Last post on Sep 20, 2008 at 2:42 PM
You are in the Chevrolet HHR
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet HHR, Car Buying, Wagon
#20 of 39 HHR Test Drive 2.2 LS Automatic
Dec 01, 2006 (3:23 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....
#21 of 39 Re: HHR Test Drive 2.2 LS Automatic [pepjrp]
Dec 02, 2006 (4:47 am)
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).
Dec 12, 2006 (12:36 pm)
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 itís 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.
Jan 09, 2007 (7:39 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
Jan 13, 2007 (8:26 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.
#25 of 39 Re: Recent test drive [skysensor]
Jan 13, 2007 (10:45 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]
Jan 14, 2007 (7:12 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!
#27 of 39 Re: Recent test drive [smogdung]
Jan 14, 2007 (8:02 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".
#28 of 39 Re: Recent test drive [skysensor]
Jan 15, 2007 (4:20 pm)
I've mentioned this before (here), with the 2.4L automatic you'll get about 27 mpg if ya drive the way I do....If ya want to drag race from a stop light...just put your left foot on the brake...& give gas at the same time....it'll twist those 17s...even with traction control....got it back today....quite happy again....at 115+ the mpg suck.
#29 of 39 Rented HHr for an extended test drive - will NOT buy !
Feb 19, 2007 (9:10 pm)
gang this is a WEAK car... very little power, no acceleration. Hard to tackle the hills in San Francisco.
But the breaking point is that the windows are unuseable - far too much wind buffeting, so much in fact that when I first had the rear windows down I thought I had a flat tire! Mind-numbing loud pulses of wind, impossible to drive the car with the rear windows down.... and what the heck is a car worth if you can't have the dang windows open?? Man this is one hell of a lousy design... can't they test such things and correct them before putting them on the market or are we so conditioned to junk cars that we accept such disasters? I wouldn't buy this car at any price... why would anyone buy a car in which you cannot lower the windows because of the noise of the non-areodynamic design? And read about all the other problems noted elsewhere on forums... whew!