Skin-Deep Heritage
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/roadtest/06.chevrolet.hhr/06.chevy.hhr.f34.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/roadtest/06.chevrolet.hhr/06.chevy.hhr.act-3.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/roadtest/06.chevrolet.hhr/06.chevy.hhr.int-2.500.jpg)
Every Friday night freshly waxed classics motor up to the oldest surviving Bob's Big Boy in the world. It doesn't matter whether you drive a '36 Ford coupe, a '69 Chevelle or an '05 300C, so long as it's American you're welcome to stake out a parking spot at this Toluca Lake, California, landmark, enjoy a hand-prepared burger and chat up aging boomers about cubic inches and four-barrel carbs.
If there's any crowd GM needs to impress with the 2006 Chevy HHR, which stands for Heritage High Roof, it's the one at Bob's. GM says the little wagon's styling is a tribute to the '49 Suburban, and these people still know what a '49 Suburban looks like. We circle the lot, waiting for a reaction.
We don't have to wait long.
"So is it rear-wheel drive?" asks a bearded man in his 50s guarding a lovingly restored Bel Air.
"Nope, front-wheel drive. It shares a platform with Chevrolet's Cobalt."
"Does it have a V8?" his buddy chimes in.
"No, it has a 2.4-liter inline four."
We've bored them. They dismiss it as "Chevy's PT Cruiser" before we can even mention our test car's iPod hookup, Pioneer sound system and side curtain airbags.
We're not surprised. After five minutes in the HHR you realize this isn't a car for the hard-core, despite its classic lines. Instead, GM designed the HHR for the latte drinkers gathered at the Starbucks next door to Bob's. They wouldn't know a '49 Suburban if it ran them over, but they reacted favorably to our HHR's mix of classic-car styling, everyday practicality, mainstream mechanicals and $21,035 sticker price.
Retro Look, Stale Performance
Base LS and midlevel 1LT models get a 2.2-liter four-cylinder rated at 143 horsepower and 150 pound-feet of torque. Optional on the 1LT and standard on well-equipped 2LT models like our test car is a 2.4-liter motor that puts out 172 hp and 162 lb-ft of torque.
Even with the 2.4, the HHR doesn't have much spunk down low. Acceleration is more spirited once the engine revs up, though plenty of noise accompanies these efforts.
A five-speed manual and a four-speed automatic transmission are available, but over 90 percent of HHR buyers are expected to choose the automatic. The shifts in our automatic test car were well timed in relaxed driving, but the four-speed didn't like to hold gears during more aggressive driving. Selecting the automatic also sends fuel economy estimates plummeting to 20 mpg city, 25 mpg highway (versus 22/26 with the manual). We averaged 20.
The manual transmission has long throws between gears but does a commendable job of wringing out the power. Chevrolet claims an 8.4-second 0-to-60-mph time for manual-shift 2.4s and 8.7 with the automatic. However, our tester took 9.5 seconds to reach 60 mph and a full 17 to get through the quarter-mile.
This isn't as slow as a base-engine PT Cruiser, but it's hardly a dramatic arrival for a latecomer to the tall wagon scene. Chrysler now offers 180-hp and 220-hp turbocharged engines on the PT, either of which gives it a nice kick.
Pleasant Ride, Sloppy Handling
The HHR isn't fast, but it is quiet. Chevrolet credits extensive use of high-strength steel in the chassis, close attention to seals and insulation, and countless hours of wind-tunnel testing. Most manufacturers do this stuff, but the HHR is uncommonly serene for its class.
It's comfortable, too, as the suspension competently filters out bumps and ruts despite its unsophisticated design: struts in front, a semi-independent torsion beam in back.
Unfortunately, engineers weren't able to work the same magic with the wagon's handling. LS and 1LT models have softer suspension settings and wear 16-inch wheels with 215/55R16 Firestone Affinity tires. 2LT models like ours get a firmer setup with thicker stabilizer bars, monotube shocks and 17-inch wheels with 215/50R17 Firestone Firehawks.
