Never go above 3000 rpm. I have been driving 46 miles round trip through city and highway and I stay below 3000rpm and things have been great. The shift point for my engine seems to be just over 2200 rpms. If I start to accelerate and the rpms are about to go up to 3 if I back off just a hair it shifts perfectly.

70mph on the highway = 2.5 rpm

Most of the time I don't go above 2.5 rpm and I haven't had any problems. I can merge with traffic on the on ramp and take off from a stoplight easy as well.

I do have the 2.4L 175HP engine, but I am also running 87 octane.

Just thought I would put that out there for the people who have complained about not getting the advertised MPG. Reset your counters and drive a day without going over 3000 RPMs and see what kind of results you get. If you are able to do it and you get good results then it proves the engine is capable of it.

Now is never going 3000 rpms fun? Nope...do you have to be a lot easier than most? Yep.

Give it a try..what do you have to lose?

EDIT: Forgot to mention what my actual MPG was :P I am getting 28mpg mixed.

Your information has been posted before, many times, by many different members. And it is valid and a GOOD review. Most will not adhere to it, however, and complain about the poor gas mileage.:thumb:

Remember, according to auto experts, 30% of your fuel useage is getting UP to speed.....whatever it is (within the rules of "dominishing returns").

ive been trying to get the best mileage I can get lately and over the last month to month and a half my lowest tank was 28.8mpg and highest being 32ish mpg, I have the 2.2. most of this is in town i would have to say 90/10 town/highway, and also keep the keep the rpms down, I get it to shift at around 2000. On the highway I still reach 75 to 80 when I go. Im looking at getting even more with a few aero mods. You guys should check out ecomodder.com its a great site with lots of info on get the most mpg.

From what I've heard said by several experts in the field, a general "rule of thumb" is this... For every 1MPH you go above 70 you average 1% worse fuel mileage. So at 80 you are averaging 10% worse mileage than if you were doing 70.

From my experiences optimal mileage for most vehicles is at somewhere around 55-60MPH. Anything faster is trading economy for speed.

I tend to drive 3-5MPH faster than traffic, for safety reasons. If I encounter a situation it is going to be on my terms at my speed, not waiting on the cell-phone yacking buffoon ahead of me to notice and hit his brakes. Of course this also means I don't get the greatest fuel economy... but I'm averaging around 26MPG on my daily commute, which ain't horrible.

You supposably get worse mileage at higher speeds, but since im still get 30 plus mpg im not to worried about. Maybe I could get more miles but on a 3 and half our trip I'll just get there instead of taking longer.

I follow the rule also. My calculated average mpg is over 30 mpg. The DIC in my car calculates out 2-3 mpg less. My trip up the Garlits Museum and back DIC said 29.6, calculated 32.5.

I average about 20.2 MPG in my 2.2 HHR HOG!!! I also drive like a madman! so much for the economy!!?? lol

I average about 20.2 MPG in my 2.2 HHR HOG!!! I also drive like a madman! so much for the economy!!??

This is exactly why I opted for the 2.4 engine. My daily commute is such that I need a certain degree of performance to be able to maneuver in city traffic. I end up flogging a lower hp engine so much that it kills any fuel mileage advantage. So I went for the larger engine, knowing that I would not be hammering it quite so much to get the performance I need. I was looking for around 200hp... the 2.4 is close out of the box, so I figure by the time I do I/H/E and a tune it should be right where I want it.

I have a 100 mile daily commute and my speeds range from 0 to 80 and I feel I am getting great mileage at 28.5 most weeks, running 87 octane. But I traded my truck for the HHR and it was a 4x4 getting 13 to maybe 17 MPG so I am really overjoyed with the HHR!!

I have plenty of get up when needed and still maintane my great mpgs so im glad I got the 2.2.

I tried the 2500rpm rule today on a 100 mile trip (200 miles total round trip) and found that in my case, this theory is supported. Although I drifted a couple of times to maybe 2600 or reaching 2700rpm, it was brief in duration.

I usually average about 27.5/28.5 combined as per the DIC. I keep a record of my fuel fill-ups and rough math told me it was close. Today I averaged 30.5 by limiting my rpm in this manner. Average speed was about 68-69 on the hwy, but the DIC averaged 47 due to a good amount of local driving once I got off of the interstate.

