And before anyone makes fun of the styling, have you seen its competitors? The HHR may be retro-ugly, but the Scion Xb is just plain Japanese ugly, and I have no idea what to make of the new Nissan Cube.

instant rebate: “I personally believe that this car is nice vehicle and it will sell well on the west coast. Ample room for luggage, board and sandles, couple cases of beer and “whatever”!

This is probably a pretty good bet in a few years when the oldest and most beat-up (but still running) examples of both the HHR and PT Cruiser are selling for next to nothing. They could then be considered the true, modern equivalent of the old ‘woodie’.

And that’s the HHR’s biggest problem. They hold very little resale value and they haven’t dramatically changed anything in four years. This means the HHR ends up competing with itself. Why buy a new one when I can get virtually the same car, certified so that most of its early problems are taken care of, and still have a warranty for a lot less money?

For the record, the HHR is a pretty nice little car. It fits a crap-ton (a little less than a s#^&-ton) of cargo cause the seats fold flat, gets decent MPG, is reasonably fun to drive, and isn’t a Cavalier or a Kia (a HUGE plus).

Geez American consumer indeed! I guess everyone wants to wear white sneakers it doesn’t matter if everyone shoes looks the same.

I rather buy the Xb more horsepower and spacious.

That’s a big reason every so often (every ten years?), Ford releases a ‘Cobra’. There are a plethora of Cobra replica builders that would surely swoop down on the rights to the Cobra name the moment Ford loses the right to it.

I completely agree with you on #2, I’ve been in cars that step #1 don’t really work for though, or maybe that says more about my lack of trust in stock mirrors.

I think concave mirrors should be legally required in addition to regular side views. There’s simply no other way to see at a glance what’s going on next door with 100% certainty given how over the shoulder glances won’t reveal a small enough car in a modern, pillbox shaped tall vehicle. At night they’re even better; I think the contrast between the two mirror types allows the driver to account for glare and get a better fix on the range of approaching vehicles, especially in the rain.

On the other hand it takes some getting used to, I hated them for about the two weeks when I was first exposed (tow vehicle), but have since changed my tune. Every car I’ve owned since then has gotten a pair, usually within a week of me getting my hands on it.

I think they wanted to reserve Nomad for an RWD based car like a Corvette etc.

I’m not a huge fan of slapping on old names just because it’s a ‘close enough’ fit.

Look how well the GTO turned out.

supremebrougham: “It’s true that the name HHR stands for Heritage High Roof, and it’s true that it’s a stupid name, which is why I just refer to it as the “Heritage”. I tell everyone that I own a Chevrolet Heritage! Sounds much better, wouldn’t you say? Either that or I just call it the station wagon.

Indeed, name recognition is not a myth. As someone asked earlier, why didn’t GM call it the Nomad? It would have fit perfectly and likely would have increased sales by 10% just because of the name, alone. Personally, I’d much rather drive a ‘Nomad’ than an ‘HHR’…

I suspect that some marketing genius decided that since Chrysler’s PT Cruiser was so successful, GM’s version had to have a name equally as distinctive. It’s just that I’m not entirely convinced ‘PT Cruiser’ was such a hot choice for a vehicle name, either.

Where I am you used to be able to buy Camry and Honda Accord wagons but it seems they have phased these out.

I am not a fan of hatchbacks, I can see where the sedan/coupe fails and I don’t like SUVs/minivans. But that seems where the bulk of things are.

I can live with the low roofline of a wagon if they build it on a high performance platform like a Mercedes C63 wagon.

I like some utility but I don’t need the BIG UTILITY of an minivan or suv. But I like the ‘car like chassis’ of a wagon because it is a car.

But as you say, the people have spoken and car like wagons will continue to only exist in niches like the ones I described.

You need no stinking rear-view cameras/proximity sensors. Those complex/expensive gadgets can be replaced with a lo low tech DIY solution.

Here is my recipe to avoid being maimed/killed by blind spots.

1. Please do at this page instructs:

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~gdguo/driving/BlindSpot.htm

…but do it in a parking lot, not on the road. Move your car until you get the situation described in the fourth drawing. The blue “vanished” car should be a solitary car parked in the lot.

2. Paste one of these blind spot mirrors.

http://www.made-in-china.com/image/2f0j00LhaEVKGWqtZoM/made-in-china.jpg

…but do not paste it as recommended in the rear view mirror. Paste it whith Silicone in the triangle in the door just behind the A pillar. Silicone allows you to orientate the mirror to cover exactly the blind spot.

3. Repeat the process at the right.

Do you want a picture of the finished instalation?.

Some cars have curved left mirrors. Usually there is no blind spot on those mirrors, but this must be checked.

Uh, and wear gloves and be extra careful. Silicone is a mess.

That is an awesome feature of the PT. People who deride it forget that it did sell well and steadily throughout just about it’s entire model run (in Canada it seemed to be Chrysler’s most popular model, second to the Caravan) because, funny looking and slow as it was, it was very practical.

The PT (and HHR) gets slammed in enthusiast forums because it’s a Neon-based (Cobalt, in the HHR) MPV in fancy duds while they were expecting something else. A certain brand of car-nut is of the opinion that if it has classic styling and isn’t rear-drive and equipped with a V8, it’s somehow worse than a conventionally-styled car (eg, the Focus or Matrix) with the same mechanicals. Which is silly: the PT is a very good front-drive tall wagon; people just got an idea in their heads and never got over their initial disappointment.

