By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Knocking/pinging/pre-detonation are all the same terms for when the gas/air mixture in the combustion chamber explodes from the temperature and pressure there, rather than a controlled burn initiated by the spark plug. It is always a bad thing, as it occurs earlier in the cycle than optimum, it results in incomplete combustion and unburnt fuel dumped out the exhaust, and it releases its heat over a shorter time period thus raising temperatures in the combustion chamber. The end result of persistent, severe knocking is a holed piston that was eventually melted through. Sure an engine can tolerate a little knocking, but they can also tolerate being run for a while with the oil or coolant level low - you still wouldn't do it intentionally.
Dieseling is when an engine continues to run after the ignition is switched off. It is related in that the temperature and pressure in the combustion chamber at idle is sufficient to ignite the gas/air mixture without a spark. This can be cured with gasoline with a higher octane rating, as it moves the detonation point above the temperature/pressure condition that exists at idle.
that's what cracks me up about these new hhr owners that believe they are gonna get great gas mileage. it doesn't have the aero or weight advantage of the cobalt and you gotta mash the gas to get the thing out of it's own way. sure, you feather the throttle and you'll get close to sticker, but nobody is gonna do that in this kind of vehicle. anyone that has seen the dealer marketing material knows they are trying to make this a performance oriented vehicle.
I did note that in terms of fuel, it was stated the 2.2 uses regular, the 2.4 uses premium, but you can use 87 octane in it. No mention of pinging or engine damage. But as others have stated, and from my own experience, there probably will be a lack of performance in using the regular when premium should be used.
In any event, the article was really decent. I have seen an HHR on the road and a PT Cruiser-owner friend of mine tested a HHR last weekend and didn't like it, was really negative about it. Another friend of mine, a loyal Camaro owner, was impressed either. Things that came up in both conversations were:
1. Lack of head-room
2. Too much plastic
3. Not enough oomph
4. Too much Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep in it
5. Materials/Cargo tray
6. Some fit and finish issues
I can say, from seeing it on the road, my initial impressive is negative; I see too much PT Cruiser/Durango/Jeep Liberty in it. But I will test drive one this coming week (hopefully tomorrow) and hold my judgment until then. But it is nice to see from this forum that people are starting to look at and are passionate about owning a GM product.
it doesn't have the aero or weight advantage of the cobalt and you gotta mash the gas to get the thing out of it's own way.
I gotta applaud your honesty on the "waiting 6 months". In my own experience, gas mileage has never increased, but performance often does.
With respect to the "mash the gas" comment, I have to agree as a former owner of a PT Cruiser. I can usually drive my stick shift economy cars with a light throttle and easily meet or exceed the highway mileage rating based on a mostly freeway commute with little city driving. On my former automatic PT Cruiser, I hit 25-28 mpg when new and with a very light foot, but a light foot on a PT Cruiser is VERY slow (compared with a light foot on a Focus or Neon which is actually ok), and when I gave up and drove it to keep up with traffic my mileage varied from 20 mpg to 23 mpg, most usually 22 mpg. I should mention that the few automatics I have driven seem to give up about 5 mpg on their freeway driving, under conditions where similar stick shift cars make their freeway rating, which makes me think that the EPA ratings are more unrealistic for automatics than stick shifts.
I bet the HHR will get around the same MPG. Anyone with say 3k miles on your HHR have a better MPG than when driven off the lot?
Nymex crude just hit 66.86 a barrel. I imagine gas in California will hit $3.25 for premium soon. Oh well, what can ya do! Just go out and enjoy your new rides.
:shades: Loren
Pictures do not do it justice. It really looks pretty nice in person. They'll sell a bunch of 'em to the folks bailing out of the gas hog SUV insanity who just have to have a similiar type ride.
believer
thx!
:shades:
You really can't say that enough, it has a tottally different effect on the eyes in person. Appears much larger than it really is, and it's smooth lines are very pleasing. Especially in certain colors like the purple. (wink wink, ours is purple) The paint on ours seems as nice as any paint job on new cars today. But ours is new too, they all look good to a point new. I plan to use some really good protectant on the paint after it cures a little bit. (3 months if I recall is best curing time.)
