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
#10 of 39 Re: Test Drove 2.2 Stick Shift HHR Today [jerrywimer]
Nov 18, 2005 (11:57 am)
Thanks for the great advice! The only LS ("stripper") models with V6's out here are the "fleet" vehicles I have seen on some lots. Otherwise you have to upgrade (this year) to a 2LT I believe to add the V6.
This is so that people who now want the 4 can upgrade it from an LS to a 1LT and still keep the 4.
I kind of like 4's too...call me crazy, it dates back to Fiat 128 days when a DOHC engine was really cool....
#11 of 39 Re: Test Drove 2.2 Stick Shift HHR Today [micweb]
Nov 19, 2005 (7:02 am)
Where did you find a V6 in an HHR? The biggest engine is the 2.4, which is available in either of the LT models. The LS comes only with the 2.2.
#12 of 39 Re: Test Drove 2.2 Stick Shift HHR Today [jerrywimer]
Nov 19, 2005 (8:02 am)
Though the 3.5 L engine gets very good mileage, on the Malibu forum a lot of people achieve upper 30's mpg with the 2.2 L engine. One person has gotten as much as 41 mpg not using his computer reading.
I would rather have the 2.2 L engine in the HHR and put the extra money into something else. I wouldn't be drag racing this vehicle, and I have been driving for mileage for over 10-years-now.
#13 of 39 Re: Test Drove 2.2 Stick Shift HHR Today [geemac]
Nov 20, 2005 (2:35 am)
People are mixing other cars and car models into the HHR site causing confusion. The 2006 HHR is only available with either the 2.2 litre 4 or the 2.4 litre 4 IT IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH A V6. 2.2 4 only in the LS, 2.4 4 available as an option in the 1LT, standard in the 2LT.
#14 of 39 Re: Test Drove 2.2 Stick Shift HHR Today [micweb]
Nov 20, 2005 (10:46 pm)
The 2.2 works fine for average drivers, but for those of us with a heavier foot the 2.4 is a much better choice. That is particularly true with the automatic transmission.
The 2.2 does have decent torque and at half throttle it seems to pull quite well from a stop. It's only when/if you floor it does it seem weak. Most drivers won't ever do that.
The 2.4 auto I drove had a lot more kick than the 2.2 manual. Too bad the 2.4 is so hard to find with manual, but the majority of buyers probably wouldn't be interested.
#15 of 39 Re: Test Drove 2.2 Stick Shift HHR Today [allfiredup]
Nov 22, 2005 (4:25 pm)
I had no problem finding a 1LT with 2.4 and 5-speed in my geographic area. I visited the dealer on saturday and had the vehicle in my driveway on tuesday. My dealer located it about 150 miles away and had it delivered.
#16 of 39 i guess you get what you pay for
Jul 23, 2005 (9:56 pm)
test drove the HHR today, it was LS with automatic, everything else was standard LS trim, sticker price was $17K salesperson didn't know much about, in fact he told me it had abs but that isn't even available on LS , only LT. but the drive what about what i expected. poor acceleration with the 2.2 L, it was myself, wife, and salesperson riding along. brakes felt mussy especially during hard braking before taking some cornering. vehicle feels much bigger than it is. it reminded me of my mom's old 92 ford tempo, cabin fever sets in real quick behind the wheel, you feel like your looking out at the road through a port hole, and looking through the sides and rear view mirrors is the same, parascope anyone, needless to say the view is extremely unconvention, basically the same as the 1949 suburban though, they certainly got the look and all the ergonomics to go with. surprising my biggest gripe and complaint is with the seats! I have sat in alot of chevy cars, the greatest by far is the tahoe which i have 2 mounted to a bench in my garage for relaxing, the worst by far is the HHR. i am not kidding when i say the seat fabric is the quality of your local walmart fabric store. i mean everything about it is terrible, the fabric is so smooth your rear slides around in the seat, the thread count looks so low you swear you can see the foam cushion. guys, it is not the least bit durable. seat adjustability is very good, but support is very bad, i am 6 4" and my wife is 5 4", neither of us could get a truly comfortable seating position and we don't suffer from any back problems. anyways, back to the drive, i played with the accessories while my wife drove, okay standard stereo, most everything was located on the center control stack, easy to use, but usuall cheap plastic knobs and buttons. noticed considerable power loss when engaging A/C on and off. typical of a 4 cylinder but i can imagine much worse with another person and a load of cargo in the rear. suspension handling was comfortable, soft, but not the least bit sporty. i didn't jerk the wheel, but i made some moves around traffic and it felt much more dramatic than it actually was. 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. you get a rear carpeted mat to cover the really cheap plastic floor which is nice. dont get me wrong, i like the easy cleanup of the hard floor, but it is so cheap looking anything with a sharp edge will tear right into it. I gotta give a big thumbs down to the HHR. the styling is ultra cool looking to me, but that's simply not enough to overcome being down on power, downright uncomfortable to drive, and it's poor handling and cheap materials. Maybe the LT2 will offer more promise, but at 20K , what doesn't?
p.s. i forgot to mention the gimick cargo cover under the rear hatch, supposedly it slides out and fuctions as a table for tailgating, however it's only rearward support is a single thin plastic leg which the salesman could never get to work right. ie. it folded up when i laid my arm on it. basically an engineering joke if you ask me.
#17 of 39 Re: i guess you get what you pay for [weatherman3]
Jul 24, 2005 (1:53 pm)
Dear Weatherman, I've been an HHR fan(atic) since first learning of it late last year. Have been panting in anticipation of seeing, driving, and owning one. Last week I got to test drive a 2LT ($23K+). I have to be honest and say some of my impressions of the vehicle mirrored yours.
Thought it was just me, but when I posted on another board, I said driving felt a bit claustrophobic. I thought it was because of the plastic covering everything, but it truly was because of the windshield. It's so small. Also noticed that the front door windows are small, too, probably because of moulding near the dash that is so large.
The acceleration on the 2LT was pretty good, but I wanted the 2.2 engine because the 2.4 takes premiums fuel. That's a big issue with me the way gasoline prices are going. If you say the 2.2 is sluggish, I'll take your word for it.
There was a little noise on acceleration, but that didn't last long. After you got going it was quiet.
I had leather seats, so the fabric quality was not an issue.
Another thing, I know they put rear and side view mirrors on cars so you don't have to turn your head to see beside and behind you, but no mirror is perfect and you are always going to have blind spots. Trying to see what may be next to or directly behind you on the passenger side was nearly impossible. You have to TRY to find a point of visibility in back opening yourself up to crashing into something in front of you.
I've been on such a quest for this vehicle for so long, and have let all the current offers pass me by because I had to have an HHR, but after reading your comments and a couple of others on other sites who've posted honest assessments of the car, and with a salesman telling me if I didn't act now I'd probably have to pay a premium over the MSRP, I think I will have to pass on the HHR in its current form.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE looking at this vehicle. For the past week, I've still been trying to find one with the options I wanted to purchase. After reading other views on the drive, have to admit I've been in denial. What I've thought were personal perceptions are realities. I just feel very sad actually driving it and seeing its limitations... from my perspective, anyway.
#18 of 39 Re: i guess you get what you pay for [weatherman3]
Jul 25, 2005 (11:26 am)
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.
#19 of 39 Re: i guess you get what you pay for [smaria]
Jul 25, 2005 (3:12 pm)
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.