Well, …I did it. I got an HHR LS. I just picked her up from the dealership. It’s a 5 speed, with a 2.2L Ecotec engine. It is a great ride, and fun to drive. I wanted to have a little more room, and a hatch-back for loading up stuff. Plus with kids in the near future (1-2 years), I wanted a fun ride with extra space, ...but not a mini-van.
With the zero percent financing that GM was offering, I couldn’t resist. It was only $40 more per month than the Impala, …and I’ve got worry free driving for 3 years, and the 5 year power-train. I love it - the 5 speed is a blast to drive.
...I was going to spend some money on a another 86-88 GT Fiero for a V8 swap, but I said screw it - I'll spend some money on a car that I will use everyday, and not be pulling my hair out with problems/solutions - I hope :S ..at least for three years. lol.
Anyone else have one?
------------------ 1986 Pontiac Fiero SE 3.4L | The Fiero Blog (Since April 2000) ----------------------------------------------------------- My Portfolio site | JustinChristie.ca
IP: Logged
09:50 PM
PFF
System Bot
Hank is Here Member
Posts: 4462 From: Hershey, Pa Registered: Sep 2000
Nice ride! Does the HHR really cost more than an Impala??? Honestly I thought they would be a couple grand less than a mid-large sized sedan.
Mine does because my 2003 Impala was purchased as an Optimum used vehicle @ $17,000. I was paying 7.5% interest on a loan for the Impala, so when the 0% financing came up, I couldn't say no
Nothing like taking out a loan that doesn't cost you anything A'men to GMAC
------------------ 1986 Pontiac Fiero SE 3.4L | The Fiero Blog (Since April 2000) ----------------------------------------------------------- My Portfolio site | JustinChristie.ca
IP: Logged
10:06 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
I rented an HHR when in Maui on vacation earlier this year. It was not my choice, that's what they had. I really enjoyed driving the car. It had lots of room and plenty of power. I had a ball going up Haleakala in it.
When we went on to Kaui I requested another. We took it into the Waimea Canyon three times. It handles great and is very comfortable. I particularly like it because you don't drop into it when you sit. You just sit down like you would at the dinner table. Getting out is the same, you just stand up. It was a pleasure for an old coot.
[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 08-27-2007).]
$17k? I was seriously looking at one about 6 months ago. It was the smaller engine 5-speed with a few add ons, I had them down to $13.5k at a local Chevy dealer. They must have wanted to get rid of it.... I passed, I am thinking of getting a Solstice.
IP: Logged
10:53 PM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
5 year powertrain, huh? I guess you didn't hear about the lifetime warranty that you could have got on a Chrysler PT Cruiser. Along with a 235 hp turbo engine in the ultimate sleeper, the PT Cruiser GT. Oh well, it looks almost as good as a PT.
Of course, Chebby is going to come out with the HHR SS soon. It's going to eat unmodified PT GT's for lunch. Originally they were to have the supercharged 2.0 Ecotech out of the Cobalt, but that isn't up to snuff for the tougher 08 emissions. Soooo, they're going to take the Direct Injection Turbo 2.0 Ecotech from the Solstice. Can you say "torque steer"? Plus, apparently the suspension is going to be ready for action. Something I wish our PT was more up to par in that catagory.
Anyway, enjoy your purchase, and savor that new car smell. HHR's, like the PT, have pretty active clubs, and a growing aftermarket. They're extremely handy to have that much room, and they still turn heads. I love our PT, I'm sure uou're gonna love your HHR.
PS, Race ya!
IP: Logged
11:42 PM
turbotoad Member
Posts: 1392 From: Clarkston, MI Registered: Jul 2002
I have a 2007 Fall edition loaded with all the options 2.4 ecotec auto. Had it for almost a year now (18000 miles now ) and I love it did the PT cruiser thing and it was nice but I like the HHR better it drives better and to me is much more comfortable could have bought another PT cheeper (wife works for Dimler Chrysler) but bought the HHR and like it alot better. My only complaint is it is impossible to keep it clean but that black with black chrome looks so good whe it is clean. I have a couple of pics but too puter illeriate to post them. I think you will really enjoy your new ride. Just curious about the gas millage on the highway with the 5 speed the auto is geared a little too low for interstate driving it gets the best economy at 60 to 65 MPH above that it drops fast to as little as 20 mpg at 80 mph.
