Sedan vs. Hatch, 1.8 vs. 1.4 = Automatic ONLY
- Thread starter dante
- Start date
Macehammer
New member
More than just the RS has a touchscreen, but, yeah, I guess...
You won't see that much of a difference in mpg between either engine to justify the cost. That being said the 1.8L is just as good an engine as the 1.4L minus a few more pounds of torque. Some members are getting 40 mpg with the 1.8L as well.
I have a 1.4L and its just another 4-cylinder engine. I have driven the 1.8L as a loaner when my truck was in the shop and it has more than enough grunt and efficiency to get the job done. The 1.8L requires a timing belt change every 90,000 miles while the other engines chain does not.
Who really knows how long the turbo will last, though 100,000 mile turbo's of years past were not quality units as they are today.
I have a 1.4L and its just another 4-cylinder engine. I have driven the 1.8L as a loaner when my truck was in the shop and it has more than enough grunt and efficiency to get the job done. The 1.8L requires a timing belt change every 90,000 miles while the other engines chain does not.
Who really knows how long the turbo will last, though 100,000 mile turbo's of years past were not quality units as they are today.
Yeah, but I can get a LT with the 1.4T and without the touchscreen
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
What is so much more refined?
I think the biggest gain in MPG is due to the transmission.
Is 3 hp and 20FT-Lbs really enough to claim its that big of a difference in power?
In pure stock form there really is not that bog of a difference for the average consumer. The eco minded or performance minded might care though. As a DD vehicle the 1.8 is just fine.
Refined:
1. 1.4 sounds much... MUCH better...
2. The 1.4 also is quieter inside and outside the car.
3. 1.4 is smoother with engine operation.
4. 1.4 is less buzzy...
MPG:
1. If they were so close, the ECO cruze would use a 1.8.
2.With a 5 MPG difference on the HIGHWAY with an auto 1.8 and an RS MT 1.4 under my driving for almost 2 weeks..... with the RS rated LOWER than an auto 1.8..
3. The 1.4 is rated higher than the 1.8 in every circumstance. Except RS configuration...
Power:
1. Same horse.... 20ish more torque.... as you stated..
2. Where the power comes in is in the POWERBAND. All that extra torque in the 1.4 comes at a much... MUCH lower point in the powerband leading to a more accessible power.
You will have to ring out the 1.8 much more to accelerate the same pace as a 1.4....
3. 1.8 sonics are high 16 to low 17 second cars....
1.4 Sonics are high 15's to low 16s...... 1 Second difference in acceleration...
Also, if you read ANY review of the sonic, everyone praises the 1.4. Most knock the 1.8.
As OP stated, they want to upgrade to LT... spend the 700 and take the 1.4.
Macehammer
New member
I can get 40mpg in my RS. I see a lot of people reporting high 20s low 30s from normal driving in their 1.8s.
I'm not saying the window sticker doesn't say what is says, but I think in any other test other than constant flat highway driving, I'll beat your 1.8 average tank mileage pretty easily.
A sticker is, after all, not a functioning component of a car. And MPG tests conducted by the car manufacturers, they are done in real life scenarios? Nope...
I'm not saying the window sticker doesn't say what is says, but I think in any other test other than constant flat highway driving, I'll beat your 1.8 average tank mileage pretty easily.
A sticker is, after all, not a functioning component of a car. And MPG tests conducted by the car manufacturers, they are done in real life scenarios? Nope...
sx sonic
New member
Getting to freeway speed is easy, except for the real tight clover leaf on-ramps.
On a normal on ramp I can merge at 70+ mph using only 4th and 6th gear and shifting before 2,000 RPM, which is to say It's a cake walk.
The clover leafs I usually merge at about 60 mph only using 4th gear, albeit I carry more corner speed than most. More throttle and a lower gear will achieve the same thing, without throwing your cargo around.
As to 0-60 times the turbo is 1.1 second quicker.
Stick, I guess the automatic might be a different story
sx sonic
New member
Should be even easier with an auto, half or a 1/3 throttle should have the same effect merging.
0-60 going to be the same difference for stick vs stick, and auto vs auto.
By all means test drive one and see how it stacks up for ya
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
all subjective. I feel both sound about the same in stock form.
WHats your highway economy? I feel with a 6 speed I would be at 50, but alas the 5 speed is keeping me at mid 40s
How does all this apply to the average consumer? I had no issues with getting up to speed to match traffic when my car was stock. I also didnt need to go WOT or use the full power band. Not every consumer is a stop light racer. Congrats on the 1 second in the 1/4, its still a slow economy car and does not really make any difference in the real world. What a car does on the track is not the same as what it does on the street.
once again it is all subjective.
In the end not everyone has the opportunity to get a 1.4, not everyone wants the 1.4, and the average consume does not really give a crap. If they did GM would only offer one engine.
ChrisJ
Active member
My first Sonic was a 1.8 auto LT hatch.
My second Sonic is a 1.4 6 manual LT hatch.
On my 45 mile each direction commute (90 a day) I averaged 33MPG with the 1.8 auto. With the 1.4 manual I have never seen less than 40MPG and it usually does around 41-42 depending on traffic.
