Autoweek compares a 5 Touring to a Chevy HHR ?!?!

Wuster said:
So bottom line, the 5 wins because of better utility and handling, but the HHR was much faster in a straight line.
Click to expand...
Duh!

Seriously though, I guess the HHR is the closest thing right now in size and price range. The HHR is tempting for me because my Dad's a service manager at a Chevy dealership (hook up's!) and I briefly drove a HHR and loved the seating position... but in the end, it's just a glorified 2 row hatchback like everything else. The 5 has way more utility.

Thanks for the link!

EDIT: eww, I just noticed the optional 2.4L powerplant in the HHR drinks 91 octane. Not a fan of that!
 
Last edited:
Overall they like the ugly style of the HHR better. Eeeek. I guess thats how companies like saab stay in business, some people just like ugly cars. Goes to show you the 5 could use a little more bawls for an upgradable option.
 
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the HHR's styling. I think it would look better with a slightly higher roof. I think the PT Crusier pulled it off much better than the HHR.

Mazda's styling is much more appealing to me.

:)
 
Its like chevy has no desire to change their ugly interior rubber they have had for the last 15 years.
 
Wuster said:
I think the PT Crusier pulled it off much better than the HHR.
Click to expand...
...and in the end, sorry to say the HHR is nothing more than Chevy's carbon-copy answer to the PT Cruiser. Too bad they joined the game after Chrysler offered a 2.4L Turbo and ragtop even in the PT.
 
You do realize the designer of ther HHR came from Chryslers design team on the PT Cruiser ? I read it in some car magazine...
 
Chevy does nothing but look over the fence. And more often than not, it's the Chrysler fence they're peeking over. When I first saw an article about the up coming HHR, I just laughed. All I could think of was, "Wow. That car was a really good idea 6 years ago when it was called the PT Cruiser."

And I've said from the day I bought this car that it's near perfect, but needs more power, or at least the option for more power.
 
More power = lower MPG, higher octane, or both. The 2.3L gets the job done nicely. Not worth the extra upfront, insurance or gas costs for a turbo or V6 IMO. (Handling might get sloppy with the V6, too).

The option of a higher output engine would be fine, but my limited Mazda knowledge shows that Mazda doesn't tend to offer engine swaps as an option the way Chevy does... you have to step it to a whole new trim level.
 
I'm away from home right now so I haven't seen the past few/several of my Autoweeks. This is kind of disappointing to read, really.

"Ugly is more important and attractive than stylish because it's purposefully ulgy!"

"We don't care a thing about design, execution, quality, quality control, utility, or flexibility! Just give us faster in a straight line (regardless of handling) and cheaper!!"

Blech!
 
Well, just remember, NO car get's a perfect car review. Reviewers will always stuggle to find at least one thing to nit-pick about, even in Corvette's and Porsche's. Just so happens that the 2.3L is an easy target since it doesn't suck your stomach to your spine.

For example, Ann Job (MSN Auto's) took the brand new Porsche 911 and had the nerve to rant about "Not much storage space," "Tiny rear seats," and "Ho-hum navigation system screen." WHO THE F CARES?! It's a 911! No body that pays upwards of $100,000 for a premium sports car really cares about the rear seats or luggage. You wanna know why? That's not what the car is designed for... just as the 2.3L in the Mazda5 isn't meant to be a gut sucking thrill machine.

Reviews are a good guide, but I've learned that it's their job to find things to criticize over... they should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
First of all, the reviewers rated the 5 against the "optional" supercharged engine in the HHR and "optional" ugraded suspension...The 5 comes with a great stock engine with more horsepower and torque and better suspension out of the box without paying an extra 3 grand to get beefed up...

What I found to be really funny was that even with the supercharged engine in the HHR, it barely beat the 5 in the quarter mile and zero to sixty runs by less than a second and only one or two mph faster...What a joke!!! And people are actually paying the extra for these so-called upgrades for this Chevy PT rip off???

I've test driven the LT version of the HHR and I can tell you that the interior may be about the same size in cubic feet as the 5, but it's spaced out and designed more compacted...You feel like you're being hugged inside of it...Also, the windows have tons of blind spots and a lot less of the road can be seen through the side windows because they're so small...Rear leg room is also minimal even with the seats all the way back...

The 5 is based on a sporty compact wagon in the 3 while the HHR is based off of the highly abused rental car platform of the Cavalier *cough* I mean Cobalt (same difference)...Nuff' said, there is no comparison in my eyes...I'll take my 5 over that wanna-be PT Cruiser anyday...
 
