Chrysler PT Cruiser vs. Chevrolet HHR

[JohnBM01]

Throwback throwdown! From the same makers of the hot PT Cruiser comes the Chevrolet HHR. The PT Cruiser has that retro rod look to it. Apparentely, if it works for Chrysler, it COULD work for Chevrolet as well. I take a look at it, and I see i is more like a small SUV. It is a sweet one at that. Some say that the HHR is likely to lure in PT Cruiser and Scion xB fans. I think we all know what many people think about the boxy xB. I normally say it's pretty cool, but in terms of the HHR, I say- pretty cool. Though the PT Cruiser is a bit small, it's pretty roomy from when my lightly skinny, 6-foot tall base got into the car. I don't know about the HHR, but it seems like two nice autos with throwback styling. So in comparing with these modern hotrods, which is the better of the two?

The PT Cruiser is such a cool car. It looks modern while looking retro. I've even seen some nice wood panels being added to the car to really offer up some real throwback. I normally like it in silver or even that burgundy color. It is a modern rod that if I had the money, I wouldn't mind getting one.

The HHR is new to me. I thought it would be pretty ugly, but it actually looks pretty nice, like its SSR brotheren. The HHR looks pretty sleek, almost like a stretch retro rod. I'll probably have to check it out at the next Houston Auto Show to know what it's like on the inside.

It's been a while since I did a "xxxx vs. xxxx" thread, so let this be my return. Meanwhile, which is the better job, Chrysler's PT Cruiser, or the new Chevy HHR?

 

[stumpydino]

they both got ugly bumpers they look a lot better without, the west coast customs hhr was how it should have been

 

[Famine]

The PT Cruiser is such a cool car. It looks modern while looking retro.

It looks like a delivery van.

I've even seen some nice wood panels being added to the car to really offer up some real throwback.

I don't believe I've ever heard the word "nice" being applied to external wood panelling before.

It is a modern rod that if I had the money, I wouldn't mind getting one.

Except it's front-wheel drive and deathly slow.

 

[Duke]

...and the HHR lacks the PT's available 2.4 turbo, which moves the car with authority, whether you care for the PT or not.

The HHR looks like a badly-proportioned PT that somebody took out of the oven too early. Except it's hitting the market about 5 years too late to be relevant.

One honestly wonders if anyone at GM knows what they're doing outside of Cadillac.

 

[PS]

One honestly wonders if anyone at GM knows what they're doing outside of Cadillac.

I think it started with the last-gen Camaro.

 

[blargonator]

personally, i think the PT cruiser is one of the ugliest creations known to man (other than michael jackson). when children see them, they hit each other (most know this as "PT Cruiser Bruiser!". cars that inspire hits are usually not the greatest ones.
I think i saw a HHR at a gas station. i was not impressed, but its not nearly as ugly as the PT cruiser but it gives the impression that its pretty large....but its not really.

 

[Ev0]

One honestly wonders if anyone at GM knows what they're doing outside of Cadillac.

The Corvette team. 'nuff said. Unfortunately, Corvette and Cadillac are the only good things GM has right now. Everything else sucks right now.

The PT Cruiser sucks. The HHR sucks even worse. If I want something with plenty of cargo room I'll get a bloody wagon, not some weird mini-delivery van. And besides, some wagons don't suck to drive. The HHR and the PT Cruiser certainly do.

 

[skip0110]

I think the Mazda3 blows the non-turbo PT and the HHR out of the water. And is better looking to boot. Or you could get a Subaru Impreza 2.5i Wagon for the price of the 2LT.

I thought GM learned a lesson about "polarizing" styling with the Aztek. If the HHR looked like what it essentially is (a Cobalt wagon) and shared a front clip, I'd wager it would sell infinitely better. The Cobalt is at heart a decent car (I'd daresay excellent in interior fit and finish and handling).

 

[Emohawk]

I hate them both, although the PT Cruiser slightly less so, because;
-Turbo!
-I've had longer to get used to it's heinousness
-I like DC better then GM
-The convertible has really nice wheels.

 

[JCE]

...and the HHR lacks the PT's available 2.4 turbo, which moves the car with authority, whether you care for the PT or not.

Ummm...with all due respect--that's a crock. It's the same Mitsubishi engine and Mitsu Turbo as the SRT-4 Neon...(and since the PT Cruiser is basically on a Neon chassis...) I find this to be a huge disappointment. But, even if it was as fast as the SRT-4...it's still uglier than almost anything else on the road...with exception of the Aztek, Crossfire, and the SSR.

