2012 Chevrolet Sonic Gets 35 MPG Rating on Most Trims

2012 Chevy Sonic sedanDespite GM’s earlier claims of a 40 mpg rating for the 2012 Chevrolet Sonic, most trims will get a decidedly lower rating, according to the EPA.

The standard 135-horsepower, 1.8-liter four-cylinder gets an EPA-estimated 26/35/29 mpg city/highway/combined with a five-speed manual transmission. With an optional six-speed automatic transmission, the 1.8-liter returns 25/35/28 mpg.

The only way to get 40 mpg is to opt for the 138-hp, turbocharged 1.4-liter four-cylinder, which comes with a six-speed manual transmission only. The engine is a $700 option for the higher level LT and LTZ trims. Cars.com shows more than 500 Sonics available, but none are equipped with the turbocharged motor just yet.

The Sonic’s EPA rating is a disappointment compared to its competitors and even against its larger sibling, the Cruze. A 2012 Chevrolet Cruze equipped with the same 1.8-liter four-cylinder and a six-speed manual transmission gets 25/36/29 mpg; the Cruze Eco with an automatic transmission gets a 26/39/31 mpg rating. The fact that the lighter-weight Sonic scores no better than a Cruze is probably due to aerodynamics.

Competitors like the 2012 Hyundai Accent (30/40 mpg), 2012 Ford Fiesta SFE (29/40 mpg), 2012 Toyota Yaris (30/35 mpg) and 2012 Honda Fit (28/35 mpg) all score better. To add insult to injury, the Sonic scores worse, or no better, than the outgoing 2011 Chevy Aveo, which got 27/35/30 mpg with a manual transmission and a combined 28 mpg with a four-speed automatic transmission.

We don’t know if GM plans on releasing an Eco version of the Sonic, which would help it compete with other fuel misers. For now, the model will likely try to compete on price since it’s behind the field on mileage.

The 2012 Chevy Sonic went on sale earlier this month.

2012 Chevrolet Sonic Priced at $13,735


DeBinder Dundett

In Southern California the commuter of choice is overwhelmingly an Asian brand, especially Accent/Yaris/Fit.

Hyundai/Kia/Toyota/Honda/Nissan offerings in this class all clog the roads during rush-hour.

It remains to be seen if this Daewoo/GM/Aveo/Sonic is going to have any fans at all except for GM loyalists.

But there weren't enough GM loyalists to keep GM from going belly-up, and it remains to be seen if enough real-world buyers will choose a Sonic over an Asian brand.

This Sonic to me just doesn't represent the value for the dollar that Accent/Yaris/Fit offer.

And this category is considered a throw-away segment because you're just not going to put big repair money into a commuter/grocery-getter. If it breaks, you buy a new one.

What demographic is GM hoping to entice?

Amuro Ray

Sure a huge disappointment on the mpg. Most embarrassing when out going scores better than the new one. Big time dope slap for the digital ink liar who keeps saying "GM often understates mpg." Volt, Equinox, and now, Sonic...

I do wonder if aerodynamics b/n Cruze & Sonic is the reason here for the mpg demise. My suspicion actually is on the weight of Sonic, which just earned the 5 star crash test rating, plus the hp output on a 1800cc engine. Why can't GM detune the engine to say, 120 hp or less for higher mpg? Does it (Sonic) really need 135 hp? Or is this the advice from the old GM (hp war), thx to the rehiring of Lutz?

Then there's always the conspiracy theory - try to make Sonic worse in order to boost value of Cruze.



The sonic has more power than aveo or any competitors. You should mention that. It should be fastest car in this class. Fit and fiesta are dogs with automatics. Gm only said turbo would achieve 40mpg hwy from the beginning, this shouldne be news to anyone who was paying attention. On the cruze the base engin is less efficient than the turbo as well.


Yeah! This new subcompact car gets the same city/highway fuel economy with the automatic that the new 2012 Toyota Camry gets (with an automatic).....


I usually don't like small cars like this but I like it. It's aggressive looking and I like the sporty big wheel option.