IP: Logged
01:52 AM
Old Lar Member
Posts: 13798 From: Palm Bay, Florida Registered: Nov 1999
I got one in '06. 2.4 L, LT with an automatic. I have been averaging a tad over 30 mpg after 23000 + miles so far. I had difficulty in finding one on the lots that weren't fully loaded 2LT models at $24K sticker price.
IP: Logged
10:30 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Okay, all you naysayers, stop it. The man has already bought the vehicle. Stop talking about when you saw one for "13k" or "Chrysler has a lifetime warranty". The time for that was when and if he asked your oppinion before he bought it. Not now. As with all big purchases he is trying to avoid buyers remorse. He doesn't need you adding to any unwarranted doubt. I for one think it is a fabulous looking vehicle. I like it in sunset orange personally. I do agree, it does look like at PT cruiser and not an old Suburban like GM says. That's why they built it, no matter how hard GM denies it. I hope you have many years of worry and trouble free driving. Don't forget your PM. Take care of it and it will take care or you.
Jim
[This message has been edited by jimbolaya (edited 08-28-2007).]
Originally posted by jimbolaya: ...... and not an old Suburban like GM says. That's why they bulit it, no matter how hard GM denies it. I hope you have many years of worry and trouble free driving. Don't forget your PM. Take care of it and it will take care or you.
Jim
actually - the "real" reason they built it is to take advantage of a fuel milage loophole, which chrysler has been using with its PT cruiser: the vehicle counts as a truck, so the average truck fleet mileage shoots way up.
IP: Logged
11:41 AM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
I know its not - but - I still cant help of thinking "GM Cruiser" when I see it....
We call it the "Me Too Cruiser". It was designed by the same guy that designed the PT. I actually think they're pretty nice inside, with the onboard computer and XM radio (I'm not a fan of Sirius). Iactually tooka seat in one to see if I'd like one for myself, but the view out the windshield is even more narrow then the PT, and it took me a while to get used to driving that. At 6'6", I have enough headroom in the HHR, but the windshield is like looking out the gunslit of a WW2 bunker. Those pics of the HHR SS look hot though. That's going to be a real beast. Of course, there are stock block big turbo PT's that put out 400+ hp, so you never know...
Wow, lots of people like talking about this - I must have started the holy war of cruisers.
The PT Cruiser, ....I sat in it, and I didn't like it. Yes the PT cruiser may have more engine guts for driving, but that's not what I wanted.
First, I wanted something with good gas mileage - which this has with the 2.2L. Sure, the PT cruiser goes faster, but I really don't care. With the 2.2L, and the 5 speed, it's "ok". The automatic 2.2L is a pig, just made a lot of noise and went no-where.
Second, ...more room. The PT Cruiser doesn't have as much room as the HHR. No big deal, buts that why I like the HHR.
Third, ...I think it looks better. Some may think it sucks, and the PT Cruiser is the best. I like the look of the PT Cruiser too. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - so am I. I like the HHR better.
No buyer's remorse here. I took it to work this morning for the first time, and it is great. Fun to drive. Now I just have to pay it off
--justin.
------------------ 1986 Pontiac Fiero SE 3.4L | The Fiero Blog (Since April 2000) ----------------------------------------------------------- My Portfolio site | JustinChristie.ca
Her father is a GM retiree, so we were leaning towards the HHR, but we also looked at the PT cruiser. The Cruiser is smaller inside, and she was coming from a minivan, and we have 3 kids, so the space was a +.
Although a turbo on the Cruiser is very enticing, and is the reason I wanted to look at them, the fact of the matter is, the PT cruiser GT has a base MSRP of $24,740, where as I walked out of the GM dealer with an HHR LT1 for a little over $16,000. I know I got what I paid for, but we were looking for a grocery getter, that had some style & that would save our pocket books on car payment and at the pump. The HHR accomplished this all the way around.
We get many compliments on the car, and not once has anyone ever called it a me too cruiser.
Our neighbor has a Cruiser and she came over to check out our car. She said she wished she would have know about the HHR, she liked it better than her PT.
Originally posted by justinchristie: Second, ...more room. The PT Cruiser doesn't have as much room as the HHR. No big deal, buts that why I like the HHR.