I hate them both, although the PT Cruiser slightly less so, because;
-Turbo!
-I've had longer to get used to it's heinousness
-I like DC better then GM
-The convertible has really nice wheels.

... The turbo doesn't make the car cooler--it will never be cool. The PT Cruiser is cheaply made and loses so much value the second you drive it off of the dealer lot. When I sold Nissans you wouldn't believe the amount of PT Cruisers that came in on trade where the value was so bad...never saw anything like it. And DC needs to cover more ground if they expect to compete with GM or Ford--trendy fake "classic" revivals and retro vehicles just isn't going to work for much longer. The Charger and new Challenger are a joke. And ,the convertable version of the PT Cruiser is even more hideous...that's like adding a convertable model of the Crossfire...oh wait they did.

I will also say the Chevrolet SSR is on the same hideously ugly list as the PT Cruiser.

The PT Cruiser is such a cool car.

Eh, it's only cool if you've been doing narcotics for 12 hours straight. It's a truely hideous car. Only car that's uglier has to be the Aztek and Crossfire.

 

[niky]

The PT Cruiser was a car of its time. Retro-styling, out-of-the-box... errh... lunchbox?... okay, I'm confusing myself... let's just say it's out-of-the-segment thinking. It sold relatively well because it was a novel idea and a decently roomy one, at that.

Like Duke said: The HHR is just five years too late.

Retro is out, GM... please, get a life. That said, Chrysler does "retro" a heck of a lot better than GM.

And yes, I'd take a Mazda hatch over these two, any day.

 

[importfan1]

Well, this is an easy one.

When the first PT Crusier came out years ago, we all thought that it was cool and the hot new car. But, now it has to be the uglist thing on the road to date, besides the Aztek.

I'm going with the HHR on this one because of the fact that GM is starting to get back on the right track. Also, once all the hipsters find out that it has a cable that enables them to play their ipods through the stock stereo, they'll be all over it.

 

[Gil]

The PT is the "prettier" of the two.
I actually like the thing. However, now that everyone has one, I don't want one.
It's also a Mopar, and most of y'all know how I feel about Mopar products.
For those of you that don't, I owned a Plymouth Voyager for 12 years, and that was about 9 years too long. I think I may have put a couple of my mechanic's kids thru med school. I may have gotten a "lemon" but I haven't walked into a Plymouth, Dodge, or Chrysler dealership in ages for the purpose of buying a vehicle.
A Mopar is the only car that I'd buy brand new. Then I'd sell or trade it in 2-3 years, while it still ran.
When Mopar products are as reliable as their Diamler-Benz "cousins", then I might consider looking at one. Until that time I won't ride in a Dodge or Plymouth unless I have my cell phone with me, so I can call someone to pick me up when it breaks.
Sorry Duke, that's how I feel. I know it isn't completely rational.

As for the HHR, it has the rarity thing going for it for a bit. But unless it pulls down major MPG, it won't sell well in the current climate. Americans are a little smarter than they were back in the 70's and they're going to be buying cars that get 27 MPG and up. I see VW diesels doing well in the near future, I see American car makers getting more serious about diesel automobiles.
The HHR is the right car for the right time. Unfortunately that time was a year before the concept car came out.

 

[skip0110]

As for the HHR, it has the rarity thing going for it for a bit. But unless it pulls down major MPG, it won't sell well in the current climate. Americans are a little smarter than they were back in the 70's and they're going to be buying cars that get 27 MPG and up.

The HHR pulls small-car milage. It is basically a Cobalt wagon.

Does anyone else here see the similarity between the Hummer TV ads and the HHR TV ads? Unfortunately, I don't think the HHR has the potential to be the next "trendy" thing. But then again, I called the xB a turd and yet I see them everywhere.

 

[Gil]

See, and I like the Tc best of the Scions.
It looks like it isn't quite complete. But I like it's shape the best.
I'm not crazy about the HHR, or the Cobalt.
The Cobalt looks too much like the Cavalier it replaced. Not that the Cavalier was a bad car.
It was terminally mediocre. So I guess, I don't hold too much expectation for the Cobalt.
The HHR is a nice "shot across the bow", the problem is that the ship passed this way 5 years ago.

 

[Duke]

Ummm...with all due respect--that's a crock. It's the same Mitsubishi engine and Mitsu Turbo as the SRT-4 Neon...(and since the PT Cruiser is basically on a Neon chassis...)

The Neon's 2.0 and 2.4 DOHC are 100% developed in-house by Chrylser, NOT Mitsubishi. Only the turbo unit itself - not the rest of the engine - is sourced from Mitsubishi. Trust me on this one.

In fact the 2.0 NA Eclipse buys its short block from Chrysler, not vice-versa. It just wears the head backwards, with the intake in the back and the exhaust up front.

The 2.4 hi-output turbo actually makes the GT-PT quite snappy to drive, and in GT trim the handling is a lot better than you'd expect. I drove them several times, and flogged them pretty well, when we were car shopping. It's no sports coupe, but it's not intended to be.

Styling is in the eye of the beholder. I won't argue with anybody that doesn't like the PT. But I will restate my point that I think the HHR is MUCH uglier and worse-proportioned, and it has no excuse for coming out at the very tail end of the PT's model run.

 

[niky]

The HHR is a nice "shot across the bow", the problem is that the ship passed this way 5 years ago.

 

[JohnBM01]

In terms of modernizing retro, I think Ford tried it with the latest Mustang, and I've probably never seen a sweeter Mustang since the Boss 302s and such. The newer Charger is love-or-hate (I somewhat like it, just hate the NASCAR variant). From what I've been reading so far, it seems like Chrysler came up with the ugly duckling and GM is brand new to this old-school design. As I would say, it's okay to use a little throwback, only as long as you do it right. For what I know, there's never been a PT Cruiser or HHR in the muscle car days, so these are more like modernized retro. I don't know an exact term. If there were such autos, they'd be rear-wheel drive, maybe with considerable horsepower, and 1960s-1970s car design. But, this is modern throwback with cars that never existed in the heyday of American automobiles.

Carry on this modernized retro discussion.

 

[skip0110]

For what I know, there's never been a PT Cruiser or HHR in the muscle car days, so these are more like modernized retro.

The PT plagarizes the pre-war coupes and the HHR plagarizes the old Suburbans.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

It looks like a delivery van.

...or a minihearse

Except it's front-wheel drive and deathly slow.

it's above average fast for FF in the lineup , pos frnt toe for rumble grab...

 

[blargonator]

The Neon's 2.0 and 2.4 DOHC are 100% developed in-house by Chrylser, NOT Mitsubishi. Only the turbo unit itself - not the rest of the engine - is sourced from Mitsubishi. Trust me on this one.

In fact the 2.0 NA Eclipse buys its short block from Chrysler, not vice-versa. It just wears the head backwards, with the intake in the back and the exhaust up front.

im still not really sure about that whole DSMs using neon motors. my brother has/had (its wrecked and in the driveway/graveyard right now) and it says 4G63, not 420a3 or whatever (im not much of a dsm guy). oh yeah, its a 1991 mitsubishi eclipse 2.0 can anyone help clear that up for me?
when i see a PT cruiser, i am actually offended by its ugly looks. it is like a punch in face when i see one. the HHR is slightly less offensive. it is sort of just like a lump of car, it remains there, but at the same time...you would not remember much of it if you saw one speeding or something.

 

[Firebird]

im still not really sure about that whole DSMs using neon motors. my brother has/had (its wrecked and in the driveway/graveyard right now) and it says 4G63, not 420a3 or whatever (im not much of a dsm guy). oh yeah, its a 1991 mitsubishi eclipse 2.0 can anyone help clear that up for me?

The 2.0L and 2.4L I4s used in the Neon, PT Cruiser and SRT-4 really are wholly Chrysler-designed and built, and have absolutely nothing to do with Mitsubishi besides the turbocharger on the 2.4. And base model '95-'99 Eclipses and '95-'98 Talons really did use the Neon's engine.

Your brother's '91 Eclipse would have used the Mitsubishi 4G63.

 

[JohnBM01]

When I was at my community college's library, there was an older Motor Trend magazine talking about the two cars in question. You may comment if you like, but here's what Motor Trend thought:

(not direct quotes) "If you had to choose, the HHR may have come late, but is better than the PT Cruiser. Not as much utility with the PT Cruiser, though it's still a fun car." -Motor Trend magazine, September 2005 issue

What now?

 

[niky]

The problem is: Will the buyers give it a chance?

The HHR seems a little forced, like the Ford SYNus concept, design for design's sake. Boxes like this do sell, but not in big numbers. I won't be surprised if people buy them, but I don't think a lot will.

The Cobalt is selling pretty well, so I doubt GM will suffer if the HHR doesn't take off, anyhow.

 

[VIPFREAK]

The HHR looks like a badly-proportioned PT that somebody took out of the oven too early. Except it's hitting the market about 5 years too late to be relevant.

It's funny you'd say that because Dodge has always been "late" to the party and still done well but then again they don't wait 5yrs. later and come out with crap.