We expected the 3,200-pound Chevy HHR to have a mildly sporty feel in the corners, but it doesn't. Sling it into a turn and there's some encouragement at first, as those big 17-inch tires bite down. Then, the suspension keels over and you realize you're a damn fool trying to drive this wagon fast. In fact, it only ran our slalom at 58.4 mph, which is full-size SUV territory.
The electric steering is tuned to match. It's much too light and numb for enthusiastic cornering, but its weighting is fine for maneuvering around town.
Lousy Brakes
Low handling limits are forgivable on a budget vehicle, but poor braking is not. Our tester came with antilock brakes, but rear discs are not available on any HHR. And forget about newer technology like Electronic Brakeforce Distribution.
The HHR's best stopping distance from 60 mph was 135 feet. Not a very good number, but there was minimal fade between runs at the test track. The brake pedal provides minimal feedback, and ABS noise and vibration are excessive, even for this class.
But the HHR has a bigger problem: It doesn't stop straight. This was disconcerting at the track. It was downright scary during a real emergency stop on the freeway. And it crosses the limits of what is acceptable on a 2006 vehicle.
Gets Better Inside
Chrome interior detailing is basically a requirement these days, and Chevy designers went about it in a tasteful manner. The gauges are actually beautiful, with the metal-edged tach set slightly ahead of the speedometer. The climate and stereo controls are also pleasing to behold and ergonomically sound with large dials and a scrolling radio station display for XM surfers.
Seat comfort varies depending on whether you select cloth or leather upholstery. The cloth seats are merely passable, but the leather chairs have extra contouring and cushioning which makes them much more comfortable.
Driver and passengers sit tall and visibility is excellent in all directions. Yet despite the HHR's delivery truck shape, its cabin doesn't feel as roomy as the PT's. One large-framed passenger complained that his shoulders were pinched, although average-size adults were content in the front and the back. A family of four with two car seats certified the HHR kid-friendly.
But some things are still off the mark. Rather than installing window buttons on both front doors, designers crammed a single hard-to-reach set behind the shifter. Some of the interior plastics still aren't up to snuff, either. The grain patterns generally match, but the panels still feel rough and cheap. And what's with the small cupholders in an American car?
Cargo-Friendly
One advantage Chevrolet's HHR has over its peers is a deeper cargo bay. The family's double stroller slid right in behind the rear seats with no wrestling. As in the PT, there's a large, adjustable parcel shelf so you can organize your load.
For larger jobs, the plastic-backed rear seats fold completely flat as in the Matrix/Vibe (no nifty adjustable cargo tracks, though). With 63 cubic feet, the HHR has as much total cargo capacity as the PT and, unlike in the Chrysler, you don't have to completely remove the rear seats.
As Classic as Starbucks
Skin-deep history doesn't sell like it used to. Today, you can be retro if you want, but you better have the performance to back it up. The HHR doesn't.
What the HHR does deliver is practical family transportation in a retro wrapper, but so does the PT Cruiser. And for a couple hundred dollars more, you can get a turbo PT with better acceleration, tighter handling and stronger brakes.
We'll take the Chrysler.
What Works:
Smooth and quiet ride, lots of cargo space, attractive interior, excellent visibility, versatile sound system.
What Needs Work:
Weak brakes, sloppy handling, mediocre acceleration and fuel economy, tight shoulder room, out-of-reach window buttons.
Bottom Line:
After five years of studying the PT Cruiser, Chevrolet nails the design but flubs the driving dynamics.
This is about what I expected from the HHR, unfortunately: a fresher-looking retro-wagon that's no more practical or fun than the PT, and much more expensive.
I think Chevy should have made it a little bigger.
Why don't they just call it a Durango.
