2006 Chevrolet HHR

When Chevrolet unveiled its production HHR (Heritage High Roof) small crossover at the 2005 Los Angeles Auto Show, much of the media derided it as a Chrysler PT Cruiser clone. GM global product guru Bob Lutz shot back that it was a fresh execution of the same basic concept, there was no reason why a second such vehicle should not succeed and he was certain the HHR would do very, very well.


Turns out that both were right, sort of. The HHR is indeed a recycling of the clever PT cruiser concept, though far from an identical "clone." And several months into its U.S. market presence, it is indeed selling very well.

Styling

The PT Cruiser, first unveiled as the Plymouth Pronto at the January, 1997 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, was a flat-out brilliant idea. Essentially a 5-door van-like body on a small-car (Neon) platform, it combined cool retro styling (reminiscent of '40s Ford trucks) with great utility, reasonable performance, good fuel economy and a very affordable price. "How can it miss—" the media asked. It didn't, and five years out, it's still a hit. In addition, the PT's flat floor and removable rear seats make it a "truck" for CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) purposes, so every one sold allows the sale of at least one big, heavy, high-profit, low-fuel-economy truck without blowing Chrysler's CAFE compliance.


So why shouldn't GM (or anyone else) create something like it? Has the demand for such a cool, practical, affordable vehicle been soaked up by the PT? Apparently not, but why did it take GM five years to respond? Because it made no sense to do it on the aged previous-generation small-car (Cavalier) platform: it had to await availability of the new Delta (Cobalt/Ion) architecture and engineering resources. It is the third Cobalt body style. Why build a small conventional wagon when they could do a fresh take on Chrysler's brilliant PT concept?


Compared to the PT, the HHR is seven inches longer, two inches wider and two inches taller on a half-inch longer wheelbase. The base 2.2L model is roughly 80 lbs. heavier and $1,100 more expensive. Except for the PT's slightly more generous rear cabin room, interior dimensions are close, and total cargo capacity with the rear seats removed is near identical. So, as popular as the PT has been and still is, why would someone choose the HHR instead?