First Drive: 2006 Chevrolet HHR

[BMWDave]

Link



August 1, 2005

First Drive:
2006 Chevrolet HHR
By Richard Russell
Photos by Grant Yoxon

Toronto, Ontario ? Sport utility vehicles have been the hot ticket over the past decade. Every major manufacturer has jumped on the bandwagon, none more so than General Motors. But with rising gas prices and the "I don't want what everyone else is driving" syndrome, the bloom may be off the rose. As vehicle manufacturers attempt to define and fill even imaginary segments, the next wave looks to be 'crossover' vehicles.

In the midst of this madness, it's easy to forget that the SUV is not new at all.  
Vehicles similar to today's SUVs date back more than a half century. In the case of General Motors, back to at least 1949 and the Chevy Suburban. How fitting then, that the marketing and design minds at GM are looking to the company's past for ideas. The newest Chevrolet utility vehicle, the HHR, fuses numerous styling elements of that 1949 model with plenty of modern touches.

The HHR jumps into a segment begun by the PT Cruiser and since populated with the likes of the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix.

Unlike the hulking gas-guzzlers that get all the attention, these smallest of SUVs, or 'crossovers' as they are sometimes called, are powered by fuel-sipping four-cylinder engines and offer a surprising degree of utility.

After several hundred kilometres behind the wheel of an HHR, I can report that this is a seriously capable and well-developed little car, truck, SUV, crossover ? whatever!

Built on the same global Delta platform found beneath the Chevrolet Cobalt, Pontiac Pursuit and Saturn Ion, the HHR is a modern, solid piece of work. A front-driver, it comes in two trim levels: LS or LT, with a pair of four cylinder engines and manual or automatic transmissions. When it arrives in Chevy stores in August, prices will range from $19,000 to about $29,000 with all the bells and whistles.

Even the base model is equipped with enough features to make it attractive. At $18,995 it includes air conditioning, power windows and locks, cruise, remote keyless entry and a six-speaker CD audio system with provision for input from iPOD and other MP3 players.

The standard engine is a 2.2 litre four cylinder producing 143 horsepower coupled to a five-speed Getrag manual gearbox. You can opt for a four-speed automatic as well. At $21,195 the LT version substitutes a new 2.4 litre version of the same engine which develops a more robust 172 horsepower. The LT also adds a six-way power driver's seat with power lumbar adjustment, cast aluminum wheels and satin nickel trim. It also comes with a five-speed manual and optional four speed auto.

Options include everything from a 260-watt Pioneer audio system with sub-woofer to OnStar, ABS, side curtain airbags, sunroof, heated leather seats and 17-inch forged aluminum wheels mated to a special sport suspension. GM's marketing department will offer a special package at launch which puts much of the good stuff on the base model without making too big a hit on the bottom line. For $2,200 you get ABS, the Pioneer audio system, the 17-inch alloys with sport suspension, fog lights and some chrome and leather trim.

'HHR' stands for Heritage High Roof and the design, while retro in some respects, breaks new ground in others. The HHR is an amazing amalgam of style and space with a very roomy passenger compartment augmented by a cargo area that can become positively cavernous when the seats are folded and people-space is traded for package-space. The tall roof is the principal contributor to that amazing space making it easy to not only accommodate tall or bulky items but also make entry truly easy ? simply step in, not up or down, but in. The back seat comfortably handles full-size folks with plenty of head room and ample shoulder room for two, or three in a pinch.

The front passenger seat folds flat as do both sides of the rear seat making it possible to carry eight-foot long objects with the lift gate closed. The cargo compartment is adaptable to a variety of configurations. The floor is flat with or without the second row seats folded down. The load floor itself can be raised and used as a shelf. There is a 10 cm deep recessed area below the cargo floor and a pair of cargo bins behind the rear seat. Grocery bag holders and a carpeted cargo mat are standard. There is also a compartment atop the instrument panel with a flip up lid putting small items within easy reach of the driver but hidden from prying eyes.


Equipped with the base engine, the HHR acquits itself reasonably well on the road, but the 2.4 litre is the way to go, especially if paired with the five-speed Getrag and sport suspension. In this guise the HHR tackles the turns with a lot more alacrity than expected from something that looks like this. Visibility is excellent in all directions, although the A-pillar is rather beefy.

The HHR is an interesting combination of retro and modern ? looks and utility. Affordability is the icing on the cake.

[ifcar]

What they miss is the fact that competing models can do the same thing better. The HHR doesn't get as good fuel economy as any competitors but the PT, and isn't any less expensive than most even going by sticker prices. It needs to stand out in some way other than its styling, and it doesn't look like it will. Maybe they'll try for ride comfort and refinement.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

It sounds like GM's remake of the PT cruiser(and kinda looks like it).

[BMWDave]

It sounds like GM's remake of the PT cruiser(and kinda looks like it).

They are similar design wise, although I definitely prefer the HHR.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

I don't know which i'd prefer, neither of them really are very appealing.

I'd probobly take the HHR though, strictly based on my perceptions of the manufacturers and their quality/reliability(thank god chrisV isn't here).

[ifcar]

Weren't both done by the same designer?

I'd take the PT, based only on the fact that it is currently about $3,000 less.

[BMWDave]

Weren't both done by the same designer?

I'd take the PT, based only on the fact that it is currently about $3,000 less.

That can be expected, as it has been around a lot longer than the HHR :D  

[TBR]

The HHR looks much, much better than the PT Cruiser imho and looks to have a nicer interior as well, combined with more n/a power those two reasons are more than enough to make it worth an extra 3k to me.

