Note1: these only apply to HHRs sold in Canada.
Note2: I'm stating these points using GM Canada website; so any errors on there will be reflected here.

1) You can now get an LT with the 2.2 engine (same as in the USA)
2) OnStar now seems to be a standard option, even on the LS
3) The stated fuel consumption for the 2.2 has gone down significantly; my '07 auto was rated at 7.1 or 7.3 Hwy, whereas the '08 auto is rated at 6.6 l/100. Have they changed the gearing? The auto is now rated the same as the manual. (I'm thinking that this is an actual GM typo)
4) The '08 stated fuel tank capacity has gone down to 49 litres from 61.3 litres in '07.
5) TPMS (not mandated in Canada) is not offered

Any guesses as to which of these statements are actual errors on the GM website?

Yves

Mileage did drop to reflect the new standards.

Tanks size did not change to the best of my knowledge.

Gear size did not change to the best of my knowledge.

I thought that it has been mandated that for 2008 all vehicle must come equipped with a Tire Pressure Monitoring System within Canada.

If the numbers are correct for the fuel tank that definetely kinda sucks. I like the bigger tank because it allows for longer non-stop driving. I like being able to go 700 or 800km before stopping for gas.

Mileage did drop to reflect the new standards.

If mileage has dropped, hwy fuel consumption should have gone up (more litres burned / 100 km), but it's down 1/2 litre/100 km from last year. Unless in this specific case, the new measure standard has given better numbers?

Again, I'm guessing that most of these are typos, but it'd be interesting to find out.

Yves

I just test drove a new '08 LS in toronto, only options are remote start, roof rails, mp3 radio. It has tire pressure monitor, which I wasnt expecting. I think the salesman said it was standard.

Yeah, I was only going from the info posted on the GM Canada website, which, by the way, still doesn't mention the TPM system, advertises a smaller fuel tank and a significant gain to the fuel ecomony (the latter could be due to the new standard for estimating fuel economy numbers) compared to the '07.

It would make sense that TPM is standard since it is as well in the US. But the other numbers are weird.

I don't know; I guess I'm going to have to pick up a brochure to find out.

Yves

The change in the fuel mileage for 2008 now means that the 2008 HHR 2.2 qualifies for the $1000.00 cdn. fuel economy rebate from the feds. :smile:

My god, I thought you were joking but that's true ! So, I now see the incentive for GM to publish lower numbers, but what did they do to achieve this with the same engine & transmission, moving roughly the same weight? Different gearing or a different ECM and transmission map ? Who can find out ?

Yves

The change in the fuel mileage for 2008 now means that the 2008 HHR 2.2 qualifies for the $1000.00 cdn. fuel economy rebate from the feds. :smile:

Yep, that was another pleasant surprise I got from the salesman. However, he then tried to work that into my deal, saying the price was $1000 less because of it. They had a sheet worked up with all their models that now qualify, quite a few including the impala.

what did they do to achieve this Yves

IMO Nothing, just changed the figures, they are GM you know.:smile:

I wonder if I can do that on my tax to go down into a lower bracket???

:cool: If the Government can fudge facts and figures to suit whatever their current needs are, can GM be expected to do anything less? :2cents:

I don't know about the Canadian vehicles but for the ones made for sale in the USA the following would apply:

ALL 2008 vehicles have lower EPA fuel economy ratings due to a change in how they run the fuel economy testing. In other words these figures are closer to what you will actually get.

There was no change in gears.

The 2008 has a 61.3L/16.2 gallon tank (same as prior year)

TPMS is on all 2008's (at least all of the ones we have received)

ALL 2008 vehicles have lower EPA fuel economy ratings

In this case, it's higher, and that's why my eyebrows are up. 1/2 liter less per 100 km translates to more miles per gallon.

Yves