mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

2017 Chevrolet Sonic Returns Worse Fuel Economy Than Previous Model Year

Of any new vehicle heading to market, a small car like the 2017 Chevrolet Sonic is not one you’d imagine returning lesser fuel economy. But, that’s the case according to official MPG ratings at FuelEconomy.gov. 2017 marks the first year vehicles will be rated on a slightly tweaked test, surmounting in mileage drops across the board.

Flipping through the 2016 and 2017 model years, fuel economy decreases are present between both the 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder and 1.8-liter four-cylinder. They’re also present and differing between the manual and automatic gearbox.

The 2017 Sonic, when equipped with the manual transmission and 1.4-liter turbo, returns 28 MPG city and 38 MPG highway. In all, it returns 32 MPG combined. That’s 1 MPG city, 2 MPG highway and 1 MPG combined less than the 2016 model it replaces. The 2017 Sonic with the 1.4-liter and automatic transmission nets a 1 MPG loss on the highway, and 1 MPG loss in combined driving.

As for the 1.8-liter four-cylinder, the 2017 Sonic equipped with the manual transmission really suffers. Fuel economy ratings drop to 25 MPG city, 33 MPG highway and 28 MPG combined. In comparison, the 2016 Sonic in identical configuration returned 26 city, 35 highway and 30 MPG combined.

The automatic eases the difference some, with the 2017 Sonic returning 1 MPG less on the highway with the 1.8-liter four-cylinder.

The 2017 Chevrolet Sonic represents a minor refresh while the nameplate’s all-new model is put on the backburner in favor of additional crossovers and SUVs during an era of cheap gasoline.

Former GM Authority staff writer.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Wow!
    I have a 2012 Chevy Sonic LTZ Hatchback, 1.4L Turbo with a 6-speed manual and I love the fuel mileage. I’ve been getting overall about 38mpg and have reached above 40mpg on some road trips. This is quite a surprise! I wonder if it’s the refresh design of the car or did the government change the way it measures fuel consumption?

    Reply
  2. Reply
    1. Ok, that would explain it! Thanks RacecarTigers for posting! 😀

      Reply
    2. I figured that it was a change in how it was calibrated either with the government or GM.

      Good heads Up!

      Reply
  3. I have a 2015 Sonic LT with the 1.4 liter and the automatic transmission. I’ve NEVER got above 28 MPG combined since I’ve owned it (about a year now and 15,000 miles). The first 14,000 miles I put on it were mostly highway driving, where as now I’ve moved closer to work and it’s mainly city driving. Either way, I got a Sonic thinking I’d get what the sticker said in regards to MPG……NOPE. Not to mention the other issues I’ve had with it, I’ll never own a Sonic again.

    Reply
    1. How do you drive it? If you’re running the turbo in boost mode all the time, then it’s not going to get the estimated gas mileage. Which, in most cases, people usually don’t, anyway, but I can’t see how you would get it three full miles below the estimates for that long a time unless you were running it hard fairly constantly. I’ve driven a 2014 RS manual for a year before, and I came up to a mile below the estimate almost consistently. And in my own current 2016 turbo-auto, I’ve had no trouble achieving the higher end of 30 MPG, even as fast as 70-75 MPH for a few shorter stretches of road…

      As long as I don’t slam the pedal down from a stop very much — though the automatic allows me more “fun” time with less gas mileage loss than the manual did — I get pretty well over 300 miles from one tank of gas. I’m finding the Sonic isn’t my ultimate dream car, but I think it’s pretty great, all around.

      Reply
  4. I owned a 2016 1.4L Sonic with a 6 speed manual. I never got less than 38 mpg. highway and would often get between 40 and 44. I got 36 mpg towing. Unfortunately I wrecked it and had to replace it with a 2017 with supposedly the same engine/transmission. I have to beg this car to get 38 mpg highway, and 40 is almost unheard of. More often I am getting 36 mpg. highway or less. This is not a matter of anyone changing the way the calculations are done. I loved my 2016; my 2017 frustrates the crap out of me. What was changed? Is there anything I can do to unchange it?

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel