So How Do You Like Your New HHR SS So Far ? ?
01-05-2008, 09:51 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-20-2006
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 215
I don't see how this can come as a surprise. From everything I have read about the SS, from day one it was made clear the 5 speed would be much more of a performance oriented vehicle than the auto. If the horsepower is watered down as much as it is vs. the manual, that alone should tell you all you need to know about the auto and it's capabilities.
01-06-2008, 04:21 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-07-2007
Location: Southside of Houston Texas
Posts: 1,613
I don't see how this can come as a surprise. From everything I have read about the SS, from day one it was made clear the 5 speed would be much more of a performance oriented vehicle than the auto. If the horsepower is watered down as much as it is vs. the manual, that alone should tell you all you need to know about the auto and it's capabilities.
01-06-2008, 09:12 AM
#13
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 12-15-2007
Location: Alabama
Posts: 47
Thanks for all the comments offered. I appreciate thoughts from different perspectives, and it gives me new insight into things.
Some thoughts of interest :
The 2.0 turbomotor in the automatic application is limited to 235 HP in 1st and 2nd gears only, in 3rd and 4th it develops 250 HP. If you take the power curve for the stick and the auto and lay one over the other, you see that both curves are almost identical until they get near the top RPM.
I grew up with big V8's that gave lots of torque at low RPM's. That's why I wanted the HHR SS turbomotor, as it gives the same feel. The 2.2 and 2.4 standard engines don't develop much torque until they are revved out a bit.
In spite of all my comments, I like the car, and it certainly delivers in the torque department. It is a hoot to drive.
Another comment - the EPA fuel mileage ratings for both 2.0 turbomotors were done with regular gasoline. They will run OK on regular, but really need premium fuel (and the fuel filler is so marked) to give their best. I would hope for better fuel mileage with premium fuel as well.
Some thoughts of interest :
The 2.0 turbomotor in the automatic application is limited to 235 HP in 1st and 2nd gears only, in 3rd and 4th it develops 250 HP. If you take the power curve for the stick and the auto and lay one over the other, you see that both curves are almost identical until they get near the top RPM.
I grew up with big V8's that gave lots of torque at low RPM's. That's why I wanted the HHR SS turbomotor, as it gives the same feel. The 2.2 and 2.4 standard engines don't develop much torque until they are revved out a bit.
In spite of all my comments, I like the car, and it certainly delivers in the torque department. It is a hoot to drive.
Another comment - the EPA fuel mileage ratings for both 2.0 turbomotors were done with regular gasoline. They will run OK on regular, but really need premium fuel (and the fuel filler is so marked) to give their best. I would hope for better fuel mileage with premium fuel as well.
01-06-2008, 09:31 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-22-2007
Location: Grand Blanc, MI
Posts: 104
I think my main point may have been overlooked : There are 2 versions of this same Hydra-Matic 4T45 automatic transmission now in existence, one is used in the standard HHR (and other GM vehicles), and the other is an Auto-Stick version which allows for manual control of all gears. This version could be used in the HHR SS with little or no engineering or other costs involved.
I will be honest, I have never seen a 4t45e w/ a manumatic mode. I HAVE seen 4t65e's w/ this function.
01-06-2008, 11:56 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-14-2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 1,186
Okay so you won't be wanting to sell it at least... I'm sure Bob Lutz will be glad to hear that! I hope to be driving one this coming spring at the earliest and I'll be coming from a 98 Z28 so Im glad it's got some grunt. Im sure it wont be wrinkling any pavement like a big ole V8, but still, im glad to read reports like yours that its not lacking in that dept.
01-06-2008, 02:34 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: 12-14-2007
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 246
Doesnt SS stand for stick shift ? LOL. I could not imagine buying a performance based vehicle with a standard automatic trans. I did however drive the new VW GTI with the DSG paddle shift trans. WOW, what a cool driver. Shifts gear in .03 seconds with total driver control.
01-06-2008, 03:36 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: 10-24-2006
Location: USA
Posts: 35
When I get my automatic S/S, I`m gonna put that sucker in "GO" and relax, not concerned about what gear it`s in, with 235 horses on tap, I won`t even care until I near the 125mph mark.
Of course I don`t know where I would be to find myself needing to go that fast, but I certainly wouldn`t be in a corner kicking myself... unless there was a cop nearby when I was doing it.
Of course I don`t know where I would be to find myself needing to go that fast, but I certainly wouldn`t be in a corner kicking myself... unless there was a cop nearby when I was doing it.
01-07-2008, 09:41 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-2006
Location: Dallas, GA
Posts: 6,050
I don't see how this can come as a surprise. From everything I have read about the SS, from day one it was made clear the 5 speed would be much more of a performance oriented vehicle than the auto. If the horsepower is watered down as much as it is vs. the manual, that alone should tell you all you need to know about the auto and it's capabilities.
I have not read one good review concerning the auto.
01-07-2008, 09:47 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-2006
Location: Dallas, GA
Posts: 6,050
Cause they know that 75%+ of the buyers of any performance model only buy it to say they own in. They will never drive it the way it was designed to be driven. That has been true for makes/models across the board.
01-07-2008, 04:31 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-07-2007
Location: Southside of Houston Texas
Posts: 1,613