Why did you buy a Sonic?
- Thread starter barch88
- Start date
Insanika
Super Moderator
I didn't get to try an ST.. With the features I knew I wanted in a car, it was beyond what I was wanting to pay. I knew also from watching videos online that if I DID drive one, I'd be too tempted. The Focus I drove was 4k more than I paid for my RS and it still wasn't what I wanted.
I also considered the WRX hatch and MazdaSpeed hatch etc, the usual suspects in the hot hatch world. Decided for the price point I could have everything in the RS vs giving up things on the others to keep price within range.
I also considered the WRX hatch and MazdaSpeed hatch etc, the usual suspects in the hot hatch world. Decided for the price point I could have everything in the RS vs giving up things on the others to keep price within range.
laborsmith
New member
That was Swordsmith. My research was quite limited. I wanted a Made In Michigan vehicle and as I spent over twenty five years of my adult life living in north Oakland County, the Sonic was a no brainer for me, especially as some of those years I lived in Lake Orion, just a few miles north of the Orion Assembly plant.
Laborsmith
Macehammer
New member
To start, don't read this reply as part of some type of flame or troll war I'm trying to start: it's not, just a mere discussion...
They aren't vastly different. They are cars. It's not apples to oranges. Maybe it's oranges to tangerines, but really it's comparing one car to another.
The Golf R starts out at 34k. The Sonic RS 21k-ish. Is that a price difference? Yes. But it's not a total paradigm shift, or anything. If I was gonna step up from a Sonic RS, it wouldn't be to a GTI or a Focus ST because what you get isn't worth the cost compared to the Sonic, that with a few mods if you are inclined is approaching Golf R HP with less weight and a lot less $$. So stepping up from the Sonic, if I wanted a hatch I would look at a Golf R, performance wise. But it's MPG sucks. So it was worth considering that along with the 13k added sticker price.
Why not get a WRX/STI? Or an Evo? I dunno. I guess the thought never really entered my mind. I find the Evo to be generally unattractive. For some reason it reminds me of an SRT4. I dunno why. And that then reminds me of a Neon, which I would be less inclined to purchase than a new VW Bug, which while has improved with the last restyle still might be a little immasculating... Like a neon is immasculating. I know I went down a rabbit hole here... The WRX? Well, my father-in-law drives an Impreza. Maybe I'll think about being a grandfather sometime over the next few decades. When I do, maybe I'll be a fast grandpa in a WRX/STI...
Why not get the GTI? Because you simply don't get what you pay for. Might as well go back and spring for the Golf R. I have the money. I ultimately decided I wouldn't waste it on this iteration of vehicle, for me. Maybe next time I'll buy a Camaro, a Land Rover, or a Prius... Whatever suits my wants/needs/budget at the time.
ahtoxa
New member
No flame war at all, Macehammer. I'm trying to understand your reasoning while typing out my own.
Speaking of the price difference of RS and R - 13k. I think when you're comparing cars at this overall price level this is as close to a paradigm shift as you're going to get class-wise. While 13k might not be much of a difference when you're buying a 250k dollar car, it surely puts you in an entirely different class of a vehicle, which aims at an entirely different buyer. 13k is about 61% increase of cost - that certainly buys you a whole lot more of a car.
My logic and way of thinking is such: if I were out shopping in the price range of the R and I found the R to be unsatisfactory in some areas - whichever - I would probably remain in this price range while considering other vehicles, granted finances aren't an issue. There are vehicles that are overall better than the Sonic at that price, but to your point, they might not be the better overall value when you compare dollar per dollar. I think this is what you saw when you made your decision, as I would have made it based on which car was better in the categories that matter to me (power, drivetrain and driving performance rather than overall previously mentioned value).
Speaking of the price difference of RS and R - 13k. I think when you're comparing cars at this overall price level this is as close to a paradigm shift as you're going to get class-wise. While 13k might not be much of a difference when you're buying a 250k dollar car, it surely puts you in an entirely different class of a vehicle, which aims at an entirely different buyer. 13k is about 61% increase of cost - that certainly buys you a whole lot more of a car.
