Chevrolet HHR

vanman1 · July 2005

Pricing is right, interior is right, styling has been done.

I like the vehicle, I just wish it was a little more original. I hope they give the HHR a more modern look when the next generation is done.

imadad2 · July 2005

Everything I am hearing has me excited. I am expecting a big bonus this year (my company is doing well) and the HHR is on my shopping list. Chevrolet interiors have always been a thorn in my side. From the pictures I have seen, it seems they have finally listened to the masses. As soon as they are on the showroom floor, I am there buying one.

vistacruiser · July 2005

We had a visitor at the office who picked up an HHR from Avis at the
airport. It had arrived only 6 days earlier, probably one of the very
first in the hands of the general public. Nearly everyone in the office
swarmed around it to check it out. This thing is *TINY*, dwarfed by the
GM minivan parked right next to it. It will just about fit 4 adults
snugly. Sitting in the driver's seat, headroom was comfortable (I'm 6
feet tall). However, all of the windows are teeny-tiny, with the
windshield seeming like a porthole. Even if 40's panel vans had windows
this small, the interior spaces were certainly bigger. I almost felt
like I was sitting in a coffin (yeah, a coffin with windows, but that's
the only way I can describe the claustrophobic feel). This was the base
model, in black, no roof rack, tan cloth seats, and with the 2.2L
engine. The visitor says he was not impressed with its power (having
attempted an impromptu drag race at the gate of the rental lot against
an Impala). The cloth seats were beyond firm. Not uncomfortable, but
not exactly pillowy either. Stowing his golf clubs in the back required
the turn down of one of the rear seats (and removal of its headrest).

Unless demand for a PT Cruiser-like vehicle with retro styling is really
still *that* hot, I don't really see this as a top seller. It's really
not a practical vehicle for carrying adult passengers and gear, let
alone any towing. Was GM anticipating riding on the coattails of the PT
Cruiser's popularity, or were they anticipating some serious ramping up
of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) in the near future and wanted to
shunt off more of the SUV buying public into this compact-station-
wagon-in-disguise? If the latter, the buying public might be better off
buying an undisguised compact station wagon. Yeah, the styling is
eye-catching, but if you want something small with eye-catching style,
you can buy a Hot Wheels toy.

kkrause · July 2005

To be honest, I think GM is targeting a younger market ... late teens, early twenties looking for a slightly more practical vehicle than a small sedan or coupe.

nmeiring · July 2005

I just test drove the HHR yesterday. Something just wasn't right. I love the way it looks, but that 4 cyl and the dash are just wrong. My husband thought it looked just right in the driveway (he is always supportive of my test driving) but I think the dash looks very cheap. Even though it is an economy type vehicle-how hard would it be to put in a nice looking dash? Afterall, all we see when driving is the hood and the dash! Well, so much for my two cents.

vanman1 · July 2005

Are the cars with "cheap" interiors and "bad brakes" real cars or pre-production testers?\

I am kind of surprised to read all the negetivity on the HHR so far?

auntnita · July 2005

vanman1, don't know about other test drives, but the one I drove was a "real, it's on the lot, it's for sale, we're past pre-production tester" car.

I'm the last person who would want to be negative about the HHR. I've been living for this car for the past 8 months with no expectations of perfections. It just has some flaws that would affect a pleasurable drive.

bigdaddycoats · July 2005

Premium is not required, but recommended. In the manual it states that acceleration may suffer if 91 octane is not used.

Think of this though -

at 12000 miles per year

20 mpg ave. - which is most likely low

you would need 600 gallons of gas

premium is usually $.20 higher than regular

so, it would cost you an extra $120 per year to use premium - really not that much.

bigdaddycoats · July 2005

Drove a LT2 on Sat. Quick thoughts -

2.4 with auto provides adequate power - nothing spectacular. Would be better with manual.

Interior does feel a little cramped.

Rear view mirror seemed to create a blind spot for me. I am 6'4".