Really? Have you compared the amount of cubic ft of cargo space for each? I thought it was pretty close.
As far as the base of the PT GT being 8 grand more then a stripper HHR, they do offer lower trim models then the GT. The Limited even comes with a 180 hp turbo engine that can be tuned to have the output of the GT, plus there is a base model that sells for around $13k IIRC.
But, what it comes down to is what you like, and I'm glad you like your HHR. It looks nice, and it has plenty of potential to play with.
IP: Logged
10:04 PM
Aug 29th, 2007
superdave69 Member
Posts: 115 From: Clover SC USA Registered: Feb 2007
I have owned both and I think the HHR is a better car than the PT in many ways the most important to me is comfort and the HHR seats are way more comfortable than the PT the PT has a slight advantage if vision out of the windsheild but both are hard to see traffic lights out of when you stop close to an intersection it is easier to pull up a little more and look out the sunroof or stop farther back from the light . The PT GT seats are slightly different than the other models even the limited but they are still not as comfortable to me. As far as price they are both about the same for the same equipment either one can be from about 16 to 25 K depending on the options but it all boils down to what you like and doesn't matter what everyone else likes if they like the PT better Chrysler or just about any used car dealer on the planet will be more than happy to sell them to anybody that wants one. The turbo PT does have a power advantage at the cost of being a premium fuel reccomended but most people dont buy them as hot rods and either one has enough power for normal driving. Comparing fuel millage depends alot on driving style and enviroment and with the PT I had I averaged about 24 MPG overall and the HHR with a slightly bigger engine averages slightly better at 27. Both cars are nice but I like the HHR better and as I said before it all depends on which one you like better. As far as GM coppying Chrysler what difference does it make it is not the first time or the last that has happened.
IP: Logged
04:01 AM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
True about visibility at stoplights. It took me a while to get used to that. I just stop a little farther back. And the seats were a bit like sitting on a beachball, but after 3 years and 50,000 miles, they fit my ass like a glove. As far as the turbo engine requiring premium, the computer will adjust timing to take regular fuel, and the "lite" turbo in the Limited takes Regular unleaded.
Does the HHR have a picnic table in back?
IP: Logged
11:30 AM
PFF
System Bot
squisher86SE Member
Posts: 1350 From: Franklin, IN, USA Registered: May 2005
My wife and I just traded up from a PT cruiser to a TrailBlazer EXT.
PT Touring edition with the N/A motor and an automatic. That thing did NOT get as much mileage as a car that size should have, we were lucky to see 25 on the interstate, and it was a gutless wonder. Other than that, it was a very comfy and capable daily.
At least the HHRs get good gas mileage, I always liked their looks too. Trailblazer gets less mileage than the PT, but at least it's not gutless If we didn't have the need for all of the seating, we probably would have traded the PT for an HHR eventually.
We had to get something bigger, Anna is watching children out of the home, and the BOP liability policy stipulates that you must have a vehicle that can carry all of the children in your care. She's about to get 2 more (total of 4) on Friday, and more than 2 child seats just don't go in a PT.
IP: Logged
12:37 PM
Vonov Member
Posts: 3745 From: Nashville,TN,USA Registered: May 2004
actually - the "real" reason they built it is to take advantage of a fuel milage loophole, which chrysler has been using with its PT cruiser: the vehicle counts as a truck, so the average truck fleet mileage shoots way up.
I tried to respond to this the other day but my computer froze and I had to go to work. The real reason they built it is to compete with the cruiser. Yes there is the added benefit of classifying this car as a truck to help bring up the brands mpg average but Chrysler had created a segment with the cruiser, just like they did with the minivan, and GM was not going to let them own the segment. Nor does GM want to be called followers so they say the HHR is a restyled older suburban and not a copycat cruiser. Just my 2 cents.
Let me say that my friends who have Chrysler products have complained about some spectacular failures (valve trains, axles, etc.) so I'm not inclined to bite.
As for the HHR, I currently drive an Olds with lots of warranty left so I'm not switching next week, however, the HHR is tops on my list. I really like the comfort, and I like the interior amenities. (features) The 1940's looks don't hurt either. I also am a bit of a fan for the Ecotech as a family reliable engine. The interior is really well laid out.
