if it were an option.

 

[$ub$onic]

Chicagoland area. The 1.8 sounds like it will be fine at this point. My feeling though is Chevrolet shot themselves in the foot by not giving the option of a 1.4 on the LS. I might have splurged $700 on the LS to acquire an American made motor if it were an option.

This, 1.4 in the Ls would have been nice

 

[SUPER SONIC BOOM]

Chicagoland area. The 1.8 sounds like it will be fine at this point. My feeling though is Chevrolet shot themselves in the foot by not giving the option of a 1.4 on the LS. I might have splurged $700 on the LS to acquire an American made motor if it were an option.

This, 1.4 in the Ls would have been nice

No way, Chevy ain't gonna put the 1.4T in an LS cuz all that extra torque power will rip off your arms when you go to roll the windows down or up manually lmao!

In this day & age, an LT (at least) is well worth it, the $700 for turbo is a steal imho, plus you won't even see it after it's added into your contract anyways, it literally pays for itself right away too (it really is a no brainer if you're a car person at all).

 

[Eric Smit]

No way, Chevy ain't gonna put the 1.4T in an LS cuz all that extra torque power will rip off your arms when you go to roll the windows down or up manually lmao!

In this day & age, an LT (at least) is well worth it, the $700 for turbo is a steal imho, plus you won't even see it after it's added into your contract anyways, it literally pays for itself right away too (it really is a no brainer if you're a car person at all).

if you plan on paying for it for 6 years, you won't notice it. I can tell you that it is not so cut and dry if you shorten your payments to something like 0 years, paying for it.

 

[Swordsmith]

In this day & age, an LT (at least) is well worth it, the $700 for turbo is a steal imho, plus you won't even see it after it's added into your contract anyways, it literally pays for itself right away too (it really is a no brainer if you're a car person at all).

I don't follow you here. Are you saying that if you are getting an LT, then the turbo is worth the extra $700? Because yes, I agree, that's not at all expensive for what you're getting.

Or are you saying that somehow the extra $1000 plus (Dante is apparently seeing a $1700+ upcharge for LT, before adding turbo, which is a lot bigger than the upcharge I paid) is inherently worth it? Because I can't agree with you there, I would have been perfectly happy with manual windows and the other LS trim items, the sole reason I went LT was in order to be allowed to pay $700 more for the turbo.

The turbo also doesn't pay for itself immediately even at 700, much less 2400, if it's going to pay for itself it will do so in one of two ways; slightly less fuel used over time, or higher resale value. The latter clearly only comes at the end of your use of the car, the opposite of immediate, and the former only comes gradually... and will be a long time coming for a driver who only puts 8K miles per year on the car.

Don't get me wrong, I love my turbo and wouldn't have it any other way, but for the folks who are just looking for a good inexpensive ride, and who actively want manual windows, I don't see advising them to "upgrade" to an trim which they don't want, just in order to be allowed to buy it. If there was a turbo option for the LS, yes, don't be a fool, $700 is cheap enough that the 1.8 shouldn't even be a consideration. But that combo doesn't exist, unless you buy an LS AND pay for someone to swap engines, and I bet that option isn't cheap at all, since who wants to buy your old 1.8?

 

[Swordsmith]

I pass, climb hills and merge all the time. I never noticed any deficiency in doing so.

Ah, you misunderstand me. Yes, the 1.8 has plenty of power to do all those things. The 1.4, however, is significantly more anemic and does not really do any of them well... except that the turbocharger kicks in and then it does. With the 1.8, you're driving around with all your available power all the time, even though for the most part you don't really need it, the 1.4 drives around spending less gas to cruise or even gently accelerate, but when exhaust velocities climb it starts breathing deep and burning more fuel, like a tour de france cyclist with oxygen blood doping.

The 1.8 is plenty of engine, right up there at the top of the class for power to weight among similar tier vehicles. The 1.4 is not really enough engine, except that it's also more engine than the 1.8, when you need it.

