2017 Sonic RS Close-Ratio Transmission Deletion

[LorbeerTLC]

Well, this is a surprise.

I read on gmauthority.com that the close-ratio manual transmission on the 2017 MY RS model is going to be deleted.

2017 Chevy Sonic RS Package Features Revealed | GM Authority

So now I'm confused as to why it will even carry the "RS" badge
It'll just be a Sonic with some cosmetic add-ons with no mechanical differences?

If anybody has some more information to clarify as to why, I'd be interested why GM is making this change. opcorn:

 

[MORTIS]

Well I'm just guessing but according to my reading of numerous reviews, the RS close ratio tran gives no meaningful performance advantages over the regular tran. The regular tran however lowers highway RPMs quite a bit and gives better MPG. The RS tran does look good in ad text though.

 

[carsNskis]

Well, this is a surprise.

I read on gmauthority.com that the close-ratio manual transmission on the 2017 MY RS model is going to be deleted.

2017 Chevy Sonic RS Package Features Revealed | GM Authority

So now I'm confused as to why it will even carry the "RS" badge
It'll just be a Sonic with some cosmetic add-ons with no mechanical differences?

If anybody has some more information to clarify as to why, I'd be interested why GM is making this change. opcorn:

Because RS doesn't mean performance, it's a cosmetic package with only MINOR mechanical differences

 

[Natesriv]

Costs...why have 3 different trannies...when you can do it in 2?

GM just lets it's product lanquish and become obsolete or bereft of any excitement far too often.

The Vette and the Camaro are the golden children, while our poor Sonic turns into a rental car.

 

[eggsalad]

The original RS was mostly a handling and appearance package. Since it had the same engine as an LT Turbo, they gave it a lower final drive for more grunt off the line.

But MPG is the name of the game, and the shorter gearbox cost 6 MPG highway. People don't like that.

Also, the big competitor is the Focus ST or maybe the Fiesta ST. Either way, the Sonic can't compete at the performance end of the spectrum, so why bother trying?

 

[spacedout]

The original RS was mostly a handling and appearance package. Since it had the same engine as an LT Turbo, they gave it a lower final drive for more grunt off the line.

But MPG is the name of the game, and the shorter gearbox cost 6 MPG highway. People don't like that.

Never seen the numbers but don't think the shorter gearing really helped gain any significant time 0-60mph or 1/4 mile. 6MPG is a HUGE hit for such a little improvement in acceleration.

0-60mph will always be slow when you have multiple shifts to make eating up time. Seems shorter gearing would make this worse?

 

[carsNskis]

No large difference in acceleration at 0-60 or quarter mile. Literally NO performance related reason for the transmission

 

[Papasonic]

Maybe because trucks and SUV's are coming back strong in sales, the CAFE ratings the government mandates could be slightly improved with this transmission change.

I also agree that fewer component part numbers are an economic manufacturing advantage.

I also remember an episode of Motorweek stating that the RS, even with shorter gearing, had no measurable performance advantage.

I had considered trading my LTZ for an RS until I realized the fuel mileage penalty; that was the deciding factor against trading. If you still want to experience the feel of the old RS transmission in the 2017 Sonic RS, just don't shift into 6th gear.

Did you also notice that the rear disc brakes also went away, and all hatches are RS's?

 

[LorbeerTLC]

Wow, 0-60 Times between LTZ Turbo & RS About Same!

Well, I'll be Dipped in Shaving Cream!

I wouldn't have believed it, but according to these 0-60 times, they are about the same between the LTZ Turbo and the RS Turbo. I would have thought the closer gear ratio would have made some difference. Guess not!

https://www.0-60specs.com/chevrolet-sonic-0-60-times/

Huh! opcorn:

Thanks for all the feedback, gang! I'm now just a little bit more educated today. :banana:

 

[spacedout]

I wouldn't have believed it, but according to these 0-60 times, they are about the same between the LTZ Turbo and the RS Turbo.

They mention the same thing on this Road and Track test on youtube. I was also surprised there is no difference at all.

There is one advantage of having closer ratios, less RPM drop between gears so you can stay in the power band better. Without though one just needs to take the RPM higher in each gear to ensure you don't drop out of boost. I would not want the higher final drive ratio though, Just means more RPM running at 75mph+ on the interstate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzVh46c22QA

 

[ScarabEpic22]

Well, I'll be Dipped in Shaving Cream!

I wouldn't have believed it, but according to these 0-60 times, they are about the same between the LTZ Turbo and the RS Turbo. I would have thought the closer gear ratio would have made some difference. Guess not!

https://www.0-60specs.com/chevrolet-sonic-0-60-times/

Huh! opcorn:

Thanks for all the feedback, gang! I'm now just a little bit more educated today. :banana:

Nope, just makes it feel sportier driving around town. Upside is I can be in 1st gear, clutch fully out, at 5mph crawling in traffic. Downsides are -6mpg pentalty, constantly shifting, not any faster, and 1st gear is too short to be worth anything. Once I get the clutch out in 1st, it's time to shift into 2nd.

 

[spacedout]

Once I get the clutch out in 1st, it's time to shift into 2nd.

And I thought the automatic gearing in 1st was bad on the sonic/cruze.... I don't notice it as much with my sonic, but if in manual mode and one forgets, will hit the rev-limiter trying to cross a 4 lane highway. I understand the need for lower gearing to get things moving, but its unsafe to add a necessary shift before 20mph in many situations..

 

[laborsmith]

I found all of the above to be true, having owed a LT turbo/manual trans before the RS manual trans, and though there was no actual performance enhancement the RS just felt sportier. If given a choice I would go for the RS gearing, but there was a significant mpg penalty. I would say closer to 4mpg than 6mpg using premium for both the LT and the RS.

Laborsmith