My logic and way of thinking is such: if I were out shopping in the price range of the R and I found the R to be unsatisfactory in some areas - whichever - I would probably remain in this price range while considering other vehicles, granted finances aren't an issue. There are vehicles that are overall better than the Sonic at that price, but to your point, they might not be the better overall value when you compare dollar per dollar. I think this is what you saw when you made your decision, as I would have made it based on which car was better in the categories that matter to me (power, drivetrain and driving performance rather than overall previously mentioned value).
Wanted something in the 25 to 30 mpg range for commuting to work. And it had to be a Chevy. Cruze was out of my price range. Found my 2012 1.8 LT Sedan on the dealer lot with 3k miles. Was used as a dealer loaner. Was treated as a new vehicle from an incentive perspective ( got a finance deal and was able to use GM card points / bonus points ) plus saved almost 2k off sticker. Like the gas mileage and drivability, hate the driver's seat ( uncomfortable). Overall, a nice commuter car.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Macehammer
New member
@ahtoxa
I think you are getting a good part of my reasoning, whether or not you would apply it in your own reasoning... To each their own, right?
Also, a really BIG sticking point I have with the current few years of cars that ALL MANUFACTURERS have made is the downright sh*tty MPG. I'm pretty sure Chevy(GEO labeled??) had at least a few years of the Metro in the 1990s that got 45-50 mpg highway on normal gas. Its been 14-20 years. They aren't pushing the envelope enough, and in a sport-hatch (not that the Metro was sold as a sport-hatch.. But some people turned them into one) I think they need to be aiming for average 40 MPG highway, not the abysmal mid-20s that most sport-hatches get.
I know some engineering student here is gonna poke at that comment with garbage about drag, physics, and emissions ratings, and they can try to inflate me via my genitals. We put a man on the moon in the 60s and have shoved our thumbs up our asses since. They just need to figure it out... ... so the MPG on the 200-300 HP engines needs to stretch. So I opted out hoping the new standards about to be enacted help force that... And I'll spend the money on that class of car afterwards...
I think you are getting a good part of my reasoning, whether or not you would apply it in your own reasoning... To each their own, right?
Also, a really BIG sticking point I have with the current few years of cars that ALL MANUFACTURERS have made is the downright sh*tty MPG. I'm pretty sure Chevy(GEO labeled??) had at least a few years of the Metro in the 1990s that got 45-50 mpg highway on normal gas. Its been 14-20 years. They aren't pushing the envelope enough, and in a sport-hatch (not that the Metro was sold as a sport-hatch.. But some people turned them into one) I think they need to be aiming for average 40 MPG highway, not the abysmal mid-20s that most sport-hatches get.
I know some engineering student here is gonna poke at that comment with garbage about drag, physics, and emissions ratings, and they can try to inflate me via my genitals. We put a man on the moon in the 60s and have shoved our thumbs up our asses since. They just need to figure it out... ... so the MPG on the 200-300 HP engines needs to stretch. So I opted out hoping the new standards about to be enacted help force that... And I'll spend the money on that class of car afterwards...
dkennedy1989
Member
I was looking at the focus st, and it was what I really wanted. But I didn't like how high payments where on it. The ST came out to 30k with the options I wanted, then I came across the sonic and loved it even more, coated 21k fully loaded with better mpgs, and also fiancé liked that it was cheaper for both payments and insurance.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
GeneralZod
New member
This price range stuff drives me nuts. It is a car seller's dream. I was looking into the Camaro. Saw the Sonic and test drove some of the Sonic's competition. Going down in price is easier. I have kept an eye on the Sonic LE1 since preproduction.
Why a Sonic over a Camaro? Price and daily driving. It all started out as the ATS vs. the Camaro. I drive almost 30k miles a year. It would ethically hurt to put those mule miles on an ATS or Camaro. My Sonic has another year of payments and done. That wouldn't be the case with the others.
Now, the VW issue. I owned VWs... They aren't cheap with options. Especially if you can't turn a wrench. I can and still found their cost a bit obnoxious. Drove the GTI. Not impressed. Brother-in-law owns a GTI. He loves my car. Look in this forum. I keep seeing VW owners. Even some from the TDI forum. You have hardcore people that jumped ship.
