You are here: Forums Wagons Chevrolet HHR Chevy HHR Test Drive - What Did You Think?

Chevy HHR Test Drive - What Did You Think?

39 messages,  Last post on Sep 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM

You are in the Chevrolet HHR Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet HHR, Car Buying, Wagon

Messages Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#18 of 39 Re: i guess you get what you pay for [weatherman3] by smaria Jul 25, 2005 (10:26 am)
Replying to: weatherman3 (Jul 23, 2005 8:56 pm) the cargo area is the best part of the show, drop the rear seats down, and you'll have all the midside suv owners envy every square inch.   I was considering the HHR, but I couldn't wait for it to come out. I ended up compromising on the exterior styling and getting a Mazda5 instead (for about $18k, a huge cargo area if the 3rd row of seats is folded flat). From your review, it sounds like I would have been disappointed with the HHR...makes me feel better about not being able to wait for it. Replies to this message: csandste (Jul 25, 2005 2:12 pm)
#19 of 39 Re: i guess you get what you pay for [smaria] by csandste Jul 25, 2005 (2:12 pm)
Replying to: smaria (Jul 25, 2005 10:26 am) Same here. I was waiting for this but popped for a $16K Maxx last February. Like lots of visibility and altho. the Maxx is bad at the D pillar, it's great in other respects. Don't like being in a tunnel. The Maxx reminds me of my kids early 90's Camry's-- excellent visibility all around.
#20 of 39 HHR Test Drive 2.2 LS Automatic by pepjrp Dec 01, 2006 (2:23 pm)
We (wife and I) like the exterior and the 2.2 engine seemed to have enough power for everyday driving. We did not get a chance to drive it on the highway. Salesman said it was low on gas and did not want to drive very far, but when I got behind the wheel the gauge showed half full! He was not a very good salesman and new little about the car. The engine, transmission, brakes, road feel were all very good.   My wife and I were both disappointed in the HHR LS interior. I am only 5'10", but the room up front seemed very limited, pedals took up all of the floorboard, no place to rest my left foot comfortably. As noted elsewhere, poor visibility, hard to see stoplights through the windshield, and rear visibility was downright unsafe. Also noted the hard, cheap, plastic throughout. I will say the cargo area was impressive.   If they ever fix the ergonomics/visibility issues, I would consider buying this car, but as it is now would not buy it at any price due to unsafe visibility issues. I don't understand how a car company can release a vehicle with these kinds of design flaws. How could these obvious flaws go unnoticed during prototype testing?   We really wanted to like this car, as it has the utility we are looking for. Our search continues.... Replies to this message: smogdung (Dec 02, 2006 3:47 am) stevesparadise (Jan 16, 2008 2:42 pm) poncho167 (Jan 19, 2008 6:02 am)
#21 of 39 Re: HHR Test Drive 2.2 LS Automatic [pepjrp] by smogdung Dec 02, 2006 (3:47 am)
Replying to: pepjrp (Dec 01, 2006 2:23 pm) If the auto-dimmng mirror with compass seemed to block your vision...there is an unusual way to move it up....when ours came from the factory it was in the down..blocking position..hugh difference after figured it out. Our 2LT with electric seat....has large amount of up-down travel...I'm 6'1"...after seat & mirror adjustments....no problem. After > 1 year...still zero defects....love it...27 mpg overall. 2.4 auto. Repeat...the mirror moves way up!!! (unexpectedly).
#22 of 39 Press Request by KarenS HOST Dec 12, 2006 (11:36 am)
A reporter from a national publication is looking to talk to anyone who has considered buying a Chevrolet HHR in the last several weeks but ultimately decided against it. The reporter is especially interested in anyone who decided that there were so many HHRs now on the road that it’s lost some of its novelty. Please contact ctalatiedmunds.com by December 25 and provide a daytime number that the reporter can contact you back at.
#23 of 39 2.2vs. 2.4 by bobthebike Jan 09, 2007 (6:39 pm)
Last summer I rented a HHR 2.4 auto and was supremely impressed with the entire package. With that memory in mind, I tested a 2.2 auto today and was underwhelmed. It just seemed buzzy and noisy. Is there that much difference between the two?
#24 of 39 Recent test drive by skysensor Jan 13, 2007 (7:26 am)
Currently looking to replace my Ranger pick-up, coming off-lease in a few months. HHR exterior styling piqued my interest, so I test drove an LT 2.4A at a local dealer. Initial impressions: The "tunnel" effect of small glass didn't bother me. I'm used to the fairly short, more vertical windshield from the Ranger. Overall, the glass had the feeling of riding a "chop job". Not necessarily bad, just different. I liked the level of equipment on the unit (it was pretty tricked out). Best feature, the cargo area with rear seat folded: loved the large flat plastic floored expanse. Worst feature: engine noise in the cab. I'm a forty-something driver, and the two most important factors in my purchase will be comfort and perceived value. The engine sounded like a typical low tech 4 cylinder: wheezy and overworked. It only bothered me because I could hear it ( ), pretty much at any speed. The HHR literature emphasizes the use of "quiet steel" and noise suppression, but if this is the result, they need to go back to the drawing board. I'm afraid I would come to hate those sounds (and the car) over time. Too bad, because otherwise the HHR seems like a contender. Replies to this message: ray80 (Jan 13, 2007 9:45 am) smogdung (Jan 14, 2007 6:12 am) skysensor (Jan 14, 2007 7:02 am) smogdung (Jan 15, 2007 3:20 pm)
#25 of 39 Re: Recent test drive [skysensor] by ray80 Jan 13, 2007 (9:45 am)
Replying to: skysensor (Jan 13, 2007 7:26 am) I can't tell for sure of course, but I suspect it may have been a more noisey and overworked because on the lot the dealer may settled for putting in 87 octane instead of reccomended premium. My 2.4 doesn't seem at all bad for noise when driving under normal conditions, but of course gets a little buzzy if I am playing and get the rpms up. I am currently weaning mine off premium (trying 89 octane) as its all to easy to spin the tires from a dead stop on hill when wet with my winter tires (nevermind frozen conditions)
#26 of 39 Re: Recent test drive [skysensor] by smogdung Jan 14, 2007 (6:12 am)
Replying to: skysensor (Jan 13, 2007 7:26 am) I think if you dig around on the internet you'll discover that the 2.4 is not a low tech 4. The 2.0 Turbo version is the highest specific output engine GM has ever created...including the 7L 500+ HP engine in the Z-06 Vette. Unfortunately the 2.0 turbo is only available in the Solstice GXP & Sky Redline right now. We've enjoyed ours so much that even though it's been in the shop >week with a transmission fluid leak....we can't wait to get it back! Replies to this message: skysensor (Jan 14, 2007 7:02 am) smogdung (Jan 15, 2007 3:20 pm)
#27 of 39 Re: Recent test drive [smogdung] by skysensor Jan 14, 2007 (7:02 am)
Replying to: smogdung (Jan 14, 2007 6:12 am) Didn't mean to imply that the engine was low tech, just that it sounded low tech. Perception of sound is obviously subjective, but the engine sounded "coarse" and was more noticeable than it should have been (in my opinion) when I was not pushing the vehicle. I'm looking for more "purr" and less "roar". Replies to this message: smogdung (Jan 15, 2007 3:20 pm)

Messages Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Wagons Chevrolet HHR Chevy HHR Test Drive - What Did You Think?