This ain't right.
11-23-2006 | 11:05 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 02-01-2006
Posts: 2,300
From: Groveville, NJ
This ain't right.
Has anyone read the opening statement about the HHR on edmunds.com? If goes like this:
"The 2006 Chevrolet HHR is a capable and stylish urban transporter let down by weak driving dynamics. If you want a retro wagon, the PT Cruiser is still the better package."
The article:
"A new entry for 2006, the Chevrolet HHR is a direct competitor to compact wagons like the PT Cruiser, Matrix and GM's own Vibe. HHR stands for Heritage High Roof, and GM says the compact wagon's styling is a tribute to the '49 Suburban. There's no question that the HHR looks an awful lot like the PT, though its boxier lines give it a stronger delivery truck resemblance.
Under the hood of the front-drive Chevy HHR you'll find one of two four-cylinder engines. A 143-hp 2.2-liter is standard on base LS and midlevel 1LT models. Optional on the 1LT and standard on the top-line 2LT is a 2.4-liter engine that puts out 172 hp. 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. On the plus side, the ride is quiet and comfortable as the front strut/rear torsion beam suspension competently filters out bumps and ruts. Unfortunately, engineers weren't able to work the same magic with the wagon's handling. Body roll is excessive during cornering, and the electric steering is slow and numb. Braking is another problem area, as the Chevy wagon exhibits poor straight-line stability during maximum braking efforts.
Inside, driver and passengers sit tall and visibility is excellent in all directions. The Chevy HHR is longer than the PT Cruiser or Vibe, and this opens up more space behind its rear seats. For larger jobs, the plastic-backed rear seats fold completely flat as in the Matrix/Vibe. 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. Overall, the 2006 Chevrolet HHR does provide 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 quicker acceleration, tighter handling and better brakes. If you want a stylish family wagon, the Chrysler is the better way to go."
"The 2006 Chevrolet HHR is a capable and stylish urban transporter let down by weak driving dynamics. If you want a retro wagon, the PT Cruiser is still the better package."
The article:
"A new entry for 2006, the Chevrolet HHR is a direct competitor to compact wagons like the PT Cruiser, Matrix and GM's own Vibe. HHR stands for Heritage High Roof, and GM says the compact wagon's styling is a tribute to the '49 Suburban. There's no question that the HHR looks an awful lot like the PT, though its boxier lines give it a stronger delivery truck resemblance.
Under the hood of the front-drive Chevy HHR you'll find one of two four-cylinder engines. A 143-hp 2.2-liter is standard on base LS and midlevel 1LT models. Optional on the 1LT and standard on the top-line 2LT is a 2.4-liter engine that puts out 172 hp. 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. On the plus side, the ride is quiet and comfortable as the front strut/rear torsion beam suspension competently filters out bumps and ruts. Unfortunately, engineers weren't able to work the same magic with the wagon's handling. Body roll is excessive during cornering, and the electric steering is slow and numb. Braking is another problem area, as the Chevy wagon exhibits poor straight-line stability during maximum braking efforts.
Inside, driver and passengers sit tall and visibility is excellent in all directions. The Chevy HHR is longer than the PT Cruiser or Vibe, and this opens up more space behind its rear seats. For larger jobs, the plastic-backed rear seats fold completely flat as in the Matrix/Vibe. 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. Overall, the 2006 Chevrolet HHR does provide 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 quicker acceleration, tighter handling and better brakes. If you want a stylish family wagon, the Chrysler is the better way to go."
11-23-2006 | 11:52 AM
#4
Senior Member
Joined: 10-14-2006
Posts: 1,186
From: So. Cal
I've read that before, that's been up on Edmunds site for a long time. Opinions, as they say are like noses, etc. What they should have said at the end is, "If you want a little family wagon, you could pick the Chrysler but you'll be seeing one on every other street corner. However, if you want a really stylish, retro wagon that's a little different, just as functional but with a little more soul, personality and just plain fun, pick the Chevy."
I'd rather believe reviews from ppl who actually own an HHR:
Pros:
There are so many features with this car and for the money you really cant beat it. I cant believe for the price i have a fully loaded car that is a total head turner. The stereo is top notch. The interior is amazing. It has great pick up and has a great turning radius. The inside is roomy. The ride is solid. The seats fold flat and make a lot of room to transport anything. The rearview mirror has a compass .. i love that! Heated seats are great especially since its october and already snowing...
Cons:
Power windows and cup holders are in a weird spot... but i am sure i can deal with it...
Overall Review:
This is a must have for anyone that has a SUV that loves the space but hates the gas mileage. You get a lot for your money and the attention i get from this car is amazing...
I'd rather believe reviews from ppl who actually own an HHR:
Pros:
There are so many features with this car and for the money you really cant beat it. I cant believe for the price i have a fully loaded car that is a total head turner. The stereo is top notch. The interior is amazing. It has great pick up and has a great turning radius. The inside is roomy. The ride is solid. The seats fold flat and make a lot of room to transport anything. The rearview mirror has a compass .. i love that! Heated seats are great especially since its october and already snowing...