 

[dante]

While I still have to drive a couple of Sonics this weekend does anyone know of any Chevrolet representatives in the forums? I'd like to hear their take on why a LS/1.4 combo is being excluded. While I may be perfectly happy with the 1.8 I can't possibly be the only one who would be interested in a LS/1.4 if it were available. Even a "special order" configuration is better than no option at all.

 

[poncho167]

It is very easy to see why its excluded because they want you to upgrade to the LT. If you want the 16" wheel package with the LT you get a 1.8L engine because they want you to upgrade to the LTZ.

Almost all car makers will leave certain options off base models because they want you to buy the more expensive model.

 

[Swordsmith]

While I still have to drive a couple of Sonics this weekend does anyone know of any Chevrolet representatives in the forums? I'd like to hear their take on why a LS/1.4 combo is being excluded. While I may be perfectly happy with the 1.8 I can't possibly be the only one who would be interested in a LS/1.4 if it were available. Even a "special order" configuration is better than no option at all.

I would have taken LS/1.4, I do like a few features of the LT but if the choice had been LS/1.4 vs LT/1.4 I'd have gone LS, and if the choice had been LS/1.8 vs LT/1.8 I'd have gone LS. Essentially I spent $1700 on the turbo option, and I'm kind of annoyed about that. I'm enough of a car nut to think it was worth it, but I'm sure able to see that for a lot of people, if they didn't want LT options for other reasons, it really isn't. Particularly if you're looking at $2400 instead of just the $1700 I paid.

And yes, I'd have happily waited out the 4-6 weeks it would take for the special order to come in, if it saved me $1000+ and gave me good old manual windows.

 

[ShadowRS]

The 1.4 anemic? 1.8 is more refined?

If you want the cheaper car, get the base 1.8.. I don't think anyone is disagreeing there.. But saying the 1.8 is the better engine... is just outrageous......

For starters, the 1.8 automatic is rated 25/35.... the 1.4 automatic is rated 27/37..... So the 1.4 is the more efficient engine....

Second, the 1.4 makes more torque at a usable rpm than the 1.8...
"What is exciting is the way the 1.4 goes about delivering its force-induced punch. In the 1.8, peak power comes on at a lofty 6300 rpm, while peak torque doesn’t arrive until 3800 rpm. Considering the 1.8’s redline is 6500 rpm, you are forced to run it ragged trying to get moving. The turbo improves things considerably, as peak power and torque both arrive much earlier in the rev range, with horsepower hitting its stride at 4900 rpm, while all 148 pound-feet of torque come on at an low 2500 rpm."

(Winding Road | Driven: 2012 Chevrolet Sonic LTZ Turbo)

3rd, the 1.4 is way more refined than the 1.8... Read it in any review. Go see it for yourself. We got rid of our 1.8 cruze because that engine was a pile of garbage. Returned terrible fuel economy and was an all around disappointment. We didn't know that though, until we stepped into a 1.4 Cruze Eco.... Same with test driving multiple sonics until I bought my RS sonic.....

I don't get what the question is here... sedan and hatchback is a personal preference.... but the 1.4 clearly is the choice of engine. If you are in it ONLY to save money, get the 1.8.. but just know the 1.4 is the better engine in all aspects.

 

[Palmaris]

^ you misunderstand

 

[Luv2xlr8]

Reason I got a LS model was, I needed a new car with only AC and auto tranny for my baby daughter and for the wife to drive it as wel,l plus I know that I will be putting a lot mileage on it. (I got my civics if I want to do some spirited driving) I didn't care about the cd radio or 6 speakers because I knew I was going to change them in the future. I do miss one thing though, cruise control!