At our Cruise nights we have some PT owners who get their PT's tricked out at the dealership and get trick paint jobs. They then come to the Cruise Nights to show off their "collector cars". What a laugh. Yeah, I'm gonna run right out and lay down some coin for a car that "kinda-looks-like" and English taxi cab and try to let it mingle with the '70 Cuda's, '69 GTO's, "60 Corvettes, "70 Road Runners etc.etc. that attend Cruise Nights, along with some really impressive hotrods, and of course, Fieros and other sports cars.
Seriously I'll likely buy an HHR for work just like JustinChristie did and take my Fiero to the Cruise Nights. Don't think I'll go down the PT road.
Arn
IP: Logged
06:30 PM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
That's ok. I'll dust your Fiero with my "looks like an English cab".
When we go to Cruise Nights, etc. it's not so much to show off our cars as equals to Cudas and Corvettes, but to have club commaraderie. That kind of acceptance isn't around for the California Fiero owner, I can guarantee you that. The Cruiserfest held in Modesto CA every summer is LIMITED to 400 cars. That's every year. And that's not a national show, it's held by a local club. And PT owners are nice. I haven't had a single PT club threaten to call the cops on me.
No intention to hijack this thread, 'cause I do like the HHR as a family car, however, it kind of begs the question......
What is your best time? Mine was 15.474 stock, I then went through a slower period getting it set up and now it is a fair bit faster but I frankly haven't run it this year at the track.
Arn
IP: Logged
07:29 PM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
The HHR looks like a PT about as much as a 87-88 GT looks like a ferrari....similar in general shape/form, but not even close when you really look at them.
IP: Logged
12:03 AM
superdave69 Member
Posts: 115 From: Clover SC USA Registered: Feb 2007
No the HHR doesn't have the picnic table which is a nice feature if you use it but in the year that I owned mine I didn't use it one time another advantage for the PT. The HHR does have slightly more cargo room behind the seats. I think the PT has a little more leg room in the back seat,both are nice cars and have their advantages and dissadvantages but I like the HHR better but that is just my personal opinion . I could have bought another PT with the same equipment ( minus the table for the HHR ) cheeper than the HHR but after driving the HHR a couple of times I decided that for my money I would rather own the HHR than the PT but both cars sell very well so there are many people that like both of them. If everyone like the same cars most of the car companys would be out of business and the roads would be very boaring with only one type of car on the road.
...If everyone like the same cars most of the car companys would be out of business and the roads would be very boaring with only one type of car on the road.
Perfect point.
Both of the cruisers have advantages, and disadvantages. But whatever one catches your eye the most, is the one you go with. I went with the HHR.
------------------ 1986 Pontiac Fiero SE 3.4L | The Fiero Blog (Since April 2000) ----------------------------------------------------------- My Portfolio site | JustinChristie.ca
I'm not sure what the PT picnic table is, but my HHR has a tray in the back that cover the spare. You can pull it out and put it into some ledges in the back and make it a shelf. It could be used for tailgating. like a picnic table. Does this count?
As for the stripped HHR, mine is a middle of the road, not stripped, not top of the line. I realize the Turbo PT is faster and I am glad you like yours Jeff! That is what matters, if you like your ride. We should all own things that make us happy. That is my point, my wife loves her HHR and it makes her happy, and if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!
edit due to my horrible typing skilz.
[This message has been edited by WingNut - MD (edited 08-31-2007).]
IP: Logged
08:39 AM
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
Here is a comparison . You'll notice the GM people aren't too shy about posting their ET's with 143 hp and 150 ft/lbs, (sound familiar), however Chrysler doesn't seem to post the PT times and the PT comes in at close to 3500 lbs. Not a light car by any stretch for the hp at 150.
If guess I were to pick between a non turbo PT and a HHR, I'd probablgo with the HHR, assuming I could see out of it. I really like the fact that it does have the Cobalt chassis, and they are pretty nice inside. Once the HHR SS comes out, wow, all bets are off. Chrysler's going to have to do some catch up for that, maybe put the turbo 2.4 from the Caliber SRT4 that puts out 285 hp. Wouldn't that be wild if there was a horsepower war with these little grocery getters?
A'men to GMAC 
I do agree, it does look like at PT cruiser and not an old Suburban like GM says. That's why they built it, no matter how hard GM denies it. I hope you have many years of worry and trouble free driving. Don't forget your PM. Take care of it and it will take care or you. 