Also, I believe Bryan Nesbit designed both the PT and the HHR.  

[ifcar]

The PT has a larger standard engine (150-hp 2.4-liter vs. 143-hp 2.2-liter) even if you don't feel like counting its higher-powered engine option. If you want to use the 2.4-liter HHR, it's a $3,700 difference instead of a $3K difference.

[TBR]

The PT has a larger standard engine (150-hp 2.4-liter vs. 143-hp 2.2-liter) even if you don't feel like counting its higher-powered engine option. If you want to use the 2.4-liter HHR, it's a $3,700 difference instead of a $3K difference.

Is that using the base engine or the low output turbo engine? (180hp I believe)

[ifcar]

The PT has a larger standard engine (150-hp 2.4-liter vs. 143-hp 2.2-liter) even if you don't feel like counting its higher-powered engine option. If you want to use the 2.4-liter HHR, it's a $3,700 difference instead of a $3K difference.

Is that using the base engine or the low output turbo engine? (180hp I believe)

You said that you'd pay $3,000 for a better interior and more power. If you want more power, it's $3,700 more instead of just $3,000 more. That's all I said.  

[VetteZ06]

I'm glad they liked it.

The Motor Trend comparison test is also encouraging news for Chevrolet. They basically said the HHR plays the PT's game and does it better than the Chrysler.

Aside from similarities up front, the HHR looks quite a bit different than the PT, and that's a good thing in my opinion. The update really did nothing in terms of exterior styling for the PT, and I really do prefer the blocky, 1949 Suburban-esque styling of the HHR. Especially from the rear.

The price difference wouldn't matter much to me, and the LS comes with plenty of needed standard features to satisfy the discriminating buyer.

 

[Tom]

I don't know which i'd prefer, neither of them really are very appealing.

I'd probobly take the HHR though, strictly based on my perceptions of the manufacturers and their quality/reliability

Why?  The PT is regarded as very reliable, and the HHR is a first year model???

[TBR]

The PT has a larger standard engine (150-hp 2.4-liter vs. 143-hp 2.2-liter) even if you don't feel like counting its higher-powered engine option. If you want to use the 2.4-liter HHR, it's a $3,700 difference instead of a $3K difference.

Is that using the base engine or the low output turbo engine? (180hp I believe)

You said that you'd pay $3,000 for a better interior and more power. If you want more power, it's $3,700 more instead of just $3,000 more. That's all I said.

Read my post, I said a more powerful N/A engine, not a more powerful engine overall. The turbo I4 is really just unsuitable for the PT Cruiser, especially if you get the automatic.

[ifcar]

The PT has a larger standard engine (150-hp 2.4-liter vs. 143-hp 2.2-liter) even if you don't feel like counting its higher-powered engine option. If you want to use the 2.4-liter HHR, it's a $3,700 difference instead of a $3K difference.

Is that using the base engine or the low output turbo engine? (180hp I believe)

You said that you'd pay $3,000 for a better interior and more power. If you want more power, it's $3,700 more instead of just $3,000 more. That's all I said.

Read my post, I said a more powerful N/A engine, not a more powerful engine overall. The turbo I4 is really just unsuitable for the PT Cruiser, especially if you get the automatic.

I know what you said. You're just not reading what I'M saying.

The PT Cruiser has a standard naturally-aspirited 2.4-liter 4-cylinder with 150 horsepower, which is larger and more powerful than the HHR's standard engine, which is a 2.2-liter 4-cylinder with 143 horsepower. In your post, you said that you would pay $3,000 for more power and a nicer interior, but the $3,000 difference is base engine vs. base engine. The price difference between an HHR LT with the optional 2.4-liter and a comparably-equipped PT with its base engine is around $3,700.

[TBR]

Yes, but I wouldn't compare the LT to a base engine equipped PT Cruiser.

[ifcar]

All right, then you can't say that the HHR has more power.

[TBR]

Yes, I can. It has more power than the PT Cruiser's N/A engine. But, it isn't fair to compare the prices of the LT and regular PT Cruiser since the PT Cruiser Turbo is closer in power to the PT Cruiser. A bit confusing, but it all makes sense in my head

[ifcar]

Yes, I can. It has more power than the PT Cruiser's N/A engine. But, it isn't fair to compare the prices of the LT and regular PT Cruiser since the PT Cruiser Turbo is closer in power to the PT Cruiser. A bit confusing, but it all makes sense in my head

Base vs. base: the PT is $3,000 less and has more power.

[TBR]

First, that includes the current rebates on the PT Cruiser, correct? If so, that isn't a fair comparision because I am sure the HHR will get rebates of its own quickly enough. Second, yes the PT Cruiser is more powerful. but to me it is a big plus that the HHR's high output engine is naturally aspirated.

[ifcar]

There's a $2,000 sticker price difference, and very little chance that the HHR's incentives will come close to the 5-year-old PT's any time soon.

Secondly, the HHR with the "high output" engine still isn't all that quick. Not all that far superior to a base PT and far, far behind the uplevel PT turbo, n/a or not.

[TBR]

Acceleration numbers don't matter for these kinds of vehicles, the HHR has more useable power than the PT Cruiser turbo. And, don't forget that Edmund's testers don't know how to drive, look for a sub 8.5 second time from other mags.

[ifcar]

That's fine, all of its competitors will get correspondingly lower times from C/D, so it's still not great.