Not a bad looking Daewoo. Too bad the mpg sucks for a car that small!!

Derrick G

"The sonic has more power than aveo or any competitors"

Uhm, the Accent/Veloster and Rio have 138HP standard.

"Not a bad looking Daewoo"

There is no more Daewoo. Also, while development was done in Korea, it should be noted this is being built in the U.S.


What's the base price on this vs a camry? Mileage is similar but one is 7k less than the other so people that can't afford a camry can afford this. And this isn't the most efficient powertrain. The turbo will be the best mix of peformance and mpg in the segment.


Sheth, if you want to play this game, then we'll go comparatively--Accent versus Sonic, taken directly from a previous post from cars.com:

If you look at the competition, the Sonic is less of a value compared with the 2012 Hyundai Accent. Equipped with an automatic transmission, the Accent costs $15,195 and gets you features like a USB port and power windows and mirrors. A similarly equipped Sonic would cost $16,005 and still would lack features like a USB port. Also, if GM is touting the 40-mpg figure on the uprated engine, we’d have to assume the base powertrain will be less fuel efficient compared with the Accent’s 30/40 mpg city/highway rating.

Amuro Ray

@ Rockaby,

Save ur breath (or whatever). Don't waste ur energy arguing with a digital ink wasting liar.

Apparently, there is/are someone who believes in "racing" a Sonic, at its stock form. I actually like the Aveo in terms of handling. It's quite good, and now I can brag that the Aveo even has better mpg than its successor.



Don't worry, I have fun proving my points with statistics and numbers. I'm a numbers guy so I don't mind doing some research :)


What exactly are you talking about? I said nothing about the accent. Hyundais are always the cheapest in any class, including subcompacts. Of course the accent offers more value. I was pointing out that these cars are as much about low msrps as mileage. If mileage was your only concern you would buy a prius over ANY of these cars. And if you are going to compare two cars compare everything. Sonic has more power and more safety features than accent. Looks better too. I believe it also has larger wheels.


"And if you are going to compare two cars compare everything. Sonic has more power and more safety features than accent. Looks better too. I believe it also has larger wheels."

Sonic -- 135 horsepower on base engine and 138 horsepower on turbocharged.

Accent--138 horsepower standard.

Safety features--you probably win, won't bother looking into that one.

Looks--to each their own.

Larger wheels--yes you do, but I don't consider larger wheels a plus since they reduce fuel economy and create a rougher ride.


As always, Sheth comes to GM's defense. They must pay you handsomely for being whipped to believe there cars are so good.


Point is you have to look at ll content before comparing prices. You said accent is cheaper while offering standard usb without detaling other features on either car. Does accent have every feature found on sonic? Since you like research I'll let you figure it out. Larger wheels often offer better handling and braking and keep a car from looking cheap by filling the wheel wells.



The base car mileage isn't great, never said otherwise. I said it was known for months that only the turbo would get 40mpg so I don't get why this site posts mileage of the base car and then infers gm mislead them on mileage. Also, other reviews praised the handling. That's a fact, if you don't like it take it up with the journalists than said the car handles well. Don't shoot the messenger.


I love sheth.

He is always here with outlandish things to say about how great GM is.

But in all honesty:

This is a severe disappointment on GM's part. Their fuel economy is not a large enough priority, they put the same power train as the cruze in, as a cost cutting measure, and its clearly not been optimized for this car.


The messenger can be shot. But you stick to nothing but the positive. That is your focus. You will indirectly admit the negative but not upfront. It's a given. The car should be fine as a whole. No denying it. But Sheth you make yourself look like the GM poster child.

Mike @ Chevy

I'm with Chevrolet and I
just wanted to clarify that we have always said that the 1.4 L turbo with 6-speed manual would be our fuel economy leader with 40 mpg highway. No car in the segment gets better fuel economy or will be as fun to drive.

No matter the powertrain, Sonic provides great value. Sonic is roomier than many competitors, offers 10 standard airbags, OnStar, more power for passing, and is quieter.

