I agree, that was uncalled for.
Was it? The OP is not already in possession of a Sonic, but rather shopping for one. He should carefully consider the choice of engine, and I thought it quite called for to bring up the topic. He may well have his reasons for preferring the 1.8, but I'd sure like to hear what they are... or he might just be uninformed.
Less (mileage) would have been a more appropriate word.
"Less" as opposed to worse? No, I can't think of a case in which lower mpg is not worse than higher mpg. This isn't a "horses for courses" question, higher mpg is always better. There may be tradeoffs, where you'd rather have more power, or a more reliable engine, or a cheaper car, or, well lots of reasons that you might choose something with lower mpg... but that's simply because the other features outweigh the higher mpg, which is still, all things being equal, "better".
A better engine is debatable.
it is debatable... but the debate, in the case specifically of the two engines we have available, has pretty much consistently come down in favor of the 1.4. The 1.8 is a "good enough" engine, and if you're getting an LS the savings is significant, $1800 plus, but at $700, well, it's not a lot of money and it's significantly better.
But to be fair, here are some debate points for the 1.8 side of the ledger:
1) it's cheaper. This doesn't make it better than the 1.4, but it does offer a tradeoff, and the additional money may not be worth it for some drivers.
2) a weak willed person will probably get lower mpg with the 1.4, because they will drive it like a racecar, and you can spend more gas with the 1.4 than you ever wlll with the 1.8.
3) The 1.4 lends itself to mods much more than the 1.8, which in turn, in an argument similar to 2) will lead the weak willed into wasting money.
4) this is unproved, but it is speculated that the 1.4 might die sooner than the 1.8. Other similar engines have been running for over a decade, though, and this seems unlikely.
5) there is some speculation that for someone using the car only for short trips, that the 1.4's fuel efficiency when cold is worse than the 1.8's, so that a short hop commuter might actually be better off with the NA engine. Hasn't been shown to be true, but at least it's an effort to show actual superiority, rather than the "cheaper" and "save me from myself" arguments.
In the 1.8L blog section many drivers see 40 mpg as well.
This doesn't mean both engines get the same mpg, it just means that yes, you can do better than EPA with the 1.8... but you can also get better than EPA with the 1.4T. Same driver, driving roughly the same way (the 1.4T benefits from a slightly different style) will see an improvement to both engines, so the 1.4T remains "better" even when the 1.8 is doing well.
Same car, different engine, same happy family.
I agree, there's nothing inherently wrong with the 1.8, it's a nice solid engine that gets the job done, and a Sonic is a Sonic with either engine. I wrote a long letter to that effect, it's stickied around here somewhere. That doesn't mean the 1.4 isn't better.
