• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2006 Chevrolet HHR

NFS4

NFS4

No Lifer
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle...ons/2006_Chevrolet_HHR.S181.A9004.html

vs the PT Cruiser:
Why did it take so long? Would you do it on your aged previous-generation small-car (Cavalier) platform? It had to await availability of the new Delta (Cobalt/Ion) architecture and engineering resources. It would be, in essence, the third Cobalt body style. Why do a conventional small wagon when you can do a fresh take on the brilliant PT concept?

Compared to the PT - which gets a modest exterior facelift and a nice new interior for 2006 - the HHR is some seven inches longer, two inches wider and two inches taller on a half-inch longer wheelbase. The base 2.2-liter model is roughly 80 pounds heavier and $1140 more expensive than the Chrysler. Except for the PT's somewhat more generous rear cabin room, interior dimensions are close, and total cargo capacity with the rear seats removed is near identical.

Why choose one over the other? Styling. The HHR is more truck-like (inspired by Chevy's SSR and '49 Suburban), the PT Cruiser more car-like in appearance.

Then there's utility. The HHR's added length, height and squared-off rear roof provide more cargo room behind the rear seat. There's a dash-top storage box with a flip-up cover and three covered bins behind the rear seat. The rear load floor is a two-way shelf with hooks for flexible storage, and the right-front seat folds flat to accommodate your eight-foot ladder.

The HHR's suspension and architecture benefit from being newer than the Chrysler's. The suspensions are similar but the HHR's Delta architecture is newer, structurally stiffer and quieter than PT's Neon-based platform. Both engines are DOHC, 16-valve, electronically fuel-injected fours with twin balance shafts-but GM's aluminum-block, electronic throttle control Ecotec is smoother and quieter. In standard 143-hp 2.2-liter trim, it's slightly less powerful yet (Chevy says) slightly quicker 0-60 vs. the standard PT, and you'll have to opt for Chrysler's 180-hp turbocharged 2.4-liter four to beat the HHR's available 172-hp 2.4-liter normally aspirated four. The HHR also wins in fuel economy and has a 16.2-gallon fuel tank vs. the PT's 15-gallon tank.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: NFS4
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle...ons/2006_Chevrolet_HHR.S181.A9004.html

vs the PT Cruiser:
Why did it take so long? Would you do it on your aged previous-generation small-car (Cavalier) platform? It had to await availability of the new Delta (Cobalt/Ion) architecture and engineering resources. It would be, in essence, the third Cobalt body style. Why do a conventional small wagon when you can do a fresh take on the brilliant PT concept?

Compared to the PT - which gets a modest exterior facelift and a nice new interior for 2006 - the HHR is some seven inches longer, two inches wider and two inches taller on a half-inch longer wheelbase. The base 2.2-liter model is roughly 80 pounds heavier and $1140 more expensive than the Chrysler. Except for the PT's somewhat more generous rear cabin room, interior dimensions are close, and total cargo capacity with the rear seats removed is near identical.

Why choose one over the other? Styling. The HHR is more truck-like (inspired by Chevy's SSR and '49 Suburban), the PT Cruiser more car-like in appearance.

Then there's utility. The HHR's added length, height and squared-off rear roof provide more cargo room behind the rear seat. There's a dash-top storage box with a flip-up cover and three covered bins behind the rear seat. The rear load floor is a two-way shelf with hooks for flexible storage, and the right-front seat folds flat to accommodate your eight-foot ladder.

The HHR's suspension and architecture benefit from being newer than the Chrysler's. The suspensions are similar but the HHR's Delta architecture is newer, structurally stiffer and quieter than PT's Neon-based platform. Both engines are DOHC, 16-valve, electronically fuel-injected fours with twin balance shafts-but GM's aluminum-block, electronic throttle control Ecotec is smoother and quieter. In standard 143-hp 2.2-liter trim, it's slightly less powerful yet (Chevy says) slightly quicker 0-60 vs. the standard PT, and you'll have to opt for Chrysler's 180-hp turbocharged 2.4-liter four to beat the HHR's available 172-hp 2.4-liter normally aspirated four. The HHR also wins in fuel economy and has a 16.2-gallon fuel tank vs. the PT's 15-gallon tank.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

All that.. and it's just as ugly.
 
First off, why the fvck would you copy the PT Cruiser? Secondly, why the fvck would you copy the PT Cruiser? And lastly, it's even uglier than the PT Cruiser. What a bunch of crack heads at GM. It's like they have a bunch of monkey's running the company!
 
Originally posted by: JackBurton
First off, why the fvck would you copy the PT Cruiser? Secondly, why the fvck would you copy the PT Cruiser? And lastly, it's even uglier than the PT Cruiser. What a bunch of crack heads at GM. It's like they have a bunch of monkey's running the company!
Click to expand...

whoa, Asimov moment...
 
Originally posted by: JackBurton
First off, why the fvck would you copy the PT Cruiser? Secondly, why the fvck would you copy the PT Cruiser? And lastly, it's even uglier than the PT Cruiser. What a bunch of crack heads at GM. It's like they have a bunch of monkey's running the company!
Click to expand...

sales successes are sales successes.
 