One last comment, the SFE package on the Ford Fiesta is an extra $695 and with that you get 15” steel wheels. Sonic has aluminum wheels as standard on even the base model which improves ride and handling as well as reduces road noise by 2 dB.

Amuro Ray

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, Mike @ Chevy...

Is the 1.4L Turbo mpg specs out yet? And I'm talking BOTH City & Hwy. So far, the released figure for ALL trim levels of the Sonic, except the turbo, are BELOW almost all of its competitors.


Nice try with the 2 dB too. I wonder how many humans have SUPER sensitive hearing in order to tell 2dB difference...

Then again, this is a 135 hp race car, vroom vroom...

Max Reid

Why not the offer 1.4 liter engine with an Automatic 6-speed. If they dont offer the right product, people may not buy it.


Mike @ Chevy,

What percentage of Sonics are planned to be with the 1.4L Turbo and 6 speed manual?


26 hwy is disappointing, but maybe the transmission is geared for performance. The proof one way or the other (performance & mpg) will be in the driving, as the recent fiesta/focus/accent/elantra comparo showed.


Who said all the Sonic are built in the US?
Let me tell you, I am currently doing a lot of testing for that vehicle right now and the first batch will be built in Korea. Even the one I am testing with right now is built there.
The thing gulps gas like mad. Of course, since it is a test pre-production vehicle, it is quite problematic. The engine lags, even after I stomped on the gas pedal, it lags to respond. Feels like it is asking me: Are you sure you want me to be in full throttle? Well, hang on then. But even with that, my Civic pulls harder than this little Sonic can with its N/A version. The difference of only 5 horsepower.


Why are people on here lying? The sonic is made in michigan, not korea. At least the ones for US consumption will be made here. As noted, the 1.4t model was the only model they said would get 40mpg highway. On the cruze the base engine gets up to 4mpg less than the turbo so it shouldn't be surprising that the 1.8l isn't that impressive. It doesn't do that well on cruze either. I never said the base engine in this cas had impressive mileage, I said hp is class leading, the competitons cars are SLOW and the sonic supposedly handles at least as well as the Fit. People that follow auto reviews know the fiesta hasn't gotten great reviews and has lost every comparo its entered so far. Its also very slow in spite of the dct transmission. My guess is the sonic trades a couple of mpgs for halfway decent performance.

The turbo will offer an auto and it surely will be more efficient than the base engine.


Thank you Cars.com for wording this so negatively. This should have been an information release, not an indictment of an unfulfilled claim and of a car which has many favorable qualities even if the mileage rating of the base engine is lower than the competition. Oh and Cars.com you could have pointed out that Chevrolet has repeatedly stated that the 1.4t will be available with an automatic but not initially. Thanks for the fair reporting.

AR, 2 dB is significant.

J, there are no production Korean Sonics.


I like the looks of the Sonic. I also prefer hatchbacks, so it's on my short list in the future. I've driven a couple of Aveos and found them to be quite comfortable, especially on the highway.

However, I have to agree that the fuel economy on the base motor is disappointing. I never bought an Aveo for the same reason (that, and the fact that it had an interference motor requiring costly timing chain replacement).

I'm probably the token "hp is crap" guy on here, but I think the opportunity GM missed here was to overtake the competition with a lower hp, more fuel efficient motor. I'm not a sales or marketing guy, so maybe the reason most manufacturers continue to drop these kind of engines in small cars is because of what they know about the market, but I wonder if there's also a "missed market" of people who could care less about speed and power in a subcompact and simply want great fuel economy.

This market must exist because many people nabbed 50mpg+ Geo Metros and Honda Civics in the early 90s. Were those cars performance dogs? OF COURSE! The people buying them didn't care, though - they wanted the car for the great fuel economy.

I love a great muscle car as much as the next guy, but for my daily driver - practicality always wins out. I'd snap up a Sonic with a 100hp motor returning 50mpg in a heartbeat. I suspect many others would too.


