Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Chevrolet HHR



  • bigdaddycoatsbigdaddycoats Posts: 1,058
    Just read the review of the Grand Prix GXP that was recently posted.
  • billmchalebillmchale Posts: 107
    True.. the GXP was harsh.. but at least that is an existing model that is being upgraded. One could always argue that there is only so much one can do by shoehorning a V8 into a FWD car. The HHR on the other hand is a brand new car on a new and generally well regarded platform. No one was expecting Mini like performance but the edmunds review actually makes it seem like the PT Cruiser is by far the better choice (Even if you don't want to Turbo engine).
  • nortsr1nortsr1 Posts: 1,060
    gives it a good review in a comparo to the PT Cruiser (this months edition).
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    Edmunds called out the pluses and minuses. I have found their comments on other cars of interest to me to be valid; they certainly nailed the faults of the Echo to a T, I resisted their comments on the Echo at first but after 10,000 miles of driving had to agree they had been right all along. Fortunately, their comments on the HHR aren't as harsh as their comments on the Echo.

    Whether I agree with their overall conclusion, I'll have to see after my test drive of an HHR. I was pleased to hear the HHR is quiet - I am getting tired of wind noise and tire roar on economy cars. I was sad to hear handling isn't that good, even on the sport suspension.

    What I was most surprised about, though, was not giving the HHR credit for this coup:

    With 63 cubic feet, the HHR has as much total cargo capacity as the PT and, unlike in the Chrysler, you don't have to completely remove the rear seats.

    My PT was very appealing at the car show with its seats removed, but I never got around to removing them in the one I actually purchased later, it seemed like too much work and there was really no place to put the rear seats once I might have removed them. If the HHR can provide as much usable space as a PT Cruiser with rear seats removed, without the hassle or removing rear seats - I think that is GREAT.

    Right now our utility vehicle is a Honda CR-V, which is considered by some to be compact, but feels gigantic to me. Sometimes I even miss the PT Cruiser with 85% of the utility of the CR-V, but a more practical ride height, easier parking due to narrower body, quiet cabin, etc. So I am glad the HHR is now available to compare. Also, I have a suspicion I can eke out pretty decent mileage if I get a stick shift based on my conservative driving habits and high freeway to street driving. PT drivers with stick shift claim MUCH better mileage than automatic drivers, and the HHR has a displacement (smaller) advantage over the PT.

    I also take issue with Edmunds talking up the extra power in the turbo versions of the PT vs. the price of the HHR 2.4. I am old school and still think turbos have shorter useful lives than normally aspirated engines. When Chrysler can drop their 2.7 V-6 into the PT, I'll sit up and listen, but having a turbo available on the PT isn't that appealing to me. Also keep in mind Chevy can easily drop their supercharged 2.0 or 2.2 into the HHR next year.

    I usually hate making compromises, but I am beginning to see the compromises built into the HHR might not be so bad. A 2.2 stick HHR might be darn quieter and even a little faster than my other former microwagon ride, a Scion xA, and quieter with more storage than my current Focus ZX3 hatchback. And a lot safer!
  • billmchalebillmchale Posts: 107
    True, there are some things that are worth compromising on.. but brakes shouldn't be one of them.
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    True, there are some things that are worth compromising on.. but brakes shouldn't be one of them.

    I don't think a 137 foot stop in 60 mph is that bad. It is right in line with figures from Road & Track tests. They were fade resistant too. The pull to one side must be a manufacturing defect. I think Edmunds was more annoyed by the noise and vibration when going into ABS mode, but how often do we do that? More significant is their very valid criticism that this vehicle needs automatic (EBS?) adjustment of braking between front and rear, particularly since the loads on this type of vehicle are likely to vary more than on a passenger car.
  • don,t recall gm claiming hhr was the next zo 6. been in the trade for 50 yrs & my test drive was quite impressive & i intend to buy when they get settled in. who owns edmunds anyway? Keea or Hundy ?
  • gogophers1gogophers1 Posts: 218
    That's the worth of the Edmund's review of the HHR IMO. Not to say I wasn't expecting it. I've never read a positive review of a GM car on this site and I didn't expect the H to change the tradition.