I'm a huge fan of the PT. I will try to get mom to buy one in a few years but she thinks it's for old people. I'll have to tell her to look at the car I drive :rolleyes:
gimmu Tom
I have a feeling it will sell well for one or two years, and then sales will just tank.
So far, it doesn't appear to be offering anything that should let it last that long. I don't think sales will ever take off for this model, but there's no accounting for taste.
Well, I think it looks kinda spiffy and it offers all that toyota would in a snoozer cruiser. Quiet interior, nice interior, and all that fun stuff that people who don't really care would like.
There's nothing wrong with offering such traits, but there is a problem if too many competitors can do the same better or for less money.
QuoteQuotegimmu Tom
Gimmu?
I meant, your right Tom.
The PT Cruiser is the only one that comes to mind that can outdo the HHR in everyway for less.
QuoteQuoteQuotegimmu Tom
Gimmu?
I meant, your right Tom.
Gotcha B)
Saw this at the auto show, and I thought it was pretty attractive looking, but sounds like a car destined for Prowler-dom.
Wow...just when i thought they couldnt make it uglier....THEY DO :rolleyes: ....Why is chevy even bothering with this
It looks like a PT with a lift sorta :blink:
So...what the hell. It looks radical, but it has a 4-cylinder that nobody except old people that don't need nor want to drive fast want. It's FWD and shares its platform with the Cobalt...ho-hum. It's styling is, well, Chevy's PT Cruiser.
Do I want one? Of course not.
QuoteThe PT Cruiser is the only one that comes to mind that can outdo the HHR in everyway for less.
There only has to be one car that can beat it in every way for it to be a solid loser.
And others can come close, like the Matrix/Vibe and the Focus. They aren't as quiet, but they have their own advantages over the HHR.
QuoteQuoteThe PT Cruiser is the only one that comes to mind that can outdo the HHR in everyway for less.
There only has to be one car that can beat it in every way for it to be a solid loser.
And others can come close, like the Matrix/Vibe and the Focus. They aren't as quiet, but they have their own advantages over the HHR.
I am not go to argue that, but you said that numerous competitors are better in everyway:
"There's nothing wrong with offering such traits, but there is a problem if too many competitor
s can do the same better or for less money. "
That is taken out of context. It was in direct response to "Well, I think it looks kinda spiffy and it offers all that toyota would in a snoozer cruiser. Quiet interior, nice interior, and all that fun stuff that people who don't really care would like." And there are other competitors (plural) that offer a nice, quiet interior that are either better in other ways, less expensive, or both.
I see, I was reading it as a response to the article, not to someone's post. The fast reply feature has ruined us all ;)
Don't criticize the Fast Reply. If you read the posts in order, it usually makes sense. ;)
I guess I should've connected the two replies, but I just sort of glazed over them.
No problem. As long as I don't have to defend a statement like that (had an argument half-planned before I found the easier solution). :P
But, that does bring up a good point, how do is it you are so sure that the PT Cruiser is the equal of HHR in everyway but price? Only the lesser automotive publications have reviewed the HHR so far so I really think it is too early to draw the conclusion that the HHR isn't superior enough to be worth an extra $3000.
My dealer is supposed to get its first HHRs in by the end of the month, so I'll have to check it out personally.
But either way, I'm inclined to believe that Edmunds is the most trustworthy review we've had out so far, as it was a Full Test rather than the press-release praise-only "Previews" or "First Drives" or "First Looks" or whatever the other pre-tests are called.
I don't trust edmunds at all, I would sooner rely on barbarian for car reviews.
That's a good way to respond to a negative review, blame the reviewer. :rolleyes:
Do you think that they invented their complaints? They recommended only another domestic product over the HHR, so you can't swing the old "import bias" at them this time, and do you think they invented the excessive body roll and the lack of straight braking stops?
Edmunds is very confused, they are biased against both import and domestic brands alike. Sorry, but they are trustworthy imho, I will wait for a review from a decent mag before I make a final conclusion.