First let me say this...I think GM should get better MPG across it's lines. However, cars can be tuned and geared for peppier more aggressive driving which affects MPG. I own a Mazda but am dissappointed in the MPG as they haven't been class competitive in that area either. But nobody bashes the he@# out of the 3 for substandard MPG. They always rationalize it by saying, "oh, but it handles so great". I think GM puts in more sound protection and their cars weigh a little more which does affect MPG. So there are tradeoffs and to just outright bash a car because it doesn't get quite as good as MPG as another in it's class is silly if other things about the car are good.....like the Mazda3 for example.

If the drive experience, MPG, sound levels, quality of materials, etc don't meet the rest of the class then it should be bashed. But I say give it a fair assessment....I haven't really seen any actual reviews of the production models yet.


One car that wasn't really mentioned was the fit auto, its less efficient than the civic and about on par with the sonic. This is the car that many consider the benchmark in the class. Its a littl ridiculous to get this bent out of shape over a car that gets about the same mileage as a weaker Fit automatic. These cars aren't expected to be speed demons but the fit and fiesta are barely aacceptable in terms of acceleration with automatics, both are around 11 secs to 60. Some people may prefer the passing power of the sonic.


The problem with GM's cars is weight.
The Cruze is a half-class heavier in weight this its competitors, splits the difference between Hyundai Elantra & Sonata.

Same with the Sonic, it splits the difference between Accent & Elantra.

Another problem is GM's 1.4 turbo needs direct injection, which will allow for a higher compression ratio. Better emissions & responsiveness. All for $250

The 1.8 should have a 6 speed manual instead of 5.
and GM could de-stroke the engine by 10mm and add direct injection as well.


I agree with Sheth about the Fit, for all the same reasons I related above. Most reviews I've read about the Fit praise its interior more than anything else (and it is nice) but say little about its subpar MPG.

I agree with Lance too. No car is ever going to satisfy everyone's unique desires in an automobile, but it does seem that individuals who truly want a "hypermiler" are overlooked. Even today's hybrids often focus on performance as part of their equation, and truly "small" cars like the SMART still don't crack 50mpg. They did it in the early 90's, and the cars sold, even though gas was cheap back then. What has happened?

Amuro Ray

I guess that making comparison on a 2012 BRAND new vehicle to a 2008 model is an excellent way to tell, hey, it's better.


As for Mazda 3, it's a different vehicle than the Sonic (a B-segment vehicle), and quite a number of publications have flat out notice the sub-par mileage, relative to other C-segment vehicles. More importantly, however, is that Mazda has now used the new Sky-active engines for fuel efficiency boosting, so it's mileage is better than the previous generation, not the other way around as in the Sonics.

Then again, maybe time has slipped and we are in the 80's / 90's again, racing 135 hp B-segment vehicle.

Look, pa, there goes the race car. The Sonic took only around 9 sec to reach 60 mph from 0.

Vroom vroom.


The few cars that got 50mmpg were slow, crude, poorly equipped and unsafe. That's why you don't see a lot of 50mog cars today. Plus, those cars were under old epa standards so they would likely be 45mpg hwy cars now. C&d tested a geo metro last year and the performance was horrible. People will not stand for 0 to 60 in 13 secs today. People want airbags, stereos, ac, automatics, good crash ratings, etc. What worked in the early 90s won't work today.

The Fit has been updated for 2012 so its worthy of being compared. And the us version of the current car didn't come out in 2008, it was 2009. And since its the benchmark I see no reason not to compare it to Sonic. Afterall, it was on car and driver 10best until last year.

As for direct injection, its just not offered in this class. The 1.8l is a reltively old design and its just not that efficient. But it should perform well in this light car. Again, I will point out the new car is safer, more powerful and superior to the aveo. Mileage is only one way to evaluate the car. To suggest its not better than aveo based on epa ratings is silly.


GM spokesperson and WTF,

You see, here is the thing, I am driving the test vehicle and do you really believe I would know anything less than you know right this moment about this vehicle? I don't think so.
And do you think I would be dumb enough to snap pictures of it or anything like that and share with all of you so that I would jeopardize my job security? I don't think so either.
If you still think you are correct, that is fine by me. I have no obligation to educate you about facts.


