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

[dante]

The Sonic is right up there as a replacement vehicle for me but I have a few questions.

The first I want to start by saying that this will be an Automatic ONLY purchase. Please don't come to this thread trying to correct the error of my ways - it won't work.

Sedan Vs. Hatch:

I'm 99.9% certain I will go with the sedan. Other than the obvious differences like trunk vs. hatch and aesthetics is there any reason to pick the hatch over the sedan?

1.8 vs. 1.4

So this is where I might need a test drive but I'm interested in the theoretical stuff first like ...

My commute is mostly 20 miles a day at around 45-50mph with not a lot of stop and go. Am I likely to see a huge fuel economy improvement on the 1.4 vs. the 1.8?

I should let you know that I'm leaning towards the LS due to:

1) $$$, cheaper
2) No power windows ... strange but I like this
3) Along with #2, no CD player. Just very back to the basics.
4) While it may require a timing belt I put less than 8,000 miles on my car per year which would delay this.

Is the 1.8 / Automatic really THAT terrible? I don't ever see myself taking it on the highway except for very rare situations. It can't be any worse than say the Spark w/ 4 speed can it?

 

[$ub$onic]

1) the only engine you can get in the Ls is the 1.8

2) I prefer my hatch, love it. Tons of room

3) I have a 12 Ls 5 speed with a upgraded radio. I love it. I got power locks. That is all I need. The 1.8 is a good motor and will not do you wrong. And for a daily driver it's not a bad car at all. Don't let the whole 1.8 sucks thing fool you. The 1.4 is the better motor for modifying because of the turbo. I love my 1.8, it has plenty if power to haul you around

 

[ecohauler]

Isn't the hatchback a little lighter (more efficient for city driving) and more aerodynamically efficient than the sedan? I can quickly confirm that the hatch is slightly lighter, by 37 lbs. (source: cars.com). I can't seem to find data on each vehicle's drag coefficient, but experience has taught me that the gentle slope of the hatchback is better than the relatively sudden drop on the sedan.

Whether either is something you'll notice or that will significantly impact your life is up to you to figure out. If you don't need the vehicle to carry fairly large items like I do, the sedan is just fine, but for me the hatchback is well worth the extra $600 sticker price, even if it's not noticeably more efficient.

 

[poncho167]

1.8L is a very good motor. From what I have read there is not that big of a difference in mileage between the two.

The sedan is a better value because it costs less and is larger by 13". I would have gotten the sedan if I had the extra room for it in the garage.

 

[SabreXray]

I have one of each. I like my turbo hatch. Wifey's 1.8 sedan is very similar. (Both autos). I know she gets better mileage than I do by 2 or 3 mpg, but I drive harder than she does. I have driven the sedan, unmodified the two engines feel the same, if anything the 1.8 runs smoother.

 

[grayback]

if the HB was available in our country, i will definitely go for it. but unfortunately only sedans are available..

 

[Stew]

First off Dante, for someone who's been a member of this forum since Nov 2011, please try to keep your post count down would you? That is just way too many!

Now on to more serious matters... With your lower mileage driving and driving profile, it sounds like it will be mostly a wash either way. You should get whatever one strikes you the most and maybe try not to boil it down to an exact science. Go with your heart, so to speak.

 

[SUPER SONIC BOOM]

Hatch+Auto+Turbo+LT=:banana:

^Can't really go wrong with this combo $ wise!

 

[Palmaris]

In response to the Hatch vs. Sedan question. I have the hatch and I like the versatility and there is lots of room in the car (with the seats flat). For this reason, I always have the seats flat. If I had a family and had to have someone always sitting in the rear seats, a sedan would look much more attractive.

Also, if you only drive 8000 miles a year, save yourself the money and get the LS.

 

[ungawd]

For short commutes like yours I strongly feel that the 1.8 will yield better gas mileage. From my experiences thus far with the 1.4t, the engine's efficiency is great once it hits peak temperature but mediocre if not. With casual 5-10 mile trips my mpg is 30-33 at best. On longer trips like my commute, 30+ miles one way, I get 35+ driving mildly aggressive. The 1.8, while being slightly less efficient on longer drives should be more consistent overall. Colder outside temperatures may have a greater adverse affect on the 1.4t as well.

 

[ColonelPanic]

The lack of cargo space in the hatchback with the rear seats up was an instant disqualification for the hatchback. If you can fold the seats down, then it is great - but we need the rear seats for our four legged children to ride. And not to offend the hatchback fans, but the hatchback just wasn't our cup of tea styling-wise.

The sedan's trunk capacity exceeds that of several larger compact cars. The trunk is very deep -- so if you need a lot of space for longer items and still have use of the rear seats, that's definitely the way to go. You just can't haul the bulky items as easily.

We have the 1.4 and automatic, it's a pretty competent powertrain aside from some jerky shifts with the automatic which appear to be a common characteristic for this transmission. I haven't driven the 1.8 but on paper that is plenty of displacement and power for a car of this size. It wasn't long ago that cars in this class had <110 HP. I didn't want another car with a timing belt (though GM's 97,500 mile replacement interval is generous) so the turbo won by default. I don't use the power, I just try to milk as much efficiency as I can out of it. So far so good.