Ride is very nice.

Fit and finish seemed very good. Except that the center dash console cover was too loose for my liking - seemed cheap.

My kids thought the car was cool. I do like the looks even if it is late to the party.

I'll write more later.

I drove a Cobalt SS with the 2.4 right after the HHR - it seemed much peppier and the steering was more to my liking.

weatherman3 · July 2005

yes, this HHR was on the lot for sale. you just can say enough about the cool styling but in my opinion it's simply not very functional to drive. i mean, maybe to scoot around town like you would use a bike, but forget making long commutes and trips like you would normally do with a vehicle of the size. i checked the weight specs, 4200 lbs would explain this slugs acceleration problems and braking issues. seriously, any vehicle that weighs that much should have 4 wheel discs brakes Standard equipment. Heck, even Hyundai even puts 4 wheels disc on almost every vehicle they make as standard equipment. its too bad, gm didn't go back to toyota for some engineering help with the car, it would have made a world of difference and would have been well worth paying a little more. look no further than the pontiac vibe for toyota's influence on gm, the vibe forums are full of nothing but tears of happiness.

micweb · July 2005

I doubt it's 4,200 pounds. The PT Cruiser is only 3300 or so pounds. Chevy seems to be blowing its posted stats. They initially listed the Cobalt as 3300 pounds then it shrank back down to 2700 or so pounds.

vanman1 · July 2005

Maxx is a great car though it is a fair bit more $$

o6chevyhhr · July 2005

Hey Guys,

I am new to this forum but all i want to say that is on september 20th on TLC on the show Rides they are going to make some custom HHRs. And one of them has a STS Turbo kit bolted on to the 170 hp 4 it now has 345 hp. You want profomance there you go now it can compete with the magmum.

:shades:

442fool · July 2005

The suits think this will be a huge hit with the young tuner crowd. It is sluggish though out of the box. The styling would seem to appeal to nostalgia, I don't know many 20 year olds that long for their old 1949 model styling. It doesn't seem like it would be easy to boost performance, sure they made one 345 hp turbo custom but I have also seen a 500hp Civic before.

weatherman3 · July 2005

and you better hire your own pit crew to fix everything as the turbo breaks everything in the motor.

gogophers1 · July 2005

I just drove a Sunburst Orange HHR LT at Village Chev in Minnetonka, MN on Tuesday. It was a 2.2L auto with a grey cloth interior.

I've gotta say, after all the negative reviews, I had very tempered expectations. And perhaps it was for this reason I was very impressed with the drive.

I think some of the early reviews might be coming from traditional domestic buyers who tend to prefer larger, more insulated vehicles. I'm 29 and have always preferred smaller imports with manual transmissions. So, my perspective could be vastly different from that reflected in previous folks' posts.

To me, the car does not feel small at all. For its exterior dimensions, it actually seems very roomy inside. It's not something you can load up with a fam and hook a boat to, but I have neither a fam nor a boat. I think it's fair to say that if it feels small for you, you're probably not the target market.

I'm 5'11" and 170lbs. The driver seat felt very comfortable to me. But I can certainly see how someone much taller might find the space in front confining as the roofline actually slopes down in the front. As far as the upholstery, sure, it's nothing fancy. But it felt durable and grippy. For the price, it certainly seemed acceptable.

As for the dash, I do agree that the plastic was typical GM cheap. And the light grey color wasn't improving matters any. But I like the blue dash lighting. And I found the knobs for the HVAC controls and radio to be of high quality. The gauges? I love 'em - particularly the raised tach.

My mom's got a PT Cruiser and while I find the interior quality much better on the Cruiser, I've always been turned off by the steering feel (which is too firm for me) and the enormous, Silverado-sized turning circle. The weighting on the HHR's steering is much more to my liking. The response is quicker too.

