Topic: CD Article: 2006 Chevrolet HHR

[Autos_Editor]

Test Drive:

With styling “heavily influenced by the 1949 Chevrolet Suburban”, the Chevrolet HHR (Heritage High Roof) was styled by “the same guy who designed the PT Cruiser,” says Peter Bleakney.  “Where the HHR really shines is in the versatility of its interior,” he says, but its base 2.2-litre four-cylinder engine feels underpowered.     More...

[a4_tom]

Just like PT, HHR has to be one of the ugliest cars in the planet.

[Wolfe]

I've seen a few around town and I think the HHR makes the PT Cruiser look good, and I never liked the looks of the PT before. 

I found this statement surprising:
No complaints with the ride and handling either.

I haven't driven a HHR so I can't comment from experience, but every other review of this car that I've read has commented on its poor handling.

[ovr50]

I must be one of the few ppl on here who thinks the HHR looks decent; in fact, I rather like it. I wouldn't buy one, mind you, but still it looks OK to me. I like it better in the looks area than the PT. I think the HHR needs more engine to help it sell. 

[G0dspd]

I agree with ovr50, it's a not an ugly car and it has character  ... better than the PT anyway.  It's not a supermodel but heard good things about the ride, handling, performance (relatively) and safety (lools like a tank anyway).  The engine/tranny probably won't be a problem since they're "proven" technology (those Ecotec can take a beating).  Anyway, it's like a donky (expression borrowed from Top Gear) ... not very fast or extraordinary but it's lovable and it'll do the job. 

[Bullet Blue]

I don't like the looks. And I agree it probably needs more power in order to be satisfactory to all the car nuts out there, but quite frankly, I'd say that it's probably adequate for most of the people who are likely to buy them. Going to and from work doesn't require 400 horsepower.

That said, it would be interesting if they add a model to compete with the PT Cruiser Turbo.

[wing]

Handling is certainly not the best on the HHR from my experience but it isn't a boat.

[jww]

How can a vehicle based on the new-generation Cavalier be anything better than mediocre 

Not only ugly, but uglier than the PT. How bad is that!!!! About the best thing that I can say about the PT is that we have it to thank for the introduction of recent retro cars - particularly DC's latest craze of ressurecting many beloved vehicles from our teen years gone by.

But the HHR? Nah - it's definately out to lunch in virtually every aspect except cargo carrying capabilities.

jww

[inco]

Well I'm on the side of I like the looks too. The PT was and is funky. The HHR (what a gawd awful name though) came late to the party and if nothing else you do notice it. Can't say that about a lot of other new cars so I'll give GM credit for making it different and it does grow on you.

Would I want one? No and my issue would be focused on lack of power being offered, but for a lot of young families it's probably very ideal and empty nesters will also appreciate it's differences.

[smainville]

I agree with ovr50, it's a not an ugly car and it has character  ... better than the PT anyway.  It's not a supermodel but heard good things about the ride, handling, performance (relatively) and safety (lools like a tank anyway).  The engine/tranny probably won't be a problem since they're "proven" technology (those Ecotec can take a beating).  Anyway, it's like a donky (expression borrowed from Top Gear) ... not very fast or extraordinary but it's lovable and it'll do the job. 

I'm ok with it too, looks better than the PT, but it's not for me.  It appears to be selling well, I see lot's of them.  The Santa Fe to me is the ugliest thing ever and they sold tons of them(can't forget the Aztec too)

[Agiledood]

I love the look of the HHR, inside and out.  I don't agree with the review with respect to handling and noise.    The ride was nice for cruising, but the handling and steering was just terrible IMO.  There was a ton of highway wind noise as well.   Maybe it's just because I expected something a bit more sporty, but the steering didn't seem direct at all and much too light regardless of speed.   This thing does need another 20-30 HP for sure tho.  I tested the LT with the 171 HP engine and it seemed sluggish.

Great interior as far as layout and material and there is a ton of space in this thing for being such a small car.

I think I was just generally disappointed because I expected a bit of  "hot rod" in the HHR, as an everyday econo box it's fine, just not a lot of fun to drive.  Maybe an SS version would fix all these short-comings.

[mdxtasy]

These nostalgic, old school designs like these do nothing for me.  It's unique but being different isn't always a good thing. 

On the plus side, it looks like a very practical people and cargo mover for cheap.  It's not going to blow anybody's socks off with exceptional interior refinement, or luxurious ride quality, or even amazing performance.  It's just a cheap small alternative to a minivan or cute ute.

[Shnak]

very pratical people mover for people under 6' yeah... 

[avtoller]

Probably about #225 on my list of desirable vehicles. If it weren't from GM it MIGHT be around #200.

[Howswedeitis]

I'm ok with it too, looks better than the PT, but it's not for me.  It appears to be selling well, I see lot's of them.  The Santa Fe to me is the ugliest thing ever and they sold tons of them(can't forget the Aztec too)

Couldn't agree more nothing is worse than the Santa Fe but heck I drive a rolling fridge (ie Volvo V70)
so what the heck do I know!!

[ovr50]

These nostalgic, old school designs like these do nothing for me.  It's unique but being different isn't always a good thing. 

On the plus side, it looks like a very practical people and cargo mover for cheap.  It's not going to blow anybody's socks off with exceptional interior refinement, or luxurious ride quality, or even amazing performance.  It's just a cheap small alternative to a minivan or cute ute.

  At your young age, Mdx, it would be hard for you to wax nostalgic over the retro designs, you're normal. Hard to be nostalgic over something you never saw as a kid   

[Gwendly]

The HHR to me is a decent get the job but nothing else kind of veichle for transporting people etc. Kinda like a cheaper version of the vibe/matrix.

Yeah both of those look better and are prolly better but some people are all about saving a buck or two

[Bullet Blue]

The HHR to me is a decent get the job but nothing else kind of veichle for transporting people etc. Kinda like a cheaper version of the vibe/matrix.

I think you're right. Those complaining about lack of power or handling probably should keep in mind that it's more of a "take you from point A to point B" car and nothing really more. Those wanting that, but still wanting something that looks gross er... different will probably be having a look at the HHR.

[avtoller]

The HHR to me is a decent get the job but nothing else kind of veichle for transporting people etc. Kinda like a cheaper version of the vibe/matrix.

Yeah both of those look better and are prolly better but some people are all about saving a buck or two

Unfortunately, the thinking is short-sighted. They may save a little in the PURCHASE PRICE, but when you factor in gas, repairs and depreciation, I'll bet most anything that the HHR turns out to be significantly MORE expensive than the Matrix/Vibe.

[Gwendly]

Unfortunately, the thinking is short-sighted. They may save a little in the PURCHASE PRICE, but when you factor in gas, repairs and depreciation, I'll bet most anything that the HHR turns out to be significantly MORE expensive than the Matrix/Vibe.

This is true, but people don't always think. Otherwise payment shoppers would be almost 0, but we all know how that is .

I'd be scared to buy a first year product as apposed to a matrix/vibe that has been in productino for years