7red7 said:
First of all, the reviewers rated the 5 against the "optional" supercharged engine in the HHR and "optional" ugraded suspension...The 5 comes with a great stock engine with more horsepower and torque and better suspension out of the box without paying an extra 3 grand to get beefed up...

What I found to be really funny was that even with the supercharged engine in the HHR, it barely beat the 5 in the quarter mile and zero to sixty runs by less than a second and only one or two mph faster...What a joke!!!
Click to expand...
I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a moment, please forgive me. :) Regardless of what the reviewers may have claimed, the optional 2.4L motor in the HHR is NOT supercharged. It's a 2.4L N/A 172hp motor. Chevy's supercharged engine is a 2.0L. For example, you can get the Chevy "Cobalt SS" that comes with the same 2.4L 172hp motor, or you can get the Chevy "Cobalt SS Supercharged" that comes with a 2.0L 205hp Supercharged motor.

And as a current owner of a Pontiac Sunfire(rebadged Cavalier), I can tell you with certainty, that the Cavalier and Cobalt are light years apart... not even close. I'll concede and say the J-body platform of the Cavalier and Sunfire is complete junk, for some reason I'm on my second one. But I've driven several Cobalts, and the Delta platform is built from scratch... has no Cavalier carried over. Many people think the Cobalt is simply the new Cavalier with different badging... not the case.

Okay, I'm done ;)
 
Thanks for clearing that up for me because I honestly thought the Cobalt was the new Cavalier...I didn't know that Chevy had designed an entirely new platform for the Cobalt...I apologize for speaking prematurely without knowing the difference...It's good to know that Chevy might be on the up and up with a new car in it's lineup...

I still say the 5 is a better car for the money out of the box...My biggest gripe was that the article seemed to kind of slam the 5 and only knocking the HHR's handling (yet quickly adding that comsumers can also get an optional suspension upgrade to help that)...

I guess I'm just used to getting more car for my money off the lot...
 
jandree22 said:
More power = lower MPG, higher octane, or both. The 2.3L gets the job done nicely. Not worth the extra upfront, insurance or gas costs for a turbo or V6 IMO. (Handling might get sloppy with the V6, too).

The option of a higher output engine would be fine, but my limited Mazda knowledge shows that Mazda doesn't tend to offer engine swaps as an option the way Chevy does... you have to step it to a whole new trim level.
Click to expand...
Usually people who want more power are concerned with just that. My SRT-4 gets less than 20 MPG. And you know what? I could give a s*** less. It's ugly, it's fun, and it's fast. And it'll b**** slap "sports cars" costing twice as much.
 
7red7, not a problem... I wasn't trying to 'prove you wrong' or anything, just an FYI :) And yes, I agree that the Mazda5 is definately the better bang for the buck than the HHR. IMO I also believe that although the Chevy's are getting better, they're still no where near the quality of many imports out there.


Usually people who want more power are concerned with just that. My SRT-4 gets less than 20 MPG. And you know what? I could give a s*** less. It's ugly, it's fun, and it's fast. And it'll b**** slap "sports cars" costing twice as much.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but do you really think Mazda has the same market for the 5 as Dodge has for the SRT-4? Apples to Oranges. That being said, as I mentioned earlier, the option of higher output would be nice, but def not by making it standard.
 
I wasn't comparing anything to anything. Obviously Mazda was wanting to put some sportiness into this car, low ride height, 50 series tires on 17" wheels, the rice boy looks of the body, side sills, JDM ricer taillights. They should've went all the way and given us some go with the show. Like you said, the option for more power should've been there. I would gladly give up some MPG for some HALMA. Maybe they'll slap a 2.3 turbo in there next year as an option.

(Haul A Little More Ass)
 
I can see the reasoning behind using the Mazda 3 platform on the 5, but I would have loved to see the 6's V-6 engine under the hood...There's a ton of room in there to fit it IMHO :D

Get some real Zoom Zoom out of that micro van!!! *LOL*
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Brief but Good Review of the Mazda5 at AutoWeek
Replies
15
Views
1K
jandree22
J
sm1ke
    • Like
So I compared a fully-loaded $65k QX60 to the $53k CX-9 Signature..
2
Replies
21
Views
11K
sm1ke
sm1ke
C
shopping for a CX-5 and comparing it to its competition
2
Replies
20
Views
5K
CaboWabo
C

Latest posts

Back