I disagree with those on the plastic and fit and finish comments. It's a 20K vehicle, of course it's going to have more plastic than a 40K suv. Isn't that a "well duh" or what? And the fit and finish is exceptional for this class of vehicle. Very nice and well done. As with any new car, they'll be a few issues. We've only found one, the sunroof lining was not set properly. The dealer will fix that next week so I'm not worried about it. Plus, it's not a vehicle for tall people. I'm 5'10" and I feel I'm about as tall as you can be for this vehicle. My head doesn't hit the roof, but it's really really close. I keep saything this, I hope it doesn't get old... It's not a vehicle for everyone, but those who will own it will enjoy it as much if not more, lots more than any vehicle they have ever owned.
I describe the HHR to people who haven't seen it as "A PT, but better looking." I think most will agree with that. It does look better proportioned and the longer size is very well ballance. I've always like the PT, but the high short back just looked odd. The HHR just seems better designed. Much more "heritage" in it's lines and look. Of course I'm partial to the HHR as an owner, so take that statement as such.
I've owned 6 GM cars and a couple of Honda's. All got exactly what they were listed, if not slightly better, at when driven in text book fashion. Drive them hard and fast, the milage goes down accordingly. I drove a full tank in my wife's Malibu once and only got 12 MPG, driving it very hard and fast. She could get 28 MPG normally on the highway, exactly what it was rated for.
So far in our HHR the milage meter in the dash states 17 mpg, but we've spent a lot of time in the first week of ownership showing it off rather than driving it. Blame it on the remote start feature
After we get 500 miles on it we'll likely see the milage hit the 23/30 it's rated for. My wife will be driving it on a long distance commute once a week and I'm axious to see if she can beat the 30 mpg on highway rating. She can get over 20 MPG in my V8 full size pickup, so it may be very possible.
My dealer had one sitting out front on Thursday so you should see one soon.
I've never been able to break my mileage down by city/highway numbers because I've never had a period for more than a day or so where I've only driven in city traffic or strictly on the freeway. I just take readings by the tankful and to do that, of course, you have to fill it to the rim each time (by tankful, I consistently fall between 32 on the low end and 35 on the high end). 30mpg tops for a small car like an Elantra is quite dreadful though. I thank God daily I do not own a car with an automatic transmission. Auto trannies zap any possible involvement in the driving experience, typically get lower mileage (certainly so in the case of your GT) and for that they make you pay extra. I have no idea how people can stand driving those things. It must be sheer hell.
Like someone else here mentioned, the HHR's MPG figures for the stick are actually lower than those listed for the automatic. I suspect real world figures might not bear this out. My money is on the manual to get better mileage.
Also, I found this review of driving the HHR, which I agree with totally:
"One of the best things you can say about a vehicle is that it handles like a smaller car and rides like a bigger one. Such is the case with the HHR. With its raised seating position and truck-like attitude, you might not expect the HHR to handle like the small car it really is. It's just as surprising out on the highway, where it's smooth for its size and notably quiet. Even when outfitted with the base engine and four-speed automatic transmission, the HHR still feels adequately motivated."
It was from a competing web for Edmunds so I won't post the URL, you can find it if you know how to look though. (cough, kbb, cough) I'm very impressed with the quiet attitude of the ride. Very quiet for it's class.
Considering it is a small car chassis, and that it is only a 4 banger. It does move as expected, if not a tad more. Smooth and sweet. Quick enough to be plenty for my driving style. I tested the 2.4 liter at roughly 0 to 60 in about 9 seconds, and found stats printed with it at 8.7 seconds. How many cars and SUVs in this same class have that performance? A few, but very few. I'd personally like to try the 2.2 liter sometime, especially with manual. I've got a feeling it will be very satisfying.
Don't be fooled by Pioneer, Panasonic or Sony Brand names in automotive radio. Most of the time, they are worse than an equivalent Delco radio. We have many times doing tuner test drives with OEM customers (GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, ..) and Delco radios normally ranked at the top.
Another thing: normal OEM radios, regardless of makers, performs better than the aftermarket in the radio reception area. Also, no aftermarket radio has 3 year warranty and expected to work between -40 to 85C.
JT
Hows the headroom....I'm 6'2 but hoping one without a sunroof may be okay.