In other words, you'll wait for something that agrees with you and proclaim that "decent". :rolleyes:
QuoteIn other words, you'll wait for something that agrees with you and proclaim that "decent". :rolleyes:
No, I'll wait for R/T or C/D to review and base my conclusion off of their conclusion. You seem set on the idea that I am biased in some weird and crazy ways. One day you will insist i am biased against Buick and the next tell me I am biased towards Chevrolet, while in reality I try to give every brand a decent shot. That is all I am doing here, edmunds has held many unfair reviews and comparision tests so why should I automatically proclaim that a vehicle is a bad value from one of their reviews?
QuoteIn other words, you'll wait for something that agrees with you and proclaim that "decent". :rolleyes:
And I think you've found your "decent source": Motor Trend. They apparently put the HHR ahead of the PT in a just-released comparison test because they thought the PT looked like a girly car. :rolleyes:
I haven't read their review yet, though I do know the results and I haven't mentioned them yet because I don't trust MT all that much either.
QuoteQuoteIn other words, you'll wait for something that agrees with you and proclaim that "decent". :rolleyes:
No, I'll wait for R/T or C/D to review and base my conclusion off of their conclusion. You seem set on the idea that I am biased in some weird and crazy ways. One day you will insist i am biased against Buick and the next tell me I am biased towards Chevrolet, while in reality I try to give every brand a decent shot. That is all I am doing here, edmunds has held many unfair reviews and comparision tests so why should I automatically proclaim that a vehicle is a bad value from one of their reviews?
You said the same about Edmunds. ;)
I think you are biased towards your initial conclusions more than anything else, sticking with them to the end be they right or wrong. But I can be the same sometimes, so who am I to criticize?
I am also interested to see what C/D says (R/T doesn't put enough in comparison form for my taste), hopefully they don't proclaim that newer is automatically better, or focus only on the retro styling's PT origins.
Also, you are the one that is drawing conclusions from a single review from a source that isn't all that reputable.
QuoteI haven't read their review yet, though I do know the results and I haven't mentioned them yet because I don't trust MT all that much either.
Just trying to get that one out of the way before it even could get started. ;)
"I think you are biased towards your initial conclusions more than anything else, sticking with them to the end be they right or wrong. But I can be the same sometimes, so who am I to criticize?"
I think you did thing described in the quote, from the get go you have been insisting that the HHR will not be as good as the PT Cruiser so as soon as you see a review that agrees with you you proclaim that you were right. Please just consider the source.
QuoteAlso, you are the one that is drawing conclusions from a single review from a source that isn't all that reputable.
You calling it disreputable doesn't make it so. People are just content to call Edmunds biased and/or inept whenever they disagree with a review, and their slow acceleration times seem to convince everyone that they are correct in their assumptions. But I always prefer a solid pro-and-con review that doesn't praise every car in its conclusion, and there aren't that many reviewers like that.
The results of their comparos often seem to have nothing to do with their comments, that is my main problem.
Quote"I think you are biased towards your initial conclusions more than anything else, sticking with them to the end be they right or wrong. But I can be the same sometimes, so who am I to criticize?"
I think you did thing described in the quote, from the get go you have been insisting that the HHR will not be as good as the PT Cruiser so as soon as you see a review that agrees with you you proclaim that you were right. Please just consider the source.
Actually, I was one of the few people in the "give the HHR a chance" camp when it was unveiled. As others bashed it as a PT wannabe, I said that we had to wait for the fact to be in to see which is better. As more facts appeared however, I sided with the better-value PT Cruiser.
QuoteThe results of their comparos often seem to have nothing to do with their comments, that is my main problem.
Explain.
It has been to olong since I have read one of their comparos. If I have time tonight I will read one and then post my comments here.
Don't pick and choose, either. How about one of their most recent ones, AWD luxury sedans or Sonata vs. Accord vs. Camry?