It would have been nice if they had the 1.4 on the base LS model, do you know how light it would have been, especially for auto crossing. Lol no sunroof, AC, cruise control, power windows, fog lights, 4 speakers, etc.... Lol

 

[$ub$onic]

I went with the Ls because it was the one on the lot for a awesome price. It was a manual with a nice radio and a sweet color. Sold!
If it was a lt turbo on the lot. I would have came home with it. But dealers around me rarely stock turbos

 

[poncho167]

Reason I got a LS model was, I needed a new car with only AC and auto tranny for my baby daughter and for the wife to drive it as wel,l plus I know that I will be putting a lot mileage on it. (I got my civics if I want to do some spirited driving) I didn't care about the cd radio or 6 speakers because I knew I was going to change them in the future. I do miss one thing though, cruise control!

It would have been nice if they had the 1.4 on the base LS model, do you know how light it would have been, especially for auto crossing. Lol no sunroof, AC, cruise control, power windows, fog lights, 4 speakers, etc.... Lol

Why not have the cruise control installed?

 

[dante]

The 1.4 anemic? 1.8 is more refined?

If you want the cheaper car, get the base 1.8.. I don't think anyone is disagreeing there.. But saying the 1.8 is the better engine... is just outrageous......

For starters, the 1.8 automatic is rated 25/35.... the 1.4 automatic is rated 27/37..... So the 1.4 is the more efficient engine....

Second, the 1.4 makes more torque at a usable rpm than the 1.8...
"What is exciting is the way the 1.4 goes about delivering its force-induced punch. In the 1.8, peak power comes on at a lofty 6300 rpm, while peak torque doesn’t arrive until 3800 rpm. Considering the 1.8’s redline is 6500 rpm, you are forced to run it ragged trying to get moving. The turbo improves things considerably, as peak power and torque both arrive much earlier in the rev range, with horsepower hitting its stride at 4900 rpm, while all 148 pound-feet of torque come on at an low 2500 rpm."

(Winding Road | Driven: 2012 Chevrolet Sonic LTZ Turbo)

3rd, the 1.4 is way more refined than the 1.8... Read it in any review. Go see it for yourself. We got rid of our 1.8 cruze because that engine was a pile of garbage. Returned terrible fuel economy and was an all around disappointment. We didn't know that though, until we stepped into a 1.4 Cruze Eco.... Same with test driving multiple sonics until I bought my RS sonic.....

I don't get what the question is here... sedan and hatchback is a personal preference.... but the 1.4 clearly is the choice of engine. If you are in it ONLY to save money, get the 1.8.. but just know the 1.4 is the better engine in all aspects.

While I still have to get my butt in a Sonic (I'll be visiting a Chevrolet dealer this Saturday) I'd have to guess the 1.8 will probably feel better in a car that is 400 pounds lighter. I'll definitely try the 1.4 out and maybe it will surprise me. On the other hand, the 1.8 has been out forever and should be bulletproof and under stressed in the lighter Sonic (500 pounds lighter?).

If the 1.4 automatic was making the same mpgs as the manual it might be no contest - 1.4 it is. But with only a 2mpg improvement in both city/highway it is going to have to really WOW me and be a night and day difference to pay the extra $2,000+.

Now that the 14 Spark's are hitting the lots I'm also tempted to see what those feel like with the new CVT just for giggles.

 

[davecerv]

I got my 13 blue Sonic LTZ hatch with the automatic 1.8 engine only because it stood out in the middle of the silver, black and white ones and was just calling my name. Sometimes I regret not going for the silver LT with the 1.4... but when I get out of work and see my beautiful blue sonic I just smile and I feel good. Big upgrade from a old nearly dead honda civic haha.

 

[poncho167]

I got my 13 blue Sonic LTZ hatch with the automatic 1.8 engine only because it stood out in the middle of the silver, black and white ones and was just calling my name. Sometimes I regret not going for the silver LT with the 1.4... but when I get out of work and see my beautiful blue sonic I just smile and I feel good. Big upgrade from a old nearly dead honda civic haha.

Either engine is a good choice. The mpg will go up the more you drive it.