And I'm hanging out with Elvis Presley as we speak. I can't take his picture but do you have any reason not to believe me?

See how that works?


There is dealer inventory out there right now (which also begs the question of why you are in a "test vehicle"). Go take a picture of the manufacturer's tag on one of those to prove where it's made and then I'll believe you. Until then....


no american sonics are built in Korea. Period. anyone saying otherwise is a liar.

The 1.4t with manual is rated at 29/40, its official.

Amuro Ray

See kids, what do I tell ya?

Once a liar, ALWAYS a liar, especially that digital ink wasting liar.



"A higher percentage of parts is being imported because the Sonic's architecture was developed in South Korea, he said...
Chevy Sonic engines initially are being imported from Mexico and South Korea, Knight said."

So a MAJOR part of this vehicle is built somewhere.

Please stop embarrassing yourself, you digital ink wasting liar.


Are you an adult?

DeBinder Dundett

I have read all your comments. Really! All of them! And I just have to jump in here and tell all of you that I just don't see where this Sonic is going to make much of a dent in the sales of the foreigners in this segment. So rather than verbally beating each other up, maybe we should wait to see just how well the sales stack up. The numbers, mpg, price and content, just don't compare well against the foreign brands in this segment for value received for the money. And this category is very sensitive because of disposable income constraints.


i'm kinda lost by the people who are bashing the fit for being a bench mark. i traded in an suv for one. it hauls just as much, as for mpg, i beat the guts out of it and the lowest tank average has been 38 mpg. took a 4 hour drive to the beach when i pulled in an checked the mpg it was 53mpg. i dont think mpg matters in a car it how you drive it. as for price buy a used car. "fully loaded fit with every option, and every accessory thrown in by dealer 11K" i don't think people under stand these are the cheapest cars for their bands, bang them up and throw them away.


As noted, the car is built in michigan. Period.

As for the car not offering the features and mpgs of the compeition, that's a lie. Aside from nav this car has everything you can get on competitors plus things you cannot such as 17" wheels, 10 air bags, onstar and an optional turbo engine. If people like small cars with style, safety, nice interiors and decent power the car has a chance. Id like to remind folks that import fanboys also predicted the cruze wouldn't resonate in the market. We know how that turned out. The only subcompact that looks betteer is the new Rio. The sonic sedan is the only decent looking subcompact sedan on the market.


Sheth, get over it. You're a GM fanboy. I think the Accent and Fiesta do a fine job for their class. I'm sure the Sonic may fair on its own. But I dunno what it is with you and trying to argue with people about facts. It's like you need to have a final last word in everything. Do you really have a life?? Honestly!!

As far as the turbo, at least it will get 40mpg. I await for them to make the automatic.


I think a lot people will buy this for the 10 airbags and IIHS Top Safety Pick rating. Also because it is larger than the Fiesta (also a Top Safety Pick) and Mazda2 both of which are really small cars. I don't think people will cross shop it with the Fiesta/Mazda2 because of the difference in size but Focus shoppers will and may be lured by the lower price and the 10 airbags. The Fit is awesome if a little weird looking and unfortunately is not a Top Safety Pick. I cannot wait to see what the sales data reveals six months from now.


Get over what exactly? The facts? I am fact fanboy nd I don't like people who give out half truths to further an agenda. The inference in accusing someone of being a fanboy is that they are stretching the truth to champon a particular brand. I've not done any such thing, I'm not even that intersted in subcompacts. If you can find any evidence of irrational cheerleading for the sonic or anything else let me know.


Dave Thomas has mentioned you frequent this site DAILY and quite often per day at that. And from your posts per how the wording is phrase, most of it is tailored to not make the Asian imports sound appealing.


This is ridiculous...For a subcompact car in this day and time not to get close to the 40mpg standard with automatic transmission does not make any sense...GM has had several years to work on this model and for them to post a 35mpg highway with automatic transmission is just sad...


I work at the Orion plant. I drive Sonics all day. They are incredible, for small cars. Tons of prep and awesome handling.