Any day of the week I would save 13k over a small margin of refinement and a lack of options from a status ride.
Yeah, I weep a tad when I see an ATS or SS Camaro on my commute. But, a lateral skid through EZ Pass giving the cam a thumbs up in the wife's car makes that all go away.
Back to kneeling before diapers...
GeneralZod
New member
Physics, genitals, moon...
With that out of the way. One word, emissions. The Metro died as a result of emissions and a flavoring of crash safety.
I might have to post what I did to a Pinto that I bought as a goof years ago. It was getting around 40 mpg after mods. Oh, and I found a great Yahoo forum called Junk Yard Turbos.
And it isn't all about the hard science side either. There is the human factor. Few would pay for the tech to get a current sonic over 50mpg.
ahtoxa
New member
Cars have become safer and far more efficient than they have been. Power per liter has also increased. However, the cars have also become quite a bit heavier and weight kills MPG. Sure, you can get 50 mpg in a 1983 VW Rabbit diesel, but it has glacial acceleration (N/A diesel) and truly is a tin-can safety-wise and amenity-wise.
Macehammer
New member
These are exactly the excuses I've been looking for. :/
Back on topic, for the money, the Sonic is a damn fine car.
Back on topic, for the money, the Sonic is a damn fine car.
ahtoxa
New member
In that case you've come across these facts before.
ICE in an of itself is inherently inefficient - there's a lot of energy lost to heat. Proportionally speaking (weight/power/mpg) there have certainly been many improvements.
Consider this. Yes - there have been cars in the past that have hit 50 mpg (diesel and gas line - i.e. 80s VW diesels and 80s CRX HF). The ICE technology and efficiency couldn't have degenerated, right? So the impeding factor is weight, as I mentioned.
Sorry for thread hijack.
ICE in an of itself is inherently inefficient - there's a lot of energy lost to heat. Proportionally speaking (weight/power/mpg) there have certainly been many improvements.
Consider this. Yes - there have been cars in the past that have hit 50 mpg (diesel and gas line - i.e. 80s VW diesels and 80s CRX HF). The ICE technology and efficiency couldn't have degenerated, right? So the impeding factor is weight, as I mentioned.
Sorry for thread hijack.
Macehammer
New member
I would say the science is the science, but I'm not gonna comment so far as to say the industry hasn't necessarily taken steps backward in the efficiency game on purpose. Remember the SUV era?
Without access to a wind tunnel, sophisticated measuring equipment and a big study cross-cutting vehicle types the data isn't at hand, so I'll conditionally accept the idea that cars have grown a fat a$$. It is a reasonable assumption, to a certain point.
Ultimately I don't care if more efficient gas engines, better performing alternative fuel engines, aerodynamics, weight, or anything need to be improved. It's the manufacturers job. They can always do better. Its our job to demand more. Otherwise you get what you get, and you might as well settle for any pos.
Without access to a wind tunnel, sophisticated measuring equipment and a big study cross-cutting vehicle types the data isn't at hand, so I'll conditionally accept the idea that cars have grown a fat a$$. It is a reasonable assumption, to a certain point.
Ultimately I don't care if more efficient gas engines, better performing alternative fuel engines, aerodynamics, weight, or anything need to be improved. It's the manufacturers job. They can always do better. Its our job to demand more. Otherwise you get what you get, and you might as well settle for any pos.
ahtoxa
New member
Agreed on the last point, but to a degree. Can manufacturers do better? Yes, yes they can, but at what cost? The cost will be passed down to the consumer who will complain. This hurts sales.
Sure, it's our job to demand more, but as a whole we will always demand more for less and that doesn't always work. Certainly the manufacturer isn't in the business for charity so they play a strategy that's maximizing their performance/new product research/etc while allowing for profit. R&D isn't cheap and low-volume high-tech cars don't allow the necessary profit for an automaker.
Sure, it's our job to demand more, but as a whole we will always demand more for less and that doesn't always work. Certainly the manufacturer isn't in the business for charity so they play a strategy that's maximizing their performance/new product research/etc while allowing for profit. R&D isn't cheap and low-volume high-tech cars don't allow the necessary profit for an automaker.