My wife has a 2012 Cruze LT with a 1.4 manual and does a 5 mile commute. She usually sees around 36MPG per tank.
Personally, I have never seen a 1.8 pull off the same MPG as a 1.4 under the same driving conditions. Yes, the 1.4 has some delay while you wait for the turbo to spool at low RPMs, however a 1.8 is dead at those same RPMs anyway and there is no turbo to spool no matter how long you wait.
If you're concerned about low end power, compare the torque curve between the 1.4 and 1.8 and you'll notice the 1.4 has a lot more muscle especially below 2000 rpm.
Me, I vote for the 1.4 whether you get a hatch, sedan, manual or auto. Many argue about which is the better engine, fact is any part you compare you will find the 1.4 is better right down to the timing chain. If you plan on keeping the car for a long time, do you really want the added expensive of paying a shop to change the timing belt?
My second Sonic is a 1.4 6 manual LT hatch.
On my 45 mile each direction commute (90 a day) I averaged 33MPG with the 1.8 auto. With the 1.4 manual I have never seen less than 40MPG and it usually does around 41-42 depending on traffic.
My wife has a 2012 Cruze LT with a 1.4 manual and does a 5 mile commute. She usually sees around 36MPG per tank.
Personally, I have never seen a 1.8 pull off the same MPG as a 1.4 under the same driving conditions. Yes, the 1.4 has some delay while you wait for the turbo to spool at low RPMs, however a 1.8 is dead at those same RPMs anyway and there is no turbo to spool no matter how long you wait.
If you're concerned about low end power, compare the torque curve between the 1.4 and 1.8 and you'll notice the 1.4 has a lot more muscle especially below 2000 rpm.
Me, I vote for the 1.4 whether you get a hatch, sedan, manual or auto. Many argue about which is the better engine, fact is any part you compare you will find the 1.4 is better right down to the timing chain. If you plan on keeping the car for a long time, do you really want the added expensive of paying a shop to change the timing belt?
ChrisJ
Active member
In stock form, I'd say barely.
The only time I hear my turbos at all is with the windows down and going slow through town.
They didn't offer one engine. They offered two. One is the base lame engine, 1.8.... the upgrade is the 1.4T so it's better. The only reason they offered two is to cut costs on this car.
And I am not talking about racing. In real world, a second is a large difference when it comes to acceleration. When you need the power, the 1.4 delivers it better. Who the hell races 16 second cars......
And all the stuff about engine refinement and characteristics may not be noticed by all users. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. The 1.4 IS better than the 1.8 in every single aspect and that is exactly what I am trying to prove. Just because you don't notice your 1.8 buzzes and sounds like it's going to die under 1.8 doesn't mean I don't. Hence why I bought a 1.4...
Lastly, on most highway trips I get about 37-40... My average last 3 tanks mixed have been 32-33. With the RS...
Also, I do believe my argument still stands... If the 1.4 and the 1.8 were sooooo close, then the cruze ECO would use a 1.8. Which it doesn't.... The old 1.8 cruze we had couldn't even touch EPA numbers... the ECO blows past them.
I also forgot to throw in the extra resale value. As the sonic with the 1.4 will have the premium engine.
I also forgot to throw in the extra resale value. As the sonic with the 1.4 will have the premium engine.
mitdr774
also a dinner prick
If cost cutting was the objective they would only offer one engine option. Uplevel options are not always better. Some people just assume that an uplevel option is.
How fast does the Sonic go in a 1/4 in stock form? 1 second at the track is probably more like 1/2 to 3/4 at legal road speeds. Not a big enough of a difference to be concerned with. If you time your merge that close you are a fool.
You have proved nothing about refinement, just stated subjective opinion.
My lifetime average is still over the EPA highway rating for my car. My worst two tanks are in the 29s and my typical mixed fill up tends to be in the 30-35 range. Highway is another story. low to mid 40s are no issue for me.
In stock form the 1.4 and 1.8 are too close to really think of one as that much better than the other. Modified is another story.
How fast does the Sonic go in a 1/4 in stock form? 1 second at the track is probably more like 1/2 to 3/4 at legal road speeds. Not a big enough of a difference to be concerned with. If you time your merge that close you are a fool.
You have proved nothing about refinement, just stated subjective opinion.
My lifetime average is still over the EPA highway rating for my car. My worst two tanks are in the 29s and my typical mixed fill up tends to be in the 30-35 range. Highway is another story. low to mid 40s are no issue for me.
In stock form the 1.4 and 1.8 are too close to really think of one as that much better than the other. Modified is another story.
ChrisJ
Active member
I qoute my self.
"On my 45 mile each direction commute (90 a day) I averaged 33MPG with the 1.8 auto. With the 1.4 manual I have never seen less than 40MPG and it usually does around 41-42 depending on traffic. "
Have you owned both the 1.8 and 1.4? I don't consider a 9 MPG difference under the same driving conditions "close". Perhaps you can pull off 40mpg with a 1.8 but I never got close so you comparing your 1.8 to my 1.4 is moot. However, me comparing my 1.8 to my 1.4 is a valid comparison.
I owned my 1.8 for 11K miles.
The 1.4T is better in every way.