This is with the 2.0L, manual trans and the GM Turbo Upgrade kit.

Keeping your RPMs down is a good way to maximize fuel mileage, but you can really boost your mileage if you combine limiting hard acceleration with limiting the RPMs as well as limiting your use of the brakes! Remember breaking is taking the momentum (kinetic energy) and turning it to heat. As stated, 30% of you're fuel is used just to get you moving, the less you brake, the less you need to get restarted. To Accomplish this, LOOK AHEAD AND PLAN. If you see a light a 1/4 mile up the road turning yellow, get off the gas and coast. I can't tell you how many people that I ride with that complain about fuel mileage and only know 2 mode of driving. Hard accelerating and hard braking.....
Try to look ahead and plan accordingly

I completely agree esmarkey. And the more you plan ahead while you drive, the less braking you have to do, prolonging the life of your brakes as well. I regularly get 7-7.7 liters/100km on my 440km daily drive, sometimes can get 5-6 l/100km while on a flat straight stretch too.

The problem I have with the 2.2L HHR is the fact I had a 1991 Honda Civic LX with a 1.5L engine that got about 30-32 MPG , and I understand that I now have a 2.2L engine and a heavier vehicle weight overall plus the fact that that the engine has almost 110,000 miles on it.The fact is,it is newer technology and a great engine as far as performance,but the mileage is terrible,you think it would be alot better. Today I changed the plugs when I did the oil change and I used the AC Delco Irridium plugs , so we'll see if I get any better mileage.I will say the old plugs were ready to be changed as they were gapping anywhere from .045 to .050. Hopefully , the newer plugs will make a difference.I could tell a difference in the accelleration through part-throttle and take-off.

I know ill probably hear crap about this one but I dont think the newer cars get all that better gas mileage than older cars. Sure some are the exception but over all I dont think so. I use to own a 86 ford bronco II that could get 20+ mpg and my dad is still driving an 90s grand am that gets better mileage than my HHR. They say we are getting better mpg but I dont buy it, I only got the car for its looks.

I never let my RPMs go past 3k...just never have in the HHR, basically to help fuel economy. I just thought of it on my own, didn't read it (or maybe subliminally!) Either way, with my very easy driving (slow take offs, coasting, no lead foot), I really think I should be getting better...but it's hard to say what my average is since my driving changed...now I go to school more, which is more highway driving, and it seems to be getting better. This last tank I averaged at 29, the one before that when it wasn't as much highway I got 26. That isn't city driving, it's mostly 55mph in the country.

Jeffro... not only was your 91 Honda much smaller and lighter than your HHR... it also had far less stringent emissions controls on it. What kills the power and fuel economy in modern engines is all the emissions equipment.

Jeffro... not only was your 91 Honda much smaller and lighter than your HHR... it also had far less stringent emissions controls on it. What kills the power and fuel economy in modern engines is all the emissions equipment.

What he said ^

And I wonder which one had more wind resistance....
That's like me saying my HHR is defiantly better because it gets better mileage than my Silverado pickup truck.... Apples and oranges.

I am currently averaging 26MPG on my daily commute... running premium. Just if anyone wanted to know.

The problem I have with the 2.2L HHR is the fact I had a 1991 Honda Civic LX with a 1.5L engine that got about 30-32 MPG , and I understand that I now have a 2.2L engine and a heavier vehicle weight overall plus the fact that that the engine has almost 110,000 miles on it.The fact is,it is newer technology and a great engine as far as performance,but the mileage is terrible,you think it would be alot better. Today I changed the plugs when I did the oil change and I used the AC Delco Irridium plugs , so we'll see if I get any better mileage.I will say the old plugs were ready to be changed as they were gapping anywhere from .045 to .050. Hopefully , the newer plugs will make a difference.I could tell a difference in the accelleration through part-throttle and take-off.

Last week I had to do a 300 mile round trip one day, I got 34.2 highway. Cruise set at 75 the whole way. That was using a calculator.

On a recent trip of about 260 miles I averaged 36.9 MPG. On the way home I took a longer route that is much more up and down in the mountains and averaged 34.1 MPG over about 310 miles.

I think it has everything to do with driving style. I still travel at the posted speed limits, just don't feel any need to get up to those limits nearly as fast as those who I always say are in a hurry to die. I've noticed that the vast majority travel above the posted limits, some considerably above.