Ride-wise, I thought the HHR I drove with 16in. wheels was pretty cushy. A bit more softly-sprung than what I'm used to, but without a huge handling penalty. That said, this is no sports car. All in all, acceleration was certainly adequate, but it really needed a stick. Hopefully, the stick version won't have the weird clutch release of the Saturn Vue.

What can I say? I was impressed. For someone like myself (*fairly* young and single), this vehicle holds a lot of appeal. If the salesman was correct, it'll do 32mpg highway with a stick (and the 2.2L) and yet I can still shove an 8ft rigid kayak inside with the front passenger seat down. What more could a person ask for?

edmeyer01 · July 2005

i actually saw the one you drove tonight. i went there and checked it out and it looks cool. it was kinda dark, but it looked well put together and i thought it looked fairly roomy. it looks low and rakish in person. in photos that doesn't come across. the dash looks cockpit like, like a car where the PT dash is truckish and not very enveloping as in the HHR.

charlotte7 · July 2005

Why does the larger four cylinder engine in the HHR require premium gas?

bumpy · July 2005

Because GM tuned it for horsepower on premium gas (it's essentially the same motor as the base Solstice/Sky). You can run most any engine these days on cheap gas and the computer will derate the engine to handle it, but you'll lose some horsepower that way.

gogophers1 · July 2005

It's a small world.

The salesman with whom I spoke made it seem as if Village was extra special because they had one, but I drove through St. Boni this morning and Thurk Bros. had a black one on the front lawn. If Thurk has one, everybody has 'em.

I'm heading over to the Eden Prairie today after work and I'm hoping Suburban Chev has one with a stick. We shall see.

Anyone seen an H with a stick yet?

nortsr1 · July 2005

The GM employee discount is only for "2005" model cars...the HHR is a 2006.You can bet you bottom dollar there will not be any discounts until GM sees how sales are progressing.

micweb · July 2005

You said:

"My mom's got a PT Cruiser and while I find the interior quality much better on the Cruiser,"

I've got to see one in person, but I was disappointed by the interior pix. I had a PT Cruiser and one of the nicest things about it was the interior. I thought GM was upgrading interiors, but the dash and doors look very plain on the inside pix I have seen of the HHR.

You also said:

"If the salesman was correct, it'll do 32mpg highway with a stick (and the 2.2L)"

Well, that would go a long way to winning me over...the gas mileage on my automatic PT Cruiser was worse than my Mustang V6 with stick and worse than my current Honda CR-V with automatic. I am certainly willing to drive a stick, and could live with the slightly small displacement on the HHR base model (2.2 vs. 2.4 on the PT) What do they do on the PT...dribble the gas out the tail pipe?

You said:

"A bit more softly-sprung than what I'm used to, but without a huge handling penalty. That said, this is no sports car."

That's sad to hear. The other bummer about the PT was the soft suspension on my base model. I was hoping for something more akin to a sport suspension on the base model HHR. I DO value handling.

I am interested enough to try a test drive, though.

gogophers1 · July 2005

That's sad to hear. The other bummer about the PT was the soft suspension on my base model. I was hoping for something more akin to a sport suspension on the base model HHR. I DO value handling.

Keep in mind the one I drove had 16" wheels. You could get 17" wheels if that's your thing. That said, I thought the handling was decent. But, like the Cruiser, it's no sports car - at least not coming out the factory doors.

As far as MPGs, my mom's Cruiser is an auto too and, like you say, it sucks gas like there's no tomorrow. I've borrowed it on a few occasions and was glad to give it back before fill-up time. In contrast, the 2.2L in the H I drove seemed vastly more refined than the 2.4 in the Cruiser - slightly quicker, but far smoother and from the looks of it, light years ahead in terms of efficiency.

The only aspect that really annoys me about the H is the plastic party going on behind the rear seat. I mean, how expensive is nylon carpeting anyway?

micweb · July 2005

Thanks for the additional comments on engine smoothness. Now I definitely have to test drive one!

poncho167 · July 2005

Hello, I have read all of the comments on the forum regarding the HHR and overall it sounds really great. I am more than a year away from purchasing, and tend to like the Cobalt sedan allot, but this vehicle is not out of the question.

