ssrodder

Is the 2.4 that much more powerful and needed when purchasing a HHR? Transmission must be an automatic so that everyone in the family can drive it without future clutch problems. I live in a mountain area and I'm constantly driving up or down a hill. Also, I would like to have traction control so that I have more control in the snow. Anyone have any opinions on the 2.2 vs the 2.4 and the traction control option?

solman98

I can't speak for traction control in the environment you are describing.

I first test drove a 2LT Auto. Then I bought a 1LT 2.2 5 Speed. Granted, the tranny makes a differance. But I could not be happier. There is a HP differance of about 30 between the two, but the TQ is much less, and that is what moves you. But a 2.2 auto, I can't comment on. You will have more driveline loss with the auto verses the standard. Plus the standard has a better gearing IMO than the auto. The 2.4 recommends premium. Not a huge deal as that would only be about $3.40 for a tank more.

Note: I came from a 320HP/450TQ 350 to the HHR.

Test drive them both.

-md- HHR

I think I would get a 2.4 if I did it again.
I have a 2.2 5 speed now.

captain howdy

Of course there is more hp an tq with the larger engine but IMO the important difference between the two is the VVT. The 2.4 has VVT and the 2.2 doesn't. You'll get better low and mid range tq with the VVT. The traction control sucks on the HHR regardless of the engine.

fastsuv

Yes, the 2.4 is noticeably more powerful than the 2.2 and will pull harder when going up hills. It may also produce less downshifting from the tranny. Is it needed? Only you can really answer that question. Certainly the 2.2 is sufficient in terms of adequate performance. It's not "dangerously underpowered" or anything like that. Many people here are happy with their 2.2. On the other hand if you are the type that can "never have too much power" (like me ), then you will enjoy (and use) the extra power.

Today's 4-cylinder engines have much more power than they used to have. Some people have bad memories of underpowered cars with 4-cylinders from the 80's. Remember the original Chrysler minivans in 1984? The engine was a 92hp 2.2L 4 cylinder, in a large 7-seat minivan.

Steve

solman98

With the 5 speed, I did a trip this past weekend. Some rolling hills about maybe a 3-4% grade. Cruise set at 76, in fifth, never lost speed and never had to downshift. Stayed at 76. In this casek, gearing makes the differance. Like I said, I drove the 2.4 auto. I would rather have the 2.2 with a manual. Now a 2.4 manual would be nice. VVT is also nice, but that technology is there for high rpm power, give you that extra "powerband" so to speak.

BTW, at what RPM does that kick in on the 2.4 anyway? Only one I am familiar with the the Honda VTEC, that kicked in at about 5300 and then again at 5800. Now that was a rush all the way to the 8400 fuel shut off.....

James06

I live in the mountains of East Tennessee, and have no problems with the 2.2 automatic for my use. Of course, I'm a guy, so more engine would always be better.

captain howdy

To me it feels like around 2500 - 3000 but I'm not 100% sure of what GM's actual specs are.

en0oNmAI

VVT is not to be confused with VTEC. Where the honda system uses an extra cam lobe that activates at 5500 rpm to make more power. The VVT system changes cam timing and not valve lift. The small power increases you feel with the VVT engine are all fuel-enrichment points. You cannot feel the difference in cam timing with this cars because of how fluid it is. I wondered about the same things and recieved this info from the Cobalt tech at my local chevy dealer. Hope this clears some things up.

As far as what engine to use... its all up to you. What do you want in your HHR? Do you thing that $1500+ is a good price to pay for an extra 30 horses? Do you plan on revving your HHR high enough to get the benefit of the extra 30 horses? Do you drive agressively enough for these things? Reason I ask is unless you're going to be really getting into the gas pedal there's not enough torque to really make the bigger engine a necessity. But this is just my and the final decision is up to you.

solman98

Got to be higher than that. That's cruising RPM's. VVT would not be a benefit to just having advanced timing from the get go. For the cam shaft to "adjust" you will be at a much higher RPM.