Well here's my input...

Mechanical:
> tires at maximum inflation to reduce rolling resistance.
> well tuned engine (no-brainer)
> no unnecessary weight (it takes energy to move stuff - clean it out)
> don't run with the defrost on when it is not needed; this runs the A/C compressor.

Method:
> keep rpms reasonable
> avoid excessive time in lower gears (get to speed in a smooth and expedient manner)
> avoid brakes and plan ahead.
> drafting (it helps but be very careful); dont' think NASCAR - you don't have to tailgate to get most of the benefit. Even 100 ft behind a big rig can help substantially.
> slow down. As a rule of thumb, composite drag (profile, induced and parasitic) roughly doubles for every 10 mph over 60.

I feel like the car performs better when it is clean and waxed, but this is probably just psychological.

I've only had my HHR for about a week. I have been driving a crew cab Sierra and even for it's size, I was able to get between 19 and 20 mpg for combined city/highway by using these tricks. So far, I'm averaging around 30 with the HHR.

I still do not understand how anyone can get much over 30mpg going 70 or more... Maybe my car just sucks. Literally.

I dont know how but its possible. Im going to be adding a few eco mods to mine to up even more. check out ecomodders.com they have lots of info of course they do drive slower also but then again they are achieve big numbers not just 30s.

But people claim they drive 75-80 and get 35mpg...I just can't believe that. I couldn't get that going 60mph!

But people claim they drive 75-80 and get 35mpg...I just can't believe that. I couldn't get that going 60mph!

You have an automatic, and they sap power and mileage. Still, methinks that some people may be embellishing their numbers. I've netted much higher, but it hasn't been while driving 75 - 80 mph. I have to earn those numbers.

You have an automatic, and they sap power and mileage. Still, methinks that some people may be embellishing their numbers. I've netted much higher, but it hasn't been while driving 75 - 80 mph. I have to earn those numbers.

Yeah, I'm thinking I have to go no faster than 60 with the cruise to start getting that... Heck, I'd probably have to drive 40-45!

I know ill probably hear crap about this one but I dont think the newer cars get all that better gas mileage than older cars. Sure some are the exception but over all I dont think so. I use to own a 86 ford bronco II that could get 20+ mpg and my dad is still driving an 90s grand am that gets better mileage than my HHR. They say we are getting better mpg but I dont buy it, I only got the car for its looks.

Agree with the poster about emissions - it's an important factor in the formula of power, fuel economy, and economic...er, economy.

But I just really, really doubt claims about mileage in older cars. I hear stories about this and I wonder how accurate the accounting really was. Did they do their division right, did they use the best way to calculate it? Or did they guess trying to estimate? And if so, did they use the right capacity for the fuel tank (I'm sure many thought it was bigger than it actually was), was their fuel gauge calibrated correctly (I know my S-10 wasn't... it rapidly used 'more' fuel as the tank went down!)?

All things being equal, today's cars are more efficient. But there's more saftey (weight), options (weight), and emissions controls. And I also wonder if old mileage calculations by people are correct.

I have a little over 7000 miles on my 08 HHR with 2.2 and the only thing that is not factory under the hood is the use of Royal Purple Oil 5-W-30 with a Fram Tough Guard Oil Filter and wondered what kind of MPG I would get on the interstate so I took three short trips of 80 miles round trip each just to see what the MPG would be. The first trip I set the cruise at 55 on the interstate without the air on and got 41.2 MPG even with all the Tennessee Hills. The second trip was on the same route with the air on and the cruise set again at 55 it still got 36.1 MPG. My last trip along the same route and the cruise now set on 70 with the air on it got 30.0 MPG. Around town I keep my RPMs as close to 2000 as possible and I am getting between 28 to 31 MPG out of each tank. I can’t imagine putting out the extra money for a Hybrid when this little station wagon will get that kind of gas mileage.

But people claim they drive 75-80 and get 35mpg...I just can't believe that. I couldn't get that going 60mph!

Eric, never forget this is the internet.

Eric, never forget this is the internet.