The 5-speed with leather and side curtain air bags would be the one for me. I haven't seen it in person, but I find it hard to believe that it has cheap plastic. What is cheap plastic? The Cobalt is a premium compact and doesn't have cheap plastic. Plastic is way to over-rated, give it a rest.

The expected 30 mpg highway is what attracts me. I wouldn't want anything that couldn't get at least 30 mpg highway. The 2.2 L would be perfect. I don't drag race anymore, and have been driving for mileage for over 10-years-now. My over 10-year Chevy S10 p/u still gets over 20 mpg, but did get it's lowest 25.2 mpg last year on a trip to Toronto.

I was in the store today and the new Road & Track has an HHR vs PT Cruiser shoot-out. The HHR won the shoot-out against the new improved PT. They said the Cruiser was improved, but seemed dated against the HHR. The HHR/PT overhead photo shows it to be considerably larger, but it only weighed (depending on options) about 140 lbs. more than the PT. Interestingly both posted the same 0-60 mph and quarter mile times.

weatherman3 · July 2005

went to buy a Pontiac Vibe today and what do you know a brand spanking new sport red metallic HHR LT2 with polished 17" rims sittin' out front. couldn't resist driving this one, since it had the 2.4 L HI-PO engine and all the extra goodies.

Let me tell you, it is still not worth it!!!!!

for the guy that labeled me to driving ole' domestics, no sir, i drive a 01 toyota celica. i know what ergonomics is all about. the HHR does not.

even in the highest equipment form this ride is all show from the outside, (never doubted its looks) and no go from the inside. 2.4 L is ultra smooth and gives a bit more power but nothing that feels anything like 170 HP. AND you have to give it PREMIUM FUEL which at my local pump is upwards of $2.34 a gallon. That was a huge turnoff. other than that, the car was loaded, but yet again i could never, ever get comfortable in the seat and this one had the power adjustable seat, wife neither. YES, i will agree with other that this car demands attention, but hey their is nothing else like it on the road, duh, same thing when i bought my celica, instead im still smiling when i drive my celica, who cares who in the heck is looking at you when your uncomfortable. as for gas mileage, let me tell you that i actually bought a FULLY LOADED vibe today, it was so freaking fresh off the truck they hadn't had time to prep it, so they put me in a chevy cobalt 4 door 5 speed manual 2.2 L , the car that the HHR is based on, well they gave it to me to drive until my car is ready on monday well, with a full tank of gas i drove 60 mostly HIGHWAY miles to home and the gas needle is already down to 3/4 of a tank, you do the math, the HHR is NOT going to get 30 miles to a gallon. Anyway, after driving the HHR I immediately drove the Vibe and wow, what a difference, more room up front, more power, more comfortable. a better vehicle all around. hum, maybe because it's really a toyota with gm pricing. I BOUGHT IT!!!!!! i double dare any perspective HHR buyer to drive the HHR and VIBE back to back and absolutely seriously doubt you will differ from my opinion. yeah, the vibe may have a few square feet dissadvantage in storage but think about usuable storage. your not gonna pile stuff to the ceiling and you will love the vibes 30 MPG CITY

.

edmeyer01 · July 2005

too funny. i bought a car from village once, but ya know, since they're in wyzta....

i drove one with auto in brnsvlle today. it was ok, nothing that wowed me but it should make a lot of future owners happy.

no stick sightings yet.

poncho167 · July 2005

I am glad you are happy with the Vibe, but I have driven Vibes before and I was astounded at how bad the interior was, in my opinion. Yes I know how I am somewhat contradicting myself by talking about plastic, but the Vibe and Matrix are all about plastic and it was not impressive. I also didn't like the shifter and the way it felt.