I'll pick and choose if I want, I was thinking the Japanese luxury and midsize truck comparos because those are the ones I remember not being happy about.
You can find one example of a discrepancy in any source, so go into a comparison that you've never read before and see what you find. They really aren't as bad as they're constantly portrayed.
QuoteDo you think that they invented their complaints?
That's very unlikely, but other reviews (like the one from TCC) have completely disagreed with Edmunds' comments about the brakes. Why is that?
I will look at those other two, but first I will look at the two I mentioned.
QuoteQuoteDo you think that they invented their complaints?
That's very unlikely, but other reviews (like the one from TCC) have completely disagreed with Edmunds' comments about the brakes. Why is that?
Is this the TCC review you're talking about?
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Re...S181.A9004.html (http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Reviews/SUVs_Wagons/2006_Chevrolet_HHR.S181.A9004.html)
They didn't provide the indication that they did extended brake testing in their review, anything more than routine use. Edmunds tested simulated panic stops, and it swerved all over their track.
And the TCC-type test is more of an extended test drive than anything else. Not at the same level as an Edmunds or C/D complete test, which includes track testing and stricter evaluation.
QuoteI will look at those other two, but first I will look at the two I mentioned.
Give the Edmunds Evaluation its own thread, if you don't mind.
QuoteThey didn't mention the brakes once in their review. <_<
Did you even read the review? :rolleyes:
"Braking, too, was balanced and powerful despite cost-saving rear drums."
Also, Motor Trend got identical 60-0 numbers for the HHR and PT Cruiser: 136 feet.
QuoteQuoteThey didn't mention the brakes once in their review. <_<
Did you even read the review? :rolleyes:
"Braking, too, was balanced and powerful despite cost-saving rear drums."
Also, Motor Trend got identical 60-0 numbers for the HHR and PT Cruiser: 136 feet.
I edited, the Find search failed me once again (checked "brakes" and "braked" but not "braking"). And Edmunds didn't criticize the HHR's braking distance so much of its inability to stop straight. They got around 136 feet too, I believe.
It just seems so strange to me that Edmunds was so vocal about it and we haven't heard about a similar problem from the other reviews. I'm not trying to imply that Edmunds lied, because I don't think they would ever do that, but maybe there was something wrong with their test vehicle?
There usually isn't that much of a discrepency between reviews. It's wierd.
MT would be the only other reviewer I know of who does actual track brake testing whose HHR review is already out. So it remains to be seen which review represents the norm and which the discrepency.
QuoteMT would be the only other reviewer I know of who does actual track brake testing whose HHR review is already out. So it remains to be seen which review represents the norm and which the discrepency.
They never referenced the brakes directly (other than to say it has discs up front and drums in the rear), but I have a hard time believing they wouldn't make a big deal if they had the same problem Edmunds did. They obviously did a test for braking, so it makes me wonder.
That still leaves their handling complaints, but it would be good if the braking issue weren't widespread.
Motor Trend did say that the HHR is "not quite as nimble as the PT," but it wasn't regarded as a huge problem. Both vehicles were fun to drive, apparently, but the PT was more tossable around the corners. They did complain about the Chrysler's driving position, though, which hampered the fun-to-drive quotient a bit.
I've never noticed any discomfort driving the PT, I'll have to see what they said. But I always get my magazines later than most people. :(
I can type up the pertinent parts for you, if you'd like.
That's all right, I can just be patient. :)
So far I have read both the comparos ifcar suggested and am writiing them up as an article. If Dan wants to put it up he can, if he doesn't I'll start a thread.
You wrote about Edmunds as an article? It can only be critical. <_<
Of course it is ;) :lol: Actually, I was impressed with the Sonata vs. Accord vs. Camry comparo, but not with the AWD comparo (and not because the M35x didn't win).
Do you disagree about how they reviewed the cars or how they made their ranking order?
Sort of both, wait and see.