The Mustang is 300 HP. Yes, it uses regular gas. Best gas mileage is in the Corvettes, which is some 26MPG or better in the C5 era of Vettes and has 350HP. I imagine the C6 is as good or better.
Loren
Gas just hit $2.70 a gallon today in Louisville for regular.....I guess I'll just keep my regular gas, 200 horsepower Grand Prix for awhile longer, that by the way has similar mileage numbers to the HHR! 20/30..getting about 27 combined driving
Little gripe, I too thought the placement of the power window switches a bit odd. I'm a GM man too.... love the looks of the HHR though, but the Turbo PT is a bad dog!
I'm 5'10" and my hair "tickles" the headliner in our HHR with sunroof. The sunroof does remove about 1" from the head room, but at 6'2", I'd really test one out for as long as possible before considering futher. It's every bit a small car.
The manual states that premium gas is not required, but suggested. I'm just about sold on the point made earlier by a smart post stating that premium would cost only about $120 per year extra if you add up about 10K/year at 25 MPG. Not a bad pentalty for a good running result. Lower octane will result in lower power and possible engine pings. I haven't had time to test any theory yet on this, maybe in a few weeks I'll be able to. So far my wife and I only have 120 miles on our new addition, not even broke in yet
Once in motion, in third gear, both HHR and PT should do OK in the passing tests, say 50 MPH to 80 MPH. I think the difference between a stick and base engine, and the automatic with a turbo is what, say a second or two seconds -- it is not like you are going to get thrown back in the seat, like a Corvette. In the HHR, as with PT, you may as well get a base engine with a stick. Or with an automatic, just expect to take longer getting down the road. Which ever the case, they are all faster than a vintage VW van. Unless clocked falling off a cliff.
:shades: Loren :shades:
Thanks for the video link. Though I'm getting tired of Edmunds take as they seemed to be looking for a hard core vehicle, not a true utilitarian vehicle in this one. It's not hard core, by any stretch of the imagination. And, I disagree with them on these points: 1. the brakes are actually quite good, especially for the small car class and considering the wieght of the vehicle. 2. I thought the handling was supurb for it's height and ability. I have yet to sense any harsh body roll or leaning in our HHR. It just doesn't do it. Now, compare it to a sports car and I'm sure it rolls a ton, but it's not a sports car and it's not hard core. 3. Interior room is awesome. It's not the same square foot, but square feet don't do any good if it's not usable and laid out well. I visited a local home improvement store last weekend to gather material for a closet makeover for my daughter. Folded all seats flat and started loading up rails and material almost 8 foot long with ease. Not sure you could do that in a PT.
I can't believe they didn't expect a short response from folks where they took the HHR to show it off in the video. Those guys own original american heavy metal with hugh engines and hard core chassis. Did they really think they'd impress these guys? Not likely with any 4 cylinder engine based vehicle.
Edmunds needs to re-review it with someone who is not hard core. But, rather someone who looks for vehicles to do the job their intended for. Oh, and by the way, the PT does not accelerate faster, but has a lower first gear making it feel faster off the line. It peters out quickly after starting. The HHR does better in the long run as the PT is rated at 10.5 seconds 0-60 with base engine where the video report stated the HHR does 9.5. Major mistake. These mistakes are getting old, and really makes Edmunds look bad and short sighted. Of course, similar mistakes were made with the PT when it first hit the market. Oh well.
The base PT engine has 3 more pounds of torque than the 2.4 premium engine in the HHR, but not the HP of the HHR. I would imagine perhaps a second difference, but not much more. I assume the base HHR 2.2, with a stick, may be around 10.5 seconds to 60. Actually, it really doesn't matter all that much. The rolling along speed between say 30 or 50 on an on ramp, to merge with traffic doing 70 to 80 MPH, may be important. I would thing all the engines would be adequate. You are not going to see any 0-60 times under 7 seconds with these heavy and taller vehicles, but they are not meant to be sports cars. That said, some day I would like to have a Mustang or Corvette as a roommate for my PT. The HHR and PT are indeed cruiser mobiles, and not rocket ships. I find the acceleration more than adequate. I do have a stick and do wind it up when entering traffic or passing though.