Ha ha...that's right...this isn't the Bible I suppose.:roll:

Thats a little harsh Im getting 32mpg running at 78-80 mph. I always take my mileage and divide that by gallons I put in, not how much should go in it. Mine is a 2.2 auto and easily see those numbers and have seen up to 32 in town by just changing my driving habits. As far as older cars getting better gas mileage some do. My dad is driving an early 90s Grand Am get up to 35 in town way more than my car so yes some older cars can get better mpgs, probably not most but a few yes regardless of what people think. Believe it or not MY numbers are accurate and I am NOT inflating or embellishing my numbers. No way to really prove it to you guys, You could look on ecomodders.com and check out my gas log on the site I type in exactly what the reciept says and it caculates it out also so Im actually get two calculation from different places and both add up to the same thing so makes me think im doing it right, but who knows maybe me and the other calculation are equally wrong.

I'm sorry, but I drive VERY conservatively, and that just simply isn't possible to get 32 in town. No way, no how. Sorry.

I'm sorry, but I drive VERY conservatively, and that just simply isn't possible to get 32 in town. No way, no how. Sorry.

I'm sorry, but it is possible... Not practical though...

If you NEVER use your brakes and accelerate very modestly and coast a lot you don't waste energy, which could yield those numbers. It would tick off anyone behind you ( a lot!), but is possible.

Ive only achieved it once im not claiming im getting that every fill up, but it is possible. dont use your brakes alot I used coasting and the gears to slow me down and leave space between the next car. On that tank I even experimented with shutting the engine off at lights if I happened to hit them, guess it works. Did you happent to check out www.ecomodders.com ? You really should, you would learn alot.

2009, 2.2, 5 speed manual Getrag with 3.95 final drive and .81 fifth gear (new ratios for 09) returns city and highway combined average of 40 mpg Canadian.....that's 14 km per liter using Sunoco Plus 89 octane with 10% ethanol. That's about 33 mpg US.

Already posted this in the tall tales thread since no one believes me but just in case they dont look at that thread.

The numbers I gave are not unrealistic at all. Im not saying im getting 32mpg in town every tank. Just managed to squeeze that out of one and by using some extreme measures wich I no longer use(to much of a hassle), but I am still seeing 26-28mpg in town and 30-32mpg on the freeway really. I feel if I had a manual my numbers would be even higher. As far as calculations go mileage divided by gallons = MPGs, so lets say a normal tank for me I can get almost 400 so 385 divided by say 14 gallons =27.5mpg. If my calculations are wrong by all means correct me. I have litterally had some one else check my calculations and plugged my numbers from my reciept directly into a mpg calculation on another forum im on. To say that 3 different people/programs are all wrong is a pretty big statement.

Heres my numbers, so it was actually 31.52mpg sorry my bad, 122.6 miles and 3.89 gallons of gas, which according to my calculations is 31.52mpg. Heres another one for you 547.4 miles and 17gallons(put a few gallons in at a quick stop to make sure I had enough) 95% Highway miles doing 75-80mph, resulting in 32.2mpg. So now its your turn to do my calculations and see for yourself. If im wrong I will admit it and go on if your wrong do the same.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/em-fuel-l...vehicleid=2960

Well, I will admit then you may be right. I was thinking you get that consistently. On a tank (about 400 miles) I can average 30mpgs, which would result in really high numbers themselves (either city or highway)...so I really shouldn't be talking...lol 26-28 in town with regular driving is very possible, and that's pretty close to what I'm getting.

So, I admit, it was a misunderstanding on my part. I thought you consistently were getting that....

As far as your numbers, they look legit. Only thing I will mention, is it's more accurate the more miles (or gallons) you drive. So, when you went 122.6 miles and used 3.89 gallons, that may not be quite as accurate for an average as the 547.4 mile trip was. If you drive 500 miles, that will average out the accelerations and other things that may make differences. If you drive 10 miles, you might be getting 32mpg, but it wont read that if you had to floor it to get on the expressway. See what I mean?

But I believe your numbers. I take back what I said, with my apologies.

I totally agree with you about driving more to get more accurate numbers for the entire tank, and after looking at it that way I should have mentioned that before hand and apoligize for that as well. I still think that if I were to do a full tank like that I could pull those numbers again. Guess I'll have to challenge myself to get that on a full tank and then post up about it. After my weekend trip I will begin to do that just to prove it can be done on a full tank. Will let you all know how it goes in week or two.