    The car connection article more accurately reflects my test-drive impressions as does that in the most recent copy of Motor Trend. It's good to keep in mind that the Edmund's review is one writer's opinion. And the H isn't intended to be all things to all people - a nice change from the goal of mainstream GM models of the past.

    It isn't a sports car - something the Edmund's tester so astutely observed. Why does this surprise folks? I think the mission is pretty clearly spelled out on the spec. sheet. But it's pretty much exactly what I'm looking for - fun to drive, stylish and affordable with good utility and decent economy. I intend to use my next car (just like I do my current one) as a daily driver for a long commute which includes many curves and turns though none of the hairpin variety. I want to pay cash (I can't pop for anything more than $20K without financing) and a compliant ride is not a negative for me (some of the roads I take aren't the best).

    I too would prefer rear discs over drums, but in all candor, the last car I owned with rear discs was an Isuzu Stylus about 15 years ago. And I have had no problems stopping recently. I think the Edmund's tester saw the drums on the back of the H before hopping in the driver's seat and was convinced braking performance would be a disaster (drums=disaster). It's funny how the mind works. Well, it can't outstop a Carrera. Useful info that.

    As far as fuel economy, the one I drove last week was a 2.2L auto and it indicated a 30mpg highway figure. I presume the stick figure will be even higher (32?). For a vehicle with this type of utility, that just doesn't seem poor to me.

    In sum, if you're just stepping out of an RX8 and expect this to be a similar experience, think again. If you have realistic expectations, however, you may come away pleasantly surprised.
  • um, when i checked it, edmunds list the cobalt at 3200 and hhr at 4200, thats where i got the weight. i suggest you go drive both. i have, the cobalt is nice with the 2.2 L. the HHR is slow with 2.2 or 2.4. I READ THE HHR OWNERS MANUAL AND IT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE RECOMMENDED FUEL FOR THE 2.4 ENGINE IS AT LEAST 91 OCTANE AND THAT IF THAT IS NOT USED DECREASED PERFORMANCE ALONG WITH ENGINE KNOCK AND PING COULD OCCURE AND CAUSE PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE VALVETRAIN. now i ask you, would you buy any new car that said this in the owners manual and not put in the recommended premium fuel?

    i am getting the feeling that folks think i want to bash the hhr. i seriously considered buying this vehicle. i gave a perfectly honest review of it, and if you take a look at edmunds first drive review you will see that it completely mirrors my perspective. the car looks great, but it is not fun to drive, it is not comfortable to drive or sit in, interior is very cheap, braking and performance is subpar. i bought a pontiac vibe instead, which in my opinion is a far better car, and while my vibe may have a high strung TOYOTA engine it will flat blow the doors off the HHR on the street.pontiac vibe sales were up 36% last month, you may say that is merely because of the employee pricing, not true, actual pontiac sales for the month were down 14.1% across the lineup. impressive, eh.

    the edmunds group drives every vehicle make under the sun, so they are going to compare it to that in real world tests. its simply no surprise that chevy is trying to tout this vehicle to being more than what it actually is.
  • dan165dan165 Posts: 653
    I wonder if all the 2.4L engines require premium fuel?

    Doesn't the Cobalt and G6 have this engine for 2006 also?
  • bigdaddycoatsbigdaddycoats Posts: 1,058
    The Cobalt does as well. Premium is recommended, not required.
  • bigdaddycoatsbigdaddycoats Posts: 1,058
    Edmunds is but one review. The Car Connection, Canadian Driver and Motor Trend all liked the HHR. You have an opinion just like everyone else. You do not like the HHR. That is fine. Many do, including other reviewers.
  • bigdaddycoatsbigdaddycoats Posts: 1,058
    Cobalt is 2730-2925, depending on the model

    HHR 3155-3208 (2.2,2.4)

    These figures are for the 2006 information guide. Found here -
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    Hey weatherman, I think you may have been looking at the gross vehicle weight which includes passengers and towing. It's an easy mistake and the Canadian writers generally use kg in their weights which can make it even more confusing.