I still think the HHR would be a cool looking truck. That Colorado doesn't do much for me looks wise. Even if it was still a FWD, the HHR Truck would be cool for just a light duty truck/car and brother to the HHR.
Loren
On mileage...Someone had mentioned a 22/27 figure for the manual 2.2. I don't think that's correct simply because the 2005 Saturn Vue (which is even heavier) I drove earlier this year had the Ecotec 2.2/manual combo and it carried a 23/29 rating. I know the 2.2 with auto gets 23/30 (I've seen the actual window sticker on a couple of these). Other than that model though, every source I look at is publishing different numbers for the H. And as far as I can tell, the Chevy site doesn't have mileage info posted yet either.
On the PT 2.4...The base 4 is acceptable power-wise with a stick in the PT - at least I thought so when I almost bought one 3 1/2 years ago. The problem with the Chrysler engine compared with the GM 2.2 is refinement. The Chrysler 2.4 is a rough little motor compared to the 2.2 (which is probably because it has been around MUCH longer than the Ecotec). It's noticeably less smooth - even at idle.
On the HHR interior...I have yet to see an H with a beige/neutral interior in real-life, but I'm pretty sure that's the interior color I'd prefer (I'm not a fan of light gray interiors)... or at least I was until I saw a pic the other day which made it appear that even with the beige seats, dash and carpeting, the headliner is light gray (I saw a shot of the sunroof looking up from the beige colored A-pillar and dash pad). Is this true? Has anyone seen or bought one with a beige interior yet? Plastic quality is one thing (I can live with the H's plastic no problem), but if they're thowing light gray headliners on beige interior cars just to save a few bucks, that's cheap.
I have heard the HHR's Pioneer and I think it sounds real good, but I also don't think it sounds anywhere near 260 watts. Anyone else believe it's 260 watts?
I did find the Bob's Big Boy mention and website interesting though. I used to go to one when I was a kid here in Illinois.
I'm sure that some would find fault with how you or I might conduct a road test as well! it doesn't make anyone absolutely wrong or right. It's just grist for the mill and helps us see things through other eyes. That's what I'm looking for in a review. Seeing what someones sees in a vehicle that I might not have noticed or didn't consider important. In the end I may disregard some or all of what they have to say, but that's the review biz I suppose!
However, after seeing the car in person, I'm convinced that I'm not going to be able to get my road bike in the back without taking off the front wheel. Are any of you HHR owners cyclists, and if so, can you fit your bike back in there? I don't want to have to use a bike rack.
Also, the rear windshield is *tiny*. I think the visibility of that thing would bother me.
Charlotte7,
I think the best thing to do would be to ride your bike down to a nearby Chevy dealer and test it for yourself. I can almost guarantee you that if you can fit it in the back you will probably have to put it at a slight angle. I decided to go with a Mazda5 for the exact same reason, so that I could fit my road bike in the back, however, since my Mazda is a few inches longer, I am able to slide it in without having to angle it. And yes, I do remove the front wheel.
One other test I would consider is to see if you can get the bike in while leaving one of the HHR's rear seats up. Finally, does your seat have a quick release bolt? I know most road bikes don't (I don't), but if you can drop your seat, it will make sliding it in the cargo area that much simpler.
As an aside, I live in the greater LA area and the car I wanted was in San Diego so I rode my bike to the train station and then when I arrived in SD I rode to the dealer. Once I got the keys, I put my bike in the back and drove home. It was all very exciting.
Good luck.
Loren
I'm not convinced that an HHR is what I want yet, it's just one of several models I'm considering. I don't like the fact that the 2.4 engine requires premium fuel (the last car I had that required premium fuel was a 285 hp Z-28--I didn't mind for that power!) and again, the rear windshield of the HHR seems frighteningly small to me. I'm going to drive one anyway, though.
I would like to find a car with enough room that I did not need to take the front wheel off at all and which ideally could hold two bikes. (I think that means minivan, probably.) I don't have a quick release seat on my road bike but I do on my commuter bike, which would periodically also need to fit in this future vehicle. My commuter bike has more upright handlebars (it's a Specialized Crossroads) and I can't fit it inside my boyfriend's Saturn wagon right now. It's bulky.