Originally posted by: arcenite
Originally posted by: NFS4
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle...ons/2006_Chevrolet_HHR.S181.A9004.html

vs the PT Cruiser:
Why did it take so long? Would you do it on your aged previous-generation small-car (Cavalier) platform? It had to await availability of the new Delta (Cobalt/Ion) architecture and engineering resources. It would be, in essence, the third Cobalt body style. Why do a conventional small wagon when you can do a fresh take on the brilliant PT concept?

Compared to the PT - which gets a modest exterior facelift and a nice new interior for 2006 - the HHR is some seven inches longer, two inches wider and two inches taller on a half-inch longer wheelbase. The base 2.2-liter model is roughly 80 pounds heavier and $1140 more expensive than the Chrysler. Except for the PT's somewhat more generous rear cabin room, interior dimensions are close, and total cargo capacity with the rear seats removed is near identical.

Why choose one over the other? Styling. The HHR is more truck-like (inspired by Chevy's SSR and '49 Suburban), the PT Cruiser more car-like in appearance.

Then there's utility. The HHR's added length, height and squared-off rear roof provide more cargo room behind the rear seat. There's a dash-top storage box with a flip-up cover and three covered bins behind the rear seat. The rear load floor is a two-way shelf with hooks for flexible storage, and the right-front seat folds flat to accommodate your eight-foot ladder.

The HHR's suspension and architecture benefit from being newer than the Chrysler's. The suspensions are similar but the HHR's Delta architecture is newer, structurally stiffer and quieter than PT's Neon-based platform. Both engines are DOHC, 16-valve, electronically fuel-injected fours with twin balance shafts-but GM's aluminum-block, electronic throttle control Ecotec is smoother and quieter. In standard 143-hp 2.2-liter trim, it's slightly less powerful yet (Chevy says) slightly quicker 0-60 vs. the standard PT, and you'll have to opt for Chrysler's 180-hp turbocharged 2.4-liter four to beat the HHR's available 172-hp 2.4-liter normally aspirated four. The HHR also wins in fuel economy and has a 16.2-gallon fuel tank vs. the PT's 15-gallon tank.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

All that.. and it's just as ugly.
Click to expand...


word!
 
They have good reason to copy the PT. The PT sales are doing very well and the car actually has pretty darn good resale value.
 
Originally posted by: zoiks
They have good reason to copy the PT. The PT sales are doing very well and the car actually has pretty darn good resale value.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I thought the PT was a long fizzled fad.......
 
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: zoiks
They have good reason to copy the PT. The PT sales are doing very well and the car actually has pretty darn good resale value.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I thought the PT was a long fizzled fad.......
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure. I've been looking to replace my car with one so that I could carry my 15' fishing rods to far off spots every week. I even went to the car auction but they really fetched a high price and it seemed a lot of people wanted one. Other American cars weren't so desireable though.
 
Owned
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=106628
 
Originally posted by: JackBurton
First off, why the fvck would you copy the PT Cruiser? Secondly, why the fvck would you copy the PT Cruiser? And lastly, it's even uglier than the PT Cruiser. What a bunch of crack heads at GM. It's like they have a bunch of monkey's running the company!
Click to expand...

GM got the guy from Daimler who designed the PT to pen this thing for them.
 
Originally posted by: NFS4
Owned
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=106628
Click to expand...

they tried to drive it like a sports car and expected it to be a sports car? eh if it rides nice and is comfy, and is made quality thats all that matters to 99% of the population. it should sell well. especially w/ the Employee Discount. does anyone know if they extended it or not?
 
Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
Originally posted by: NFS4
Owned
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=106628
Click to expand...

they tried to drive it like a sports car and expected it to be a sports car? eh if it rides nice and is comfy, and is made quality thats all that matters to 99% of the population. it should sell well. especially w/ the Employee Discount. does anyone know if they extended it or not?
Click to expand...

Employee discount is over as of Aug. 1st.

That being said, I think their point is that the PT Cruiser has been on the market for 5 years and if you can't best something that's 5 years old on top of the fact that it looks pretty close to a PT Crusier then poo on you.
 
Originally posted by: zoiks
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: zoiks
They have good reason to copy the PT. The PT sales are doing very well and the car actually has pretty darn good resale value.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I thought the PT was a long fizzled fad.......
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure. I've been looking to replace my car with one so that I could carry my 15' fishing rods to far off spots every week. I even went to the car auction but they really fetched a high price and it seemed a lot of people wanted one. Other American cars weren't so desireable though.
Click to expand...


It has been selling well. In fact, it has caused a little confustion as to what to do with it at Chrysler because it is still a strong seller. Hard to remodel a retro.
 
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
Originally posted by: NFS4
Owned
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=106628
Click to expand...

they tried to drive it like a sports car and expected it to be a sports car? eh if it rides nice and is comfy, and is made quality thats all that matters to 99% of the population. it should sell well. especially w/ the Employee Discount. does anyone know if they extended it or not?
Click to expand...

Employee discount is over as of Aug. 1st.

That being said, I think their point is that the PT Cruiser has been on the market for 5 years and if you can't best something that's 5 years old on top of the fact that it looks pretty close to a PT Crusier then poo on you.
Click to expand...

everyone though has said the interior quality is well ahead of the PT cruiser, and Edmunds doesnt even compare the two, it just give an overall review of the HHR. it seems like they had it out for the car once they started showing that ppl are asking does it have V8, or RWD? just my opinion.
 
pony up the $2500 and you'll get the honda element that is more practical, better looking, and has a better reliability track record than this POS. not to mention the element is based on a mid-size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top