    I had a chance to sit in an HHR yesterday, with leather, and I thought it was an excellent seat. There was no lumbar at all, until I ask the saleman about it. She inflated the bladder at the push of a button and I could definitely feel it.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    I found a dealer that had two HHR's, a silver and black one. The silver is not so bad in person as some have said based on pictures.

    I found the vehicle of excellent quality inside and out. The interior is of premium quality and very spacious. The leather seats felt so good, and the lumbar in the seat is only there if you want it. I didn't sit in the back seat but it appeared to be very roomy as well. Three normal sized adults could sit in comfort.

    The vehicle security system was real nice in that (probably like most) it will set itself upon exiting the cab after a few seconds, but will not if you leave the keys in the ignition; additionally, there is no annoying beeping/chirping sounds when it activates. I can't stand noise or headlights that blink to let you know.

    Wasn't to sure about the stereo. The Pioneer system sounded great, but too me it didn't sound even close to the claimed 260 watts. I also don't care for all the chrome, though one can get the less shiny satin chrome instead. Overall I think its a tremendous vehicle in every way.

    Comparing it to a PT Cruiser is no comparison in my opinion. Yes I didn't care for the looks of the PT when it came out. It is a love it or hate it look, but I got used to it. The worse part about the PT is the funeral home hurse back end, now that it ugly. That back end is about equal in my opinion to the now discontinued Pontiac Aztecs.

    The HHR is so much more refined than the PT, and the body lines are so much more sculpted. It really does have a good resemblance to the 1949 Suburban. When the time comes, this vehicle will be tops on my list.
  • And my wife and I absolutely LOVE it. It was time for us to move on from our '02 Mazda MPV, and we were looking to downsize yet retain enough room for our 2 daughters ages 5 and 4(almost). I believe the only options we didn't get were the 6 disc changer, and On Star. The HHR is quite peppy for us, more so than needed for my wife, actually, and this is coming from someone who drives a 68 Camaro RS 327 and lifelong Camaro addict. On the highway, with the automatic, we have actually had stretches already averaging 40mpg,with an overall avg of 27mpg. The dealership actually allowed my wife to bring it home on a 24 hr test drive, and we bought it the next afternoon. Sticker was a tad over $23k, but the dealer was even willing to knock $1000 off that! Initially my first thought from inside was how small the side windows were, but honestly about the second time you drive it, you don't notice it, and that look also adds to the "chopped" or raked look the vehicle has, not to mention the roominess inside.It's a definite head turner, and everywhere we go we are being stopped and asked about it. After one week of ownership and about 600 miles, I just wanted to pop in and express our total satisfaction!
    Here's a link to a picture of the real thing on a cruise with our car club:
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    It does have a nice chopped look. As I mentioned in a previous review I have gotten used to the PT Cruisers look after initially finding it grotesque. The PT has a really weird forward wedge shape the more that I look at it, and now im actually starting to find it more and more less appealing, though I never liked it anyways. The HHR looks like what a retro should look like without the gimmick forward slope that most Chryslers have.

    I read one review that actually said the window views were very good, but the B pillar gets in the way sometimes.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    GVWR-gross vehicle weight rating-includes the weight of the vehicle, passengers, and all the vehicles fluids, fuel, and payload. It has nothing to do with towing capacity.