Since you want a more basic car, the LS does sound like the one for you. At 8,000 miles a year, I doubt you'll have much opportunity to miss the things the LT and above have.

 

[dante]

Thanks for all the input. Unfortunately today's "honey do" list kept me from visiting a dealership but I will check them out next week.

I'm 99% there on the 4dr/LS/6AT. I just have to take it for a spin and see if it is satisfactory. Quite a few reviews outside this website have poopoo'ed the 1.8 automatic almost to the point where they act like you are going to risk your life with driving such an anemic powertrain. I grew up on a 80hp Ford Escort with 4 speed auto and never had life threatning experiences with them so I'm sure this will do quite well.

 

[Calculon]

It's not like either is a sports car. I have the 1.8L and am plenty happy with it. You can hit 80MPH by the end of the freeway ramp if you floor it

 

[$ub$onic]

It's not like the 1.8 is underpowered in the sonic. It just easier to make big power with the 1.4

 

[SUPER SONIC BOOM]

I would take the extra torque of the turbo anyday, NA sucks balls (to me anyways). All my vehicles will have turbo from now on, once you feel it you're hooked for life (this is my third & I don't intend to ever stop)!

 

[poncho167]

Thanks for all the input. Unfortunately today's "honey do" list kept me from visiting a dealership but I will check them out next week.

I'm 99% there on the 4dr/LS/6AT. I just have to take it for a spin and see if it is satisfactory. Quite a few reviews outside this website have poopoo'ed the 1.8 automatic almost to the point where they act like you are going to risk your life with driving such an anemic powertrain. I grew up on a 80hp Ford Escort with 4 speed auto and never had life threatning experiences with them so I'm sure this will do quite well.

If you leave the 1.4L out of the discussion, then the 1.8L is the most powerful entry level engine in its class. I have a 1.4L and its very over-rated.

Test drive a 1.8L and you will not be disappointed. The timing belt service is recommended every 90,000 miles and is a do-it-yourselfer if you are mechanically inclined.

 

[ShadowRS]

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....

 

[ShadowRS]

Also, the 1.4t is hyped up because it IS a great engine. It makes roughly 100 horse power per liter, class leading torque, and provides high 30's to 40 mpg on the highway depending on configuration. Not to mention a very satisfying driving experience, accessible power, and a steadily growing after market.

 

[dante]

... No question about it, spend the extra 700 for the turbo....

For my situation this is incorrect.

Sedan LS 1.8 6AT = $15,590
Sedan LT 1.4 6AT = $17,935

Difference = $2,345

The LT comes with a bunch of crap that I don't care about or want to pay for. And while the 1.4 may get slightly better fuel economy that $2,345 will not only buy a lot of gas but pay for a timing belt as well.

 

[Swordsmith]

For an auto enthusiast, the 1.4 is definitely worth the extra money if you can scrape it together. But the truth is, the vast majority of drivers, and particularly drivers like yourself, won't really see much difference between the two. If you were looking at an LT, the difference would be only $700, and I'd strongly advise spending the extra money, you get better mpg when driving sensibly, and have the power to pass, climb hills, or just accelerate madly to merge speed... it's simply the better engine.

BUT you're a prime candidate for the 1.8, because you are going to be perfectly happy in an LS, which means the price difference is much larger. There's no reason it has to be this way, there's nothing about the 1.4T that precludes it going in a car with manual windows, but Chevy has decided to refuse to allow that combination, and so they have, in my opinion, lost you and people like you as upgrade contenders.

The 1.8 is a nice engine, plenty for the Sonic. The 1.4 is frankly too small, even though it is offered in some overseas markets, but the turbocharged version of the 1.4 makes up for that, giving you the same peak power and substantially more torque than the 1.8 on demand, while letting you drive around with an anemic (and therefor less fuel hungry) engine most of the time. It also benefits far more from modding than does the 1.8. But you don't intend to do any modding, don't really need the added power for your intended use of the car, so that isn't really an important point.

The hatchback is a little lighter, but at the sacrifice of cargo space. I prefer it because the nature of the cargo I carry, big and long boxes, means the hatch entrance works a lot better for me, and because I rarely have both cargo and passengers, so I can fold the seats flat and have a large semi-cubical space. I've been astonished at how good a cargo vehicle the little Sonic HB is, really, much more than I expected. And it has been great for passengers as well, my 6'4" son can fit in any seat including the back center, we often put five people in the car and none of them are small. With passengers though, cargo space is practically nonexistent.

Finally, the automatic. I know you said not to talk about it. But the truth is... if I had it to do over again, I'd get the automatic. I've been driving stick for 32 years, and never thought I would say this, but the "manual mode" automatics have really advanced to the point where my complaint that I can't choose "more power" sometimes, "better economy" other times the way I can with a manual is really dead in the water. All a true manual gives you now is the ability to sneer a little at the wimpy automatic drivers... and at this point, if I had the M auto, I'd be sneering at the stuck in the past manual drivers.

Get your auto LS Sedan, enjoy all that extra cash, and the great little car the Sonic is.