The Cobalt gets very good mileage if driven normally. In the July MotorTrend it received a 28.4 mpg all-around rating, which was better than the Corolla's 28.2 mpg. On the Cobalt forums most people get in the mid 30's mpg with the Cobalt, with some reporting upto 38 highway. This would make me believe that 30 mpg is not out-of-the-question with the HHR, though the aero-dynamics don't help. From all of my years of driving, most GM vehicles achieve their posted mpg or more, mine did.

weatherman3 · July 2005

yeah, well im telling you what happened to me yesterday with the cobalt and the HHR is over 1000 pounds more in weight, it doesn't take a rocket engineer to figure out that the HHR is going to drink long and often at the pumps. especially the 2.4 L which just achieves acceptable acceleration and demands premium fuel.

i love the vibe interior, very sporty with the dark two tone trim. HHR is one big grey blob. hhr stereo is pretty cool though. this is all my opinion though, go check them out for yourself.

gogophers1 · July 2005

I also didn't like the shifter and the way it felt.

Amen to that. I was interested in a Vibe a couple years ago. That was before driving a few. The stick version was very unpleasant - imprecise and balky. It was virtually impossible to drive smoothly. Then I drove an auto just for curiousity's sake. It was snail-slow and made more racket than I find tolerable. Neither was a GT, but according to the auto rags, upgrading to that model doesn't reduce the noise levels or buy you a better shifter (although it does have an extra gear). It's just quicker - but only if you rev the living heck out of it.

I think the Vibe is the bargain-hunter's special. On paper, it looks like an amazing deal. It gets great fuel economy and has the lowest cost of entry in the class, but when you're driving one at no time does a smile cross your face. It's A to B transport and that's it. This is reflected in its very low showing in the last Car and Driver comparo.

gogophers1 · July 2005

HHR is one big grey blob.

I second that emotion. The monotone light gray doesn't do the H any justice. IMO plastic is always cheaper looking if it's light gray.

I have seen interior pics of the H in neutral however and that looks better. I have yet to see one with my naked eyes in that color though.

bumpy · July 2005

"with the cobalt and the HHR is over 1000 pounds more in weight"

What makes you think the HHR is so much heavier than the Cobalt? The Cobalt is around 2800 pounds (still a porker), and the HHR should be around 3000 pounds with a GVWR near 4000.

poncho167 · August 2005

"yeah, well im telling you what happened to me yesterday with the cobalt and the HHR is over 1000 pounds more in weight."

Sorry. The HHR as you know is built on the Cobalt chassis and has a larger body, though not enough to make it heavier. In fact if you would have looked it up, the Cobalt sedan with 2.2 L weighs more at 3,216 vs 3,155 for the HHR. You can ad on another 50 lbs. for the 2.4 L engine. It really didn't take science after all did it. The 2.4 L doesn't demand high octane fuel, it is just recommended for higher performance. Again I would take the spirited 2.2 L engine in this vehicle. If it's responsive in the Cobalt, it will be just as good in the HHR. I have seen the interior, though by pictures, and there is no blob about it. It has car like instrumentation similar to the Cobalt. Very attractive. Gray is the most common interior color in vehicles. Sorry this isn't your color, but it would be my choice.

I couldn't post the website that has the specifications because it would be violating the edmunds rules.

The big Buick Lesabre, base model, has a rating of 30 mpg highway, weighs almost 3,600 lbs., and is able to achieve that mark. My moms Buick Regal also weighs more than the HHR and has gotten as much as 34 mpg highway on trips. The former Caprice Classic weighed over 4,000 lbs., and could achieve 26 mpg highway.

Road & Track finds it light years ahead of the new PT Cruiser. Do you think the PT is a better vehicle as well?

poncho167 · August 2005

The Cobalt weight figure I quoted was the LT sedan, the coupe is in the 2800 lbs range.

micweb · August 2005

You said, in part in a slightly earlier post:

In fact if you would have looked it up, the Cobalt sedan with 2.2 L weighs more at 3,216 vs 3,155 for the HHR

Then added in your current post:

The Cobalt weight figure I quoted was the LT sedan, the coupe is in the 2800 lbs range.