    I have read several conflicting fuel requirements in test articles. Does the 2.4 L run on regular octane or higher octane?
  • ray80ray80 Posts: 1,655
    I believe the verbage for the 2.4 states premium recommended but not required. I would guess you could get by with using a brand of 87 that doen't create excessive pinging, while allowing for a somewhat decreased performance. I have heard 2 running and noticed one seemed to be excessively noisey (even just idling)
    Perhaps they had lower octane in it, I don't know
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Go mid-grade. A little cheaper but better than 87.

    Nice HHR woody!
  • "Picked up my HHR 8/3/5... Very satisfied with the vehicle - fit and finish are great. I really enjoy the interior features - Chevy has come a long way!!!"

    Congratulations on your purchase KW. Funny I have not seen any sign of one on a Chevy lot here in the LA area - at least as of last Friday. I have to go down to USC tonight, maybe Felix will have one I can check out in person.
  • Verbatim from the owners manual:
    If your vehicle has the 2.2L L4 engine (VIN Code F) use regular unleaded gasoline with a posted rating of 87 or higher. If the octane rating is less than 87, you may notice an audible knocking noise when you drive, commonly referred to as spark knock. If this occurs, use a gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher as soon as possible. If you are using gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher and you hear heavy knocking, your engine needs service.
    If your vehicle has the 2.4L L4 engine(VIN Code P) use premium unleaded gasoline with a posted octane rating of 91 or higher. You may also use regular unleaded gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher, but your vehicle's acceleration may be slightly reduced, and you may notice a slight audible knocking noise, commonly referred to as spark knock. If the octane is less than 87, you may notice a heavy knocking noise when you drive. If this occurs, use a gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher as soon as possible. Otherwise you might damage your engine. If you are using gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher and you hear heavy knocking, your engine needs service.

    ...Some gasolines may contain an octane enhancing additive called methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) General Motors recommends against the use of gasolines containing MMT.

    BTW,ours is #2549
  • Nice Blue!! Our local dealer has a blue 2LT sitting in front of his showroom without the runningboards as well.(Glenway Chevrolet, Cincinnati, Ohio) I believe the sticker on it is $23,660 :shades:
  • Just curious, does anyone know what HHR stands for? Im assuming it stems from the original wagons of yesterdays
  • Heritage High Roof
  • Ah, thanks Chevrolet95! Just as a side note, I stopped tonight and looked at one at a dealers lot (blue of course). I have to admit I liked it better in person than I thought I would, but it seemed so small. Everything from the little dash, to the little gauges, and what looked like little head room. I guess I would sum it up as "cute". Def something to give the PT Cruiser a run for its money for those in that market.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    I too found out smaller than I thought, body wise. I prefer it this way, though it is big on the inside. Smaller to me means easier to drive, park, and mileage, though it is considerably larger than the starting to look odd PT Cruiser.

    The Delta platform in which it shares with the Cobalt, Ion, gives it a slightly larger wheelbase than those two, but the Cobalt is about an inch longer overall.
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    I have never seen a gas station with anything below 87 octane. Is that a common thing out West?
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    I was driving by another dealer yesterday and decided to stop in. They had a beautiful SSR in the showroom with a custom flame paint job that was brown, almost like wood tone, but for $3,500 more. Anyways this was a larger volume Chevy dealer in Libertyville, Illinois. I didn't see any HHR's around so I went inside to inquire. A sales lady asked if anyone has helped me. I asked her if she had any HHR's to look at, and also let her know that I was a looker, not a buyer. She didn't understand me and thought I said SSR. I explained again HHR, new retro vehicle. She told me to wait. Several minutes later she came back and said she still hasn't found out and explained to me that they were one of the larger Chevy dealers and that they should have one. She came back again stating that her system doesn't show one in stock, but she will ask someone else. A couple minutes later she comes back and states that she was told that it's basically the same as the SSR. I told her that I really don't have anymore time (tired of this stall tactic), and explained to her that the saleman that told her that the vehicles were the same doesn't know what they are talking about. I thanked her for her time and walked out.
  • bporter1bporter1 Posts: 229
    I must admit that I am a little disappointed that GM recommends premium fuel for the 2.4L engine. If it was super/ turbo charged I could justify the expense of the engine, but the fact that it is naturally aspirated is a little uncalled for. Most people will not buy this car with a stick, and the 2.2L with the auto will be very pokey. Anyway this car still is on my short list, but it is rapidly falling to the bottom of that list.
  • gogophers1gogophers1 Posts: 218
    Most people will not buy this car with a stick, and the 2.2L with the auto will be very pokey.