I just bought a sonic I watch them unload the car off the trailer waited 5 hours for them to prep it . I took that time and I test drove Yaris , Versa And the Forte . I like them all each one had up and downs Yaris was zippy a little cramped for a 6 250# man and his wife .Versa cost to much for what they where offering . versa was a dog off the line and in the twistiest ride was softer than the sonic also . The forte coupe was really nice the trans shifted funny and had a bit of over steer . But all in all they where all nice cars . But when I went back the the dealer to try the sonic The seat of the pants drive and comfort and all the amenities that where standard on it won me over . safety being the #1 thing in my house comfort being in second ( think about it I commute 52 miles a day in a car ) A cramped little box no matter much gas mile you get will not cut it if your almost crippled getting in and out of the car . so far on a 4 hr trip I saw 39 mile per gallon ( Not bad for a car not broken in )And it not the turbo version ether . I am Planning a Vacation to Florida from up state New York I'll let you know how the Sonic did then .


I bought the Sonic 1.4l 6 speed auto transmission. I have about 2100 miles on the car and I'm getting 19mpg city and 36 highway.

I love the car but the city mileage is horrible!

Go for someone who makes you smile because it takes only a smile to make a dark day seem bright.


in line with my first post. I took my Sonic to the dealership where purchased and I was told to wait until I get 3500 miles (break-in point). If city mileage of 19mpg continues then they will look into it! It sounds to me like I'm getting the run-around, I may just contact GM directly on this one!


I own a Chevy sonic lt , and I'm also getting horrible city mpg so far the car has 550 miles and I have only averaged 21 mpg , hope it gets better because I really like the car..


I just bought one a week ago it has the 1.8 and the manual 5 speed and Im getting 37.6 avg combined with city and 3 miles of highway all together a round trip of 34 miles a day already put 256 on it and still have a half of tank. Im very happy with my little car

Ernie Lopes

REPLY TO ROCKABY: The 135 hp engine the Sonic definitely pulls more strongly than the "138 hp"direct injected engine on the new Accent. Hyundai and Kia are known for overstating their horsepower to encourage sales (and have faced lawsuit): http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/hyundai_settlement.html. Look at the Kia Forte's details carefully. with the 2.4 liter engine, it states 173 hp (SAE NET) When emissions Control (ULEV-2 or PZEV) are factored in this rating drops to just 165: http://www.kia.com/#/forte/specifications/. SAE net ratings typically are higher by ~8%. MOST car companies (Chevrolet, Ford, HONDA, Mazda, Chrysler, Nissan) use ULEV-2 which is more representative of ACTUAL output.

Ed Conley

We drove everything in the segment at one dealer... Al Serra, in Grand Blanc, Mi. They carry everything.

We bought the Sonic. Much nicer than any of the Kia's... The standard engine was much more powerful, it rides better and there is no comparison in road noise... Now that we have been driving the car a bit, we are regularly getting 35 plus mpg.... Say what you want... we are MORe than happy with our decision... OH... ONE MORE THING... It cost's ALOT less to insure the Sonic than any of the other cars we drove... And that really adds or subtracts from the total cost of a car... 10 airbags is a real bank account saver!


fuel economy means nothing if the car cost too much --- doesn't the Cruze have an Eco version that gives you 2 MPG for $2K -- you break even in 6 years Yahoo!

if you are really concerned about money buy used

Encouraging comments, Ed. I just bought a Sonic LT turbo sedan two weeks ago. It has been Great!! I LUUUV the slick 6-speed manual. It is smooth and easy. Most importantly, the turbo/manual combo is clearly the most fuel-efficient choice for the sonic and only adds $700 to the cost, not $2000. That's worth it. The power band is nice and broad in this torqy little engine, and that makes it easy to hypermile for fantastic fuel economy by simply going easy on the accelerator and keeping the thing in higher gears. Hwy mpg for me has been between 38 and 40, so close to the epa numbers--I'm in agreement with others here that the blocky, stubby shape costs the sonic in aerodynamics. But the happy news is its better-than-expected economy in the city. Edmunds.com did an in-depth test and averaged 34-35 mpg in the city, much better than the epa numbers. I've been averaging 43-44 mgg in in-town driving by keeping the rpms close to 1,000. It does not complain at all,and if I need quick acceleration it takes just an instant to downshift. I don't understand Americans' (and I am one) slavish reliance on automatic transmissions.
Beside this great little turbo engine, the Sonic is really comfortable, stable, quiet, and just pleasant to be in. The cherry on top is that it's the only small car assembled entirely in the USA.
btw, many professional reviewers have commented that the Hyundai and Kia epa ratings of 30/40 appear to be overly generous.