In fact the sedan and coupe are both about 2800 pounds, the 3216 figure was an error that orginated on GM's own site. For a while I thought the Cobalt was heavy like the current New Jetta, but in fact it is more comparable to the last generation Jetta/Golf - heavier than some competing small cars like the Civic but not overweight like the New Jetta.

The 3200 lbs approximate weight for the HHR is in line with the weight for the PT Cruiser. As larger, "hollow body" (wagon) vehicles, presumably they use more, and thicker, metal for proper body rigidity.

I got my Sept. Road and Track in the mail, and eagerly looked for the HHR/PT comparo - but it wasn't there! Are you sure it's in R&T and not another car magazine?

bigdaddycoats · August 2005

Is in the new issue of Motor Trend.

bobr4 · August 2005

Test drove two different hhr's today. Beautiful car outside. Driveability about what I expected from the 2.4L. Overall not too bad an automobile if I doesn't take it out of context. HOWEVER, the front seat (Driver) with Lumbar support is a disaster. Even with the lowest setting, there is TOOO much lumbar support. Seems you can't order leather without the Lumbar support device. What a shame. My wife and I had a Montana Van that had the same problem. Got rid if it and got into a Dodge Caravan, which has Very Nice Seats. Sorry GM, but you aren't going to bite me again.

johnr1 · August 2005

"The 3200 lbs approximate weight for the HHR is in line with the weight for the PT Cruiser. As larger, "hollow body" (wagon) vehicles, presumably they use more, and thicker, metal for proper body rigidity."

Seems like I read something about more strength in the floor pan or something. In any case, there are other ways to do this. The Matrix weighs about 2700 lbs.

vanman1 · August 2005

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/rr/06hhr.htm

lawman62 · August 2005

Why build a vehicle from a clean piece of paper with poor rear seat room and the same power complaints that the PT Cruiser had for years before the turbo motor. Then people of power at GM wonder why the are loosing market share for their products. They killed Olds next I bet is Buick a GMC truck its a Chevy kill it. GM cries about health costs yet is dropping the price of the 06 cars figure that one out. My last GM was a 96 Impala SS I still have it and I don't see anything in the GM line-up for me in the future.

poncho167 · August 2005

Sorry about the magazine confusion. I should have bought the magazine, though I will read it at the local library. Road & Track, Car & Driver, MotorTrend, they all sound the same to me, hah hah.

billmchale · August 2005

Actually I think GM is starting to wake up. The cost of health care is a real concern... I imagine GM is probably paying close to $10,000 per employee or more (since they cover retirees) in health care and thousands more per employee in pension benefits.

The reason they are lowering their prices is simple... There cars are overpriced which results in huge discounts on them which make them less attractive (You see a car with a $5,000 discount and you must wonder why people don't like it) and also increases apparent depreciation on the vehicle.

Regarding the engines.. I think GM did a better job than Chrysler... yes there is no 200+ HP varient yet, but the 2.4 liter should provide enough power for the car to get out of its way. Even with the Chrysler the 150 HP version was only a problem if you were opting for the automatic transmission. Overall I would say that the HHR looks like a very good overall vehicle.. whether the styling will be a hit or not is another question but it looks to offer a good blend of performance and utility. With the possible exception of the DRLs (Which I hate along with automatic head lights) this car might be at the top of my shopping list when I go looking at cars in a few months.

micweb · August 2005

I saw the pix of the HHR on the Canadian review link posted above, and it looks much better than in the pix on the official GM site. The interior picture also looks better.

I miss the interior grab handles on the doors - the PT Cruiser had nice handles. The Chevy doesn't have anything to wrap your hand around.