    You should reserve judgments like that until after a test drive. Never assume another person's opinion is your reality. I was expecting horrible visibility, dreadful seat comfort and a noisy ride after reading a couple early opinions posted here. Well... visibility was good for me, I thought the cloth seats were quite comfortable and, for a small vehicle, it seemed amazingly quiet.

    The H I drove two weeks ago had the 2.2L/auto combo and didn't feel slow. But it's all a matter of perspective. Compared directly to a base Vibe with an auto or an automatic equipped PT, it feels sports car powerful. If you're looking for a vehicle that drives like a Corvette but has the utility of a Suburban though, I wish you luck. As far as I'm aware, no such vehicle exists and logic dictates it never will.

    Personally, I'm one of a rare breed that will NOT buy an auto. I've driven a Saturn Vue with the 2.2L and 5spd stick though and despite the fact that it's a heavier vehicle than the H, I thought that it was more than adequate for my needs. Plus, even at 80mph+, it remained pretty serene. I have high hopes for the H with a stick shift. Speaking of which, has anyone driven the stick version of the H yet?
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    I have driven the 2.2L VUE with a manual and it has more than enough power.

    That said, loaded up with 4 people and luggage I could see it being slower.
  • regular would be fine on level elevations, but if you were climbing mountain roads you should use the premium to avoid pinging and doing damage to the engine ,so I am told.
  • I know it's been a while since your post, but I liked what you had to say. I have always liked small cars for the economy, but want something I can put a mountain bike in back and I think this will work
    I currently drive a 2003 New Beetle TDI (TURBO DIESEL) in California.
    The cost of Diesel just went up 50 cents to 2.95 a gallon, so i now have ANOTHER excuse to get rid of my Recall headache
  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    There was a time not too long ago where 150 hp V8 was somewhat of the norm. The mid-1980's Bronco only put-out 115 hp at the rear wheels with a 351 V8.

    People have gotten spoiled with the trend of high horsepower as seen and marketed on TV commercials, ads, etc. Back in the mid-1990's the Chevy S10 Blazer had an industry high 180 hp, and the writers praised it's power. A few years later it was not enough and sluggish. The Chevrolet Trailblazer's 270 hp inline six cylinder again was, and still is somewhat the bench mark engine from which competitors compare to for power, efficiency, and durability. Writers praised it for more than enough power and acceleration almost to the point of overkill. But not to recently a read a test by a writer who said it was kind of sluggish, and could use more power, though they do have an optional V8 now.

    Most people will go with an automatic with the HHR. That is just how people are now-a-days. Most people have no idea how to drive a stick, feel its inconvenient, or have a lazy lifestyle in which they may need that hand for a hamburger or shake. Manual transmissions are only about 5% of the American auto market as compared to years-ago when it was close to 30%, around 1980. Europeans still prefer the stick by almost 70%. I too am like you, give me an stick shift, or give me death. Well not quite.
  • nargnarg Posts: 112
    Hi All!

    I saw the HHR for the first time yesterday and my wife and I decided to test drive it. We were blown away. This vehicle has all the features that we've been looking for plus a few, at a price that's way below what we were shopping earlier. I'd prefer a V6, but you can't argue with 30 MPG on this heavy of a vehicle. I hear a lot of poo poo on the drive by wire stuff, but I liked it. My wife will use it for a once weekly 200 mile commute, and the light stearing is a very good thing. Basically, right car, right time, etc etc. The model that was a perfect fit was not ready to sell yet from the dealer as it needed preping (he just got a few in on Thursday, 3 days ago.) It's a purple one, LS2 with sunroof and all the extras. MSRP is $24,400.