One thing I forgot to mention for the Sonic, my wife is short, and the fiesta, accent, and rio all had worse rear visibility. The chevy Spark had the best, but the Sonic is decent, and by adjusting the driver seat height up a little, she's got easy visibility now. Plus, the fiesta interior is really cramped compared to the Sonic. Otherwise, it would have been a worthy choice. I have a 2003 Cavelier, and according to ConsumerGuide listed dimensions/stats, the Sonic is overall just as roomy, even though it is 7-8 inches shorter. Exactly the same trunk volume, and better headroom and even hip and rear leg room (slightly). Subjectively to me, that seems about right. Not really an Aveo replacement then, is it; More of a Cavelier/Cobalt replacement, I'd say.


Yes I was quite a bit disappointed with the "real" city gas mileage that I have seen reported.

But the same day I did test drive 3 hatchbacks. Then Hyndai accent, the Chevy Sonic, and the Honda Fit.
I think I may have had to test drive a automatic accent, and it clearly does not have enough power to have an automatic. (thir are probably no "regular sized" cars with only "135hp" engines {at high RPM} that have enough power for an automatic transmission.) Of the 3 the Chevy felt the most like a "real car". I also took all the cars out on the highway, up to 70 mph. The accent with Automatic transmission, obviously lame. The Chevy felt the most solid. Smoothest. and quietest, felt the most "powerful" Then Honda fit that I have kept hearing was so wonderful with its " lightsmooth shifting manual tranmission"... I fount that transmission to be annoying. It is to light. It felt like I was on a big car driving video game. It felt flimsy and as if it was attached to nothing. I was not even sure I was shifing anything, or if the car was broken. I did not know if I was doing anything, or if the car was changing gears. Until after finishing shifting and noticing "yep it is in another gear" Very flimsy feeling and disconcerting. "no feedback" from the Fit.
The Chevy shiffed very smoothly in my opinion, yet felt solid and well built, and it did feel like you were doing something. But.. Chevy... over priced. Also let down in particular with the city gas mileage! And I am looking at Hatchbacks, because I want one car to do it all. And it needs to be able to cary a good amount of people and "cargo". in comfort. when I looked at the sonic, the hatchback and sedan were parked next to each other. the sedan version appeared to be about a Foot Longer! Why would you cut down the version of the car, "made to carry more stuff, and people in more comfort"?
Did they feel the had to do that to try and get the 40mph highway rating?
How come I have seen no one mention or complain about the "chopping off" of the back end of the "cargo carying Hatchback"? They also dropped the styling ball when working on the sides of the car. But still looks better than than boring Fit. "Obvious Problems" with the Sonic--- City gas mileage, Cost, possible and unknown "chevy reliability issues"? and the Chopped down Hatchback. ( that no one seems to have noticed...) Oh it can have big wheels. what grade are "we" in? Yah you can pay more money for big factory wheels, and then pay more money every time you need to by new tires. For your economy car. :-))

Post a Comment 

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • If you don't want people to see your email address, simply type in the URL of your favorite website or leave the field empty.
  • Do not mention specific car dealers by name. Feel free to mention your city, state and brand.
  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers. This blog is not a fan or enthusiast forum, it is meant to help people during the car-buying process and during the time between purchases, so shoppers can keep a pulse on the market.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
view posting rules

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Search Results

KickingTires Search Results for

Search Kicking Tires

KickingTires iPhone App