I know you can buy racks, etc. for most cars, but I'd really rather not go this route, either. We have a Yakima rack on the Saturn and my boyfriend's very very nice road bike got ripped off the rack by a low-hanging wire from a utility pole that was tangled in a tree we drove underneath. We could not see it and did not notice until we heard the horrible noise of his bike getting crunched off the rack.
Ecotec 2.2 5spd 23/29 Auto 22/27
Chevy Cobalt
Ecotec 2.2 5spd 25/34 Auto 24/32
Chevy HHR
Ecotec 2.2 5spd ??/?? Auto 23/30
Given the Ecotec's fuel economy in other applications, I gotta think it will get better mileage mated to a stick in the HHR too. I'm thinking 24/32 seems about right (worse than the lighter Cobalt it's based on, but higher than the heavier, truckish Vue). Anticipation... how long does it take the EPA to test these things anyway?
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0508/17/A01-283759.htm
The article said one thing of particular note to this discussion:
Under the old testing procedures, there were small factors that required a judgment call: how much oil was in the crankcase, how the engine controls were calibrated and whether a vehicle was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, the little adjustments added up to a big change in horsepower ratings. The new SAE procedures allow less wiggle room.
Please note that if a vehicle states it is REQUIRED to use premium fuel or premium fuel is recommended, it is legitimate to state the higher horsepower number. What is more important is that many so called economy cars, rated for regular gas only, actually perform better on premium due to what is being called "adaptive tuning." Most engine control computers will not only retard spark and lower horsepower on an engine rated for premium when you put regular in, they can also advance spark and increase horsepower if you add midgrade or premium to an engine reated for regular fuel.
This might explain why the Scion xA, which specifies use of regular octane, was formerly rated at 108 hp but is now rated at only 103.
So it turns out that premium fuel CAN benefit some cars.
And 2.4 owners should really, really consider using premium, which is recommended.
Ah yes, I have experienced that, however, in my case I sort of forgot and totally just figured the bike would make it. I had the original Ford Festiva and tried to drive into the parking lot of the Westside Pavilion near UCLA. I was driving under 20 MPH so I only bent the fork on a mid-priced Bianchi and scratched the car's roof.
I know everyone has their preferences, but why do you not like removing the front wheel? Is it because you don't want to throw off the alignment of your cyclometer? I guess because I have been removing the front wheel from my bike for almost 20 years that I don't even give the action second thought. On the other hand if it was the rear wheel, then I would totally concur. My road bike is a '93 Kestrel that still looks like new. I am also in the process of turning my wife's '88 Gary Fisher into a city bike (just changing out the tires to city slickers and needs a new chain, otherwise it too looks new) so that I can use the bike for partial commuting during the week.
After people get say 3k miles on the cars, and start reporting in, we will have some real world driving reports in. I bet ya it will average around 20 or less in all city driving, and will get closer to 25 or 26 MPG in highway driving, with some rare readings into the 29 or 30 with ALL the right conditions. The 2.2 vs. the 2.4 engine in MPG should not be all that much better or worse, I would think. If you average a third in town miles, and two thirds highway miles, and get say 21 to 24, count it as pretty normal, and 23 - 26 MPG as about the best you can expect. Above 26 MPG would be perfect conditions and freeway or highway driving. It is the nature of the beast, be it HHR or PT Crusier.
Loren
I just got back from test driving a 2006 Saturn Vue FWD with the 5spd/2.2 Ecotec combo tonight. The window indicated 23/29. The new '05 they had on the showfloor had a 24/29 rating. Why the difference? No one had a clue.
One thing is for certain though: the H couldn't have worse mileage than the Vue. That means it's at least 23/29.
It's been a few months since I've driven a Vue, but this time around it really felt large. It is much bigger than the HHR. The Vue 5spd manual would actually be an appealing vehicle IMO if it weren't for the dreadfully unpleasant linkage - heavy and vague (great combo indeed). I really like the 2.2 - very smooth, even when you rev the living crap out it. But being stuck with that nasty linkage in an hour or so of stop-and-go would truly be a fate worse than death.
I really hope the HHR's linkage is more like the Cobalt's than it is the Vue's. Otherwise I'll be nixing the H off my list with a swipe of the pen. Still looking for one with a stick at one of the local Mpls. dealers... nothing yet.
Loren