    I left them with a "I'll be back on Monday when it's ready to go." statement, and let them know I've never bought a vehicle for sticker. Which I haven't. In fact the last two I purchased were for below invoice. I understand I've got the cards against me on this one with it being a brand new vehicle, very hot in the market. But, can anyone give any insight on if they think I can get away with hagling with them on it? Invoice is about $2000 lower than sticker, which is a shorter margin that I expected. I'm willing to talk at around $1000 below MSRP, but haven't seen any give yet from the sales manager. This is a dealership where I've purchased before, but the sales staff is all new from the last time I was there. The service manage knows me really well, but I don't think he's got any input on things like this.

    Here's the way I see it. We will get an HHR. Maybe not now, but eventually. If I understand Chevy's stance, they'll have a bazzilion of these in showrooms within the next year. So, I expect they'll be "giving them away" a year from now. The way I see it, the sales manager can sell the car to me know, or later. It's up to him to decide if he want's the sales credit, albeit lower than he wants, now, or even less of a sale later. Is that a good point to make?

    I'm also a little ticked on the only $1000 from my GM Card for rebate. I've got $3000 rebate dollars available. While I can understand limiting the rebate, why almost 3 times lower than other GM vehicles!! Ticks me off. I earned those rebate dollars, why can't I use them? I expect a heated phone call to GM card soon :)

    Anyone getting any luck on pricing on these yet? Or am I destin to wait a few months.
  • csandstecsandste Posts: 1,866
    Higher altitudes will allow lower octane.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. In the car industry you lead, follow or get out of the way, as Lee Iaccoa said. Wise man. Looks like GM is one step past getting out of the way, and has chosen to follow. I am sure they will find people willing to pay more for a copy cat car, so it will sell. It does have some appeal in that the car is more stylish and cute than a minivan. As cool as a PT - no way, not even close. And I may add, a PT with air can be had for around $13,600 before tax and lic. And it is the original crusier specialty car.
  • gogophers1gogophers1 Posts: 218
    Not everyone's first concern when buying a car is image. Perhaps I'm showing my Midwestern roots here, but what others think about the car I'm driving means absolutely nothing to me.

    What does matter to me when comparing the PT to the H is handling, mileage, value and overall driving experience. IMO, the H wins. I've driven both. In fact, I've driven the PT extensively (there's one in my parents' garage).

    Sure the PT can be had for $13600 - if you don't want PW, PL, cruise, AIR CONDITIONING (!), et al. Chrysler has been steadily decontenting the base PT since its introduction in 2001. Seen any recent print ads from Chrysler? Whether it's the Pacifica or the PT, you'll see the base price of the base model in big, bold print at the top of the copy. Way down at the bottom though, it will say "as equipped" with a price following that's usually close to double the bolded headline.

    Similarly equipped, these cars are VERY close in price. Which one came first... who cares? Automotive historians? I'm more concerned as to which is the better vehicle TODAY.
  • trucker50trucker50 Posts: 148
    I really like the new HHR and yeah I'm sure the success of the PT Cruiser had something to do with GM's decision to build it. The Cruiser is a 5 year old vehicle now and getting a bit long in the tooth( though the Turbo is pretty sweet). The HHR is designed after the old '49 Suburban. As far as it being a "copy cat" that can be said about alot of vehicles....the Mustang was the first Pony Car on the scene but I loved my Camaro and never gave the Mustang or which came first a thought.
    I hadn't heard about the 2.4L needing premium gas and if thats true that sux but the mileage figures to me wheren't all that impressive anyway, good but not mindblowing. The one I saw today with the 2.4 was rated 23/30....I get that good and maybe a little better on the highway with my 3800 Impala and Grand Prix with 200 horsepower. If the premium gas thing isn't true however there probably will be one in my driveway very soon :-)
  • trucker50trucker50 Posts: 148
    The same could be said about the the Colorado/Canyon pickups.....after waiting for years for a S-10 replacement GM clearly dropped the ball when they designed them!
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    The PT for $13,600 does have power windows and air conditioning, and handles great.

    People in the mid-west don't have a passion for the automobile? What? Well, I guess there is less passion for driving these days from coast to coast - so sad. Really, I do see more and more people getting interested in cars again, though it doesn't seem to be as much excitement as the 50's or my era of 60's and 70's for the auto. The gas shortage and traffic jams kinda killed a little of the fun, as did the 55 MPH speed limit.

    As for today, what is better about the HHR ?
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    I too like the Camaro vs. the Mustang as first year cars. The Mustang used a Falcon chassis and as I understand it, the Camaro was new from the ground up. This is a good thing. The flowing lines of a Camaro are pretty awesome, and to date have to be one of GMs best efforts by far. And I did own a couple of Mustangs- just for reference, so no ownership bias there.

    As for the HHR coping the PT concept, well fine - OK, but it did not greatly enhance anything from the original. Everything from the windshield visors, to the hand hold cup for lowering the back door looks exactly the same. The shelf unit in the back looks the same. I am sure I am missing something, and will be told about very soon :blush: Sorry if I am wrong on this one, but when I saw it at a local car show, it just looks like a copy design.

    Chrysler will be helping GM on this year. The 2006 PT will lose some of its signature looks inside and out. That said, it will gain in the noise lowering efforts.

    Looks wise, the HHR looks better than in the photos I have seen. Personality wise, I am still going with PT. As far as comparing it to other GM new entries, I think it beats the Cobalt. Cobalt is a bit too plain. Gas mileage wise, I suppose it will be around 25 to 30 at the very top, and around 20 or less if drive mainly short trips and around town. Bet the PT and HHR will rank about the same there.

  • gogophers1gogophers1 Posts: 218
    I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Air conditioning is most certainly not standard on the base PT anymore (it was several years back). It's now a $1000 option. And cruise isn't available - at any cost - on the entry PT.

    I don't think "passion for the automobile" varies from region to region. But concern for image and ostentatiousness does vary quite a bit depending on the locale. That said, I don't think the image projected by these two vehicles is all that different.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at with these posts... are you trying to say the PT is the model for passionate drivers? Upon what information are you making this judgment? It's pretty apparent by your posts that you haven't driven an H, nor do you intend to. It's a copycat car so who has the time, right? It's like the Miata - a cheap rip-off of British roadsters. Who would want one? The only "real things" are the Triumph and MG, right?

    I don't know about you, but I love driving. That's why I drive a manual despite having to deal with Minneapolis stop-n-go. Perhaps I should reiterate a line from a previous post: I've driven both the PT and the H. The H is more fun to drive hands down. What could it possibly hurt for you to compare them yourself?
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Yes, the PT is around $13,600 with air. That is a base and air conditioned car price. As for cruise control I don't need it and it is rarely used in traffic around these parts. The 101 here on the coast is getting more and more crowded with cars.

    Edmund's review on the HHR is not too encouraging.

    A Miata is a vast improvement over the British cars. It is superior in reliability and is a car better suited for every day use. That said, it ain't perfect for everyone. It does however not drip oil all over the garage like a British car. As for collector status, it may never be such a car. It is a car for those with a passion for driving more than anything else. Miata clubs seem to drive more miles each year than does any other club. Miata is the real deal for a first reliable and bullet proof drop top sports car in an affordable package. It is not the real deal for those collecting cars. It is somewhat of a rip-off of the Lotus Elan.. A Lotus for the masses. I'd like a Lotus :) Is the HHR an improvement on a PT Cruiser?

    So what is better about the handling of the HHR? Edmunds did not like the electric assist steering. I like the steering response on my PT. If you like the HHR better, that's fine. I doubt anything in a front wheel drive will be better than the Miata I once owned, so I won't worry about best in class steering and handling for now. Perhaps later on, when I buy a used Corvette one fine day.

    Looks wise, I still like the PT. I like it better than the 2006 PT. Like the HHR it is small on the outside, but seems to be larger on the inside. The two are similar. I still like the original, as does GM, or they would not have made a clone with so many of the features of the PT. GM is making better product since 2001, so I am sure it will be a good car for those buying them.

    Any "local" HHR Clubs out there yet? I saw some national club thing.

    I too got the stick, and prefer to shift cars.

    Enjoy the road ahead!

  • poncho167poncho167 Posts: 1,178
    I too saw it as a copy cat vehicle when I first saw preview pictures of it early this year. I was unaware of the resemblance to the 1949 Suburban that it has taken most of its looks from. GM was saying that it projects 100,000 sales, and I was like no way. I still doubt it will be that big of a seller, though I think 60,000 is more about right.

    As far as looks, from the beginning I thought it was descent looking for a copy of the PT, though the PT is a hate or love in the looks department, sort of like the VW Bug. When I started reading about the HHR, and looking at it more closely, I realized that it is a much better looking vehicle. It projects a utilitarian type vehicle, old panel van with its flat roof, more refined character. The PT is sloped and kind of like a blob, if there is such a thing, not as chiseled in the looks department.

    I like to research vehicles online, magazines, and vehicle walk-arounds, and have only seen one or so negative wright-ups on the HHR thus far. All the others have been positive with reference to the dated PT Cruiser.

    My preferences consist of a pretty loaded vehicle with power roof, leather, 5-speed 2.2 L, brushed chrome, Pioneer, and touring suspension, to name a few.
  • trucker50trucker50 Posts: 148
    but one aspect I don't like is the fact the HHR's I've seen so far are made in Mexico. I have no problems buying something made in another country (you have to in this "free" trade society) but the things I've seen coming out of Mexico, for some reason have been less then impressive. The vehicles I drive in my line of work for instance where made in Canada till 2003 and when the manufacturing switched to Mexico the quality suffered greatly. Toyota is building the new Tacoma in their new plant in Mexico however and if anybody can get the quality they will, of course they say the people at the Toyota plant are the highest paid factory workers in Mexico by some 40% so we'll see....hopefully the HHR, quality wise will be okay :)
  • gogophers1gogophers1 Posts: 218
    I don't think it's a big concern. The PT is assembled in Mexico and it's been Chrysler's most reliable vehicle since introduction. The only Mexican manufactured passenger cars that have notably poor reliability are VWs and that, I think, has a lot more to do with the fact that they're VWs (which are unreliable no matter where they're manufactured) than anything else.

    That said, if I do pull the trigger on an H, it won't be for at least a few more months. Personally, I don't want the first of anything rolling off the line.
  • nargnarg Posts: 112
    OK ok ok, the PT stuff is getting old ALREADY.

    Sure it looks similar. But so do most 4 door sedans these days. Big deal.

    Anyway, I'm heading into my favorite dealer today to haggle on the price of a loaded model (base? you've got to kidding...) Wish me luck :)

    One point I'd like to through in on the reviews: I test drove it and found absolutly nothing wrong with the brakes. They stopped better than my full sized truck. Also, it is a high vehicle and does lean in hard turning, big surpize there right? Most reviews of GM products these days seem to be a bit off anyway. The way I see it GM is the inovator (sp?) not the follower. The HHR has many features you'd never ever find on a PT or Scion or any other in this class. (remote start, electric assist stearing, etc etc) I personally could car less about looks, all the features fit what me and my wife need. Nuff said.
Sign In or Register to comment.