Then I got to thinking, and maybe GM is right. Those little "ash tray" style grab points on the door armrest don't look as nice as protruding grab handles, but there is no temptation to wrap your hand around the handle while driving with your arm on the arm rest. Why is this important? As side air bags become more common, you don't want your hand wrapped around a handle - when the air bag goes off, you want your arm free to get blown in towards your torso. Otherwise, your arm and wrist will get torqued by the airbag release.

I have a Focus ZX3 and it has side air bags, and I have to remind myself not to put my hand into the arm rest handle. Likewise, my former Golf had handles too and posed the same side air bag risk.

So, "cheaper" - no handles - is actually better!

awesomeone2 · August 2005

I will save you some time. To summarize, MT rated the HHR higher. Reasons - more ergonomically designed interior and more room. If you decide on one, tread lightly on the options. The HHR in the magazine stickered for over $24,000. Stay away from the leather seats, Onstar, moonroof, and the auto and the sticker would be around $20,000.

awesomeone2 · August 2005

Why not stay away from the leather seats and go with the cloth? You would save around $1,000.00 and your backside. Besides, you could even wind up with a decent vehicle for a change. We own a Olds Silhouette GLS and we find the seats very comfortable.

poncho167 · August 2005

Right you are about overpricing vehicles and resale/depreciation. A major factor in the low resale value is the free money up front, which eventually turns out to be not so free at resale/trade-in years later. The big three was basically raising the price of what they would normally ask for a car, and putting $$$ on the hood. I can see how people can perceive an auto being overpriced based on that alone. GM is now focusing on getting the right price on the car from the beginning, with little or no incentive.

As far as DRL (daylight running lights), I like them and they have proven to have saved allot of lives. They are required by law on all new cars in Canada, and many European countries are doing so as well. It can be difficult for a pedestrian to see an approaching vehicle on a bright sunny or overcast day. Additonally it helps to see these vehicles when pulling out into traffic. I have even thought of purchasing a kit to install in my pre-DRL vehicle, but I am running too many accessories as it is-stereo equipment. For those who don't want them on they can be deactivated but I would think of safety first.

poncho167 · August 2005

MotorWeeks weekly show had a brief preview of an HHR and said it was very impressed by the fit and finish. They called the exterior retro as do most, but the interior was called modern, which I would agree. They didn't bring the retro inside like the Cruiser did.

I went to a local Chevy dealer yesterday to see their solo HHR that they just got in but it was sold. The salesman said it was gone fast. Two of the three salesman who were standing at the door smoking in the 90 degree heat said they never got a chance to see it. They are expecting 2-3 more this week. Interestingly, when one asked me if I was looking for a new car (not for at least another year), when I replied next year, just looking, they basically walked away without even trying to create some comradery or say a friendly "hope to see you again comment." When I was in car sales 15-years-ago, we showed a bit more interest than that.

o6chevyhhr · August 2005

There was a LT at my dealership today it was DantonBlue with Tan( Cashmere) Interior which was leather. I thought that the HHR is a great Car. The seats and fit and finish felt good. The leather seats a better than the stock cloth seats in support and comfort. Then rear storage bin diddent have a one leg suport. It just hooked up to the top. This HHR had Bright Chrome Package, 16 inch painted wheels , Automatic Trans., and 2.2 4, Leather seats, Controls on steering wheel, Remote start, dident have the Poinner System tho. It was stickerd at $19,000. If it had the Poinner System i probly would have bought it. I like the HHR a lot i am 5,9 and fit inside of it perfect. I had plenty of room all around me and i dident feel confined in any way. I am hoping to get a 2LT next year about this time. For all of the bad things that i heard on here i think they are lies because everything to me seemed to be great. :shades: ">

billmchale · August 2005

Just read edmunds review of the HHR http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=106628

I am trying to remember the last time I saw that harsh of a review...

georget · August 2005

You beat me to it. I thought the same thing when I read the review. OUCH!! I really want to like this car, and have not seen one in person yet, but after the luke warm reception from many who have, I would not listen to sales people who tell you about a waiting list, or pay an adjusted market value for the car.

Chevrolet HHR

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles