My Site
Skip to Content

Car Review of the 2009 GM HHR LT

May 19, 2009

Stephen J. Mraz

Printer-friendly version
Going head-to-head
2009 HHR LT
Characteristics
Subaru Forester 2.5X
69.1
Width (in.)
70.1
63.1
Height (in.)
66.9
103.6
Wheelbase (in.)
103
57.7
Cargo volume (ft3)
33.5
4
Seats
4
22/30
EPA est. (city/ hwy mpg)
20/26
$22,585
Cost
$22,495

The HHR, a retro throwback that follows the PT Cruiser in looking backward for styling cues, combines the roominess and flexibility of a station wagon (remember those?) with the economy of a small car. I don’t mind a little throwback styling, especially compared to today’s mostly forgettable efforts. The truck, which is how GM refers to it, also has better-than-average performance and a lower-than-average price. (Base price is $18,930.)

The vehicle is powered by a 2.2-liter DOHC Ecotec engine that puts out 172 hp through a fourspeed automatic transmission (a $1,000 option). It provides plenty of power to move the 3,208-lb truck through traffic without worrying about merging or passing. The engine is also remarkably quiet. Even at highway speeds, engine and wind noise are almost absent, which makes it easier to appreciate the seven-speaker Pioneer audio system (a $300 option that includes a subwoofer). To keep it green, the engine is the first modern four-banger that runs on gas, E85, or any combination of the two, according to GM.

The HHR gets an EPA estimated 22/30 mpg (city/highway). It would be interesting (and useful) if GM published EPA mileage estimates for the vehicle when it is powered solely by E85, a mixture of 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). From what I understand, E85 might be good for reducing U.S. oil use, but it’s not so good on the driver’s wallet. (If you have experience using E85, please drop us an e-mail at mdeditor.@penton.com).

The truck comfortably carries four in leather-covered seats (a $950 option), plus up to 57.7 ft3 of cargo, or 63 ft3 of cargo with the rear seats folded down.

The touring suspension, which provided a smooth, controlled ride, comes with monotube shocks for “sportier “handling. If by sportier, GM means crisp, effortless steering and little body roll, they succeeded. The steering was probably also helped by speedsensitive electrical power steering.

I really only have two minor complaints about the HHR. The name is silly. HHR stands for “heritage high roof,” but the roof isn’t particularly high. I’m a bit over 6 ft tall with a taller than average sitting height. And every time I was in the driver seat and looked straight ahead or left. I seemed to be looking at the inside of the roof. I had to scrunch down in the seat to really see out. If GM is not going to change the name, it should at least make seats that adjusts down farther.

The HHR LT, whether it’s a van, truck, or crossover, is a welldesigned and fairly priced vehicle that would suit a wide range of drivers, just not tall ones. Total cost was $22,585 for our test, which included a $750 sunroof, in addition to options previously mentioned. Now if they just offered a nice shiny black one with a flame job over the front end.

Comments

E-85 in an HHR

While the MPG is lower with E-85, I find I'm only paying one cent more per mile traveled than with conventional gas. According to fueleconomy.gov, I'm also reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that I'm contributing by one ton (if using E85 all year round).

To me, it's worth the extra pennies.

Is E-85 Worth it?

I drive a 2004 Chevy Suburban. It typically gets 16 miles per gallon. I put in a full tank of E85 only to be disappointed. My mileage went down to 11 miles per gallon and the truck ran very rough. It even stalled out at a stop light. I won't be doing that again any time soon. 
 
Just thought I'd share.

Julie Oxender

E-85

I had a 2001 Chevy S10 with the 2.2L, 4I, flex-fuel engine. I experimented with using E85 in the tank. The truck would run on any combination of gasoline and E85 with no difference in performance. I did find the range on a full tank of gasoline was 400 miles but on E85 the range was decreased to 310 miles. This lead me to the economic conclusion that if the price E85 were roughly 25% less per gallon than the price of gasoline it would then be cheaper to run the truck on E85. But, here in the state of Minnesota, E85 is heavily subsidized to bring the price down enough to match the price of gasoline and no more. This makes E85 not a very economical alternative. However, as the fuel prices fluctuate it is possible, though not very often, to find the E85 price difference to be greater than 25%. I’m all for cheap fuels but I do not believe E85 is the solution. Peter Lendway

E-85

I own a GMC pickup and a Chevy Monte Carlo both of which can use E-85. We generally find that we can’t justify the use of E-85 on a cost basis. Our experience is a 15-20% loss in mileage which also means more frequent stops to fill up. This equates to a higher overall cost for E-85. There are a couple of stations in our area that supply E-85, but when traveling it is not easy to track down stations that have it available. Some locations are listed on the internet. 

Marvin Clark

Leave a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Acceptable Use Policy