Cons:
Power windows and cup holders are in a weird spot... but i am sure i can deal with it...
Overall Review:
This is a must have for anyone that has a SUV that loves the space but hates the gas mileage. You get a lot for your money and the attention i get from this car is amazing...
11-23-2006 | 11:56 AM
#5
Senior Member
Joined: 10-14-2006
Posts: 1,186
From: So. Cal
Here's another...
Pros:
Standard equipment for the LT is a plus. Automatic transmission comes with a remote starter.Keyless entry, security system, alloy wheels, air conditioning with filtration and power seats,windows,locks and mirrors are all standard. Rides smooth and quiet and feels firm.
Cons:
Cup holders that sit under the arm rest.
Overall Review:
I bought this car as a birthday present for my wife. Much much better than the PT Cruiser. Rides smoothly and quitely. I'm very,very surprised and pleased with my decision to purchase this vehicle. I rented the 2006 PT Cruiser and 2007 Dodge Caliber for 1 week each to try them out. But, when I test drove this car, I was sold. I got the Sandstone metallic which gave it more stylish and luxurious look and automatic with remote start which will be a plus this winter. We really love this new addition to our family.
Pros:
Standard equipment for the LT is a plus. Automatic transmission comes with a remote starter.Keyless entry, security system, alloy wheels, air conditioning with filtration and power seats,windows,locks and mirrors are all standard. Rides smooth and quiet and feels firm.
Cons:
Cup holders that sit under the arm rest.
Overall Review:
I bought this car as a birthday present for my wife. Much much better than the PT Cruiser. Rides smoothly and quitely. I'm very,very surprised and pleased with my decision to purchase this vehicle. I rented the 2006 PT Cruiser and 2007 Dodge Caliber for 1 week each to try them out. But, when I test drove this car, I was sold. I got the Sandstone metallic which gave it more stylish and luxurious look and automatic with remote start which will be a plus this winter. We really love this new addition to our family.
11-23-2006 | 01:00 PM
#7
Senior Member
Joined: 05-13-2006
Posts: 2,334
From: Chicago,IL
Motrv8d, When did you get your HHR? Have been reading you wanted one. When was the big day?
The review seemed to be right on the money on several points...
Power for instance, many people who have complained, and start out trying to increase power.
The PT is highly visible to you because, there are a lot of them and the similarity to the HHR catches your eye. Soon there will be a lot of HHRs and like here in Chi-Town, you`ll see them all the time... Even rentals.
And the brakes seem to be a weak point on the HHR. I`ve had my rotors turned already and they`re squeaking again.
It seemed to be a pretty fair review, if you look at it objectionably.
The review seemed to be right on the money on several points...
Power for instance, many people who have complained, and start out trying to increase power.
The PT is highly visible to you because, there are a lot of them and the similarity to the HHR catches your eye. Soon there will be a lot of HHRs and like here in Chi-Town, you`ll see them all the time... Even rentals.
And the brakes seem to be a weak point on the HHR. I`ve had my rotors turned already and they`re squeaking again.
It seemed to be a pretty fair review, if you look at it objectionably.
11-23-2006 | 02:09 PM
#8
Senior Member
Joined: 10-14-2006
Posts: 1,186
From: So. Cal
Originally Posted by Black Beauty
Motrv8d, When did you get your HHR? Have been reading you wanted one. When was the big day?
The review seemed to be right on the money on several points...
Power for instance, many people who have complained, and start out trying to increase power.
The PT is highly visible to you because, there are a lot of them and the similarity to the HHR catches your eye. Soon there will be a lot of HHRs and like here in Chi-Town, you`ll see them all the time... Even rentals.
And the brakes seem to be a weak point on the HHR. I`ve had my rotors turned already and they`re squeaking again.
It seemed to be a pretty fair review, if you look at it objectionably.
The review seemed to be right on the money on several points...
Power for instance, many people who have complained, and start out trying to increase power.
The PT is highly visible to you because, there are a lot of them and the similarity to the HHR catches your eye. Soon there will be a lot of HHRs and like here in Chi-Town, you`ll see them all the time... Even rentals.
And the brakes seem to be a weak point on the HHR. I`ve had my rotors turned already and they`re squeaking again.
It seemed to be a pretty fair review, if you look at it objectionably.
Besides that I'm a Chevy guy (have had two Camaros in a row, BTW). Time to buy something more fuel-efficient.
11-23-2006 | 02:18 PM
#9
Senior Member
Joined: 05-13-2006
Posts: 2,334
From: Chicago,IL
Well I`m more of a Dodge guy, My wife wanted a Chevy truck, I wanted a Cruiser. Seemed like the perfect solution. I did want a TURBO though.
Never actually rode in a Cruiser, just liked the look, when I saw the HHR, well, the rest is history...
PS. I really wanted a SSR. Had HHR money...
Never actually rode in a Cruiser, just liked the look, when I saw the HHR, well, the rest is history...
PS. I really wanted a SSR. Had HHR money...