TonyJZX: I like the concept of something like the Kia Rondo which is in a similar vein to the HHR/Cruiser but I think the Koreans did the right thing and concentrated on utility rather than retro at all cost.

The Rondo is another badly under-appreciated vehicle. If I hadn’t gotten a screaming deal on a babied used Sienna, it was my intended buy. Kia did good work, there.

TonyJZX:But conventional wagons aren’t too fashionable it seems.

Conventional wagons waste space because of the low roofline and (often) high load floor. Take a look at the Civic hatchbacks of yore versus the Fit, or the Mazda6 wagon versus the Mazda5. The smaller, taller MPVs are more practical in every way.

The minivan is the new large wagon (the MPV is the new small wagon), and for good reason: it’s better in every way. Even without the driveshaft and rear differential of rear drive, a minivan allows you to package much more space in a smaller physical footprint than a wagonosaur of old.

BlueBrat: At least the seats fold down flat. Can’t be said for some of GM’s other SUV/CUV vehicles.

That’s not necessarily a good thing. Too many manufacturers raise the rear load floor to meet the edge of the folded seats, sacrificing seat-up space. The Vibetrix is the worst for this, but others do it, too (eg, the abovementioned Rondo, many CUVs and modern wagons). Conversely, the Versa does not; the Fit does, but because the rear seats fold so low it doesn’t matter).

1. More cargo space behind the rear seat than the PT which resorted to cargo hooks on the rear of the back seat to make up the difference.

2. Better reliability, the early PTs spent time parked because of operational issues.

3. Spongeable interiors are great for parents of rambunctious kids like mine, especially with mud and other spooge caked gear.

one of my favorite category of car is the small wagon like the Jetta or the Elantra Touring or the European Ceed.

75% the size of a real wagon but with 85% of the utility and 50% of the running cost

But conventional wagons aren’t too fashionable it seems.

I like the concept of something like the Kia Rondo which is in a similar vein to the HHR/Cruiser but I think the Koreans did the right thing and concentrated on utility rather than retro at all cost.

I dunno? Do you slam GM for building half competent but uninspiring cars? Is that their goal in the 1st place? Can every car be a veritable ‘car of the year’ or Camaro ‘in the spotlight’ queen?

Personally, I think this is a very underrated car. Granted, the lesser models aren’t all that exciting. At all. But in 2LT trim I found a rather luxurious little station wagon, which is just what I wanted it to be. It feels so much larger than it is when I am inside it, and legroom is never an issue with me or my passengers, front or rear, mainly because I’m only 5′5″ so the seat is far forward and raised up high. It handles far better that I expected it to (credit the 2LT’s wheel and suspension enhancements) and the ride is pleasant.

My car came with a huge rug for the back, so cargo stays in place. I found that there are hooks for grocery bags under the plastic load floor, all you have to do is place the floor into a half-raised position and they will work well.

Now I’m neither a fanboi nor an outright basher of GM products, but I think the build quality is quite impressive on mine. I bought an ‘06 with 39000 miles on it (it turned 42000 today) and it has nary a creak or rattle in it. The doors close with a satisfying thunk. The leather seems to be of far better quality then what they were using for the past ten years. And…I LOVE the digital interfaces in the dash and radio. I still think that this is one area where GM leads. I also like the little added touches, such as the LED light mounted in the roof that illuminates the center stack at night perfectly without being annoying. The audio controls on the steering wheel. The heated seats. The remote start. Just lots of unexpected features for the class. The one thing I don’t like is having the window buttons mounted down on the lowest part of the center of the dash-horrible design! Of course I see that they fixed that for oh-nine and put them back where God intended, on the door panel!

As for the overall design and concept, I find it’s looks to be rather interesting and the design engaging. Most people seem to really like it, especially after having gone for a ride in it.

It’s true that the name HHR stands for Heritage High Roof, and it’s true that it’s a stupid name, which is why I just refer to it as the “Heritage”. I tell everyone that I own a Chevrolet Heritage! Sounds much better, wouldn’t you say? Either that or I just call it the station wagon. Oh, and it’s NOT AN SUV!!! I would never buy one, so don’t refer to this as such! (That’s what I tell my friends)

And lastly, I’ve been averaging around 27 mpg on plain old 87 octane gas from Walmart.

Overall, it’s really not a bad little car…

In fact I am often reminded of Apple fanboys who seek to defend and justify their choice of purchase against any assault as if it matters to anyone but themselves. If you like it, that is fine by me.

My opinion is that 90% of the cars out there are close to being garbage just like 90% of anything out there.

I am not a fan of retro design much like I’m not a fan of Chris Bangle.

I am not a fan of Chrysler designs and/or cars much like most of the population out there.

But one hardly needs my opinion on the matter. The market has spoken loud and clear I would imagine.

Without the removable rear seats, the HHR becomes just another boring station wagon. Given what should have been unique styling, that was quite an accomplishment for GM. With the exception of the Corvette, time and again, they manage to make the most mediocre cars available. Even something as radical as the old SSR ended up being just…boring.

Toyota is similiar in their conservative execution but it’s acceptable because at least Toyota has an enviable quality reputation (whether it’s still deserved or not).

When you build mediocre cars that have a reputation for spending too much time in the shop, well, that’s just not a business model for long-term survival. The HHR is another in a long series of GM vehicles that had potential but ended up being nothing more than another typical GM snooze-mobile (although the now discontinued SS version seemed okay in most reviews).