#stylingsin

[cardesignblog]

2006-2011 Chevrolet HHR: GM’s Ugly Answer to the PT Cruiser.

the Chevy HHR is a prime example of a car who’s design hasn’t really aged all that well. It is a retro styled crossover that just quite simply does not look that good these days. The reason I am writing about this odd retro Chevy crossover is because in my last post I wrote about how much I enjoy the retro-styled BMW Z8, which I believe is one of the best BMW’s of all time. So to contrast with the Z8 I would like to show this as an example of a retro styled car that isn’t that good. 

Although, when reading this review keep in mind that the HHR and the Z8 are two different types of cars that are targeted at two different buyers so this is not intended as a comparison post, these are two different reviews and this is the last time I will mention the Z8. If you would like to hear more about my thoughts on the Z8 please read my post on it. Now with that out of the way, lets get started!

Exterior Styling:

The HHR in my opinion is ugly. The rather boxy look really does not work with the tacked on “retro” elements and it makes the car look tacky as a result. The HHR was inspired by the Third Generation Chevrolet Suburban which I have always thought was a beautiful car (expect a review and maybe even a comparison post between that and the HHR later on). 

The HHR does have some homages to the suburban, primarily with it’s rounded roofline and its more modern take on the Suburban’s classic grille. And while we are on the topic of grille’s and front ends of cars, can we acknowledge how the grille of the HHR looks like an afterthought? The front end of the HHR looks slapped on at the last minute. I have always thought that the HHR’s grille looked like a pigs snout. 

There’s also a problem with this cars design that I have noticed with a lot of GM SUV’s from the early 2000′s and 2010′s and that is the big and ugly rectangular fenders. Yes, the third generation Suburban had large fenders as well. But what separates the HHR and the Third Generation Suburban’s fenders is the fact that the fenders on the Suburban worked well with the grille and the headlights whereas on the HHR the headlights and grille look slammed on while the fenders crudely protrude out of the sides of the car. And as I mentioned before, this is not the only GM SUV to have this problem. The GMC Terrain from this era has this exact same issue! Large fenders can look great, why just look at the Corvette C3 which is one of my favorite ‘vette’s of all time! But the HHR’s boxy fenders aren’t doing it any favors.

The rear end of the HHR comes with it’s own problems but the main one in my opinion is the taillights. The dual circled taillights are rather ridiculous in my opinion. They look like pimples on the back of the car. However while we are on the subject of the back of the HHR I would like to point out something I actually like about it which is the roofline and overall shape. I feel like the shape and the roofline were a good homage to the Third Gen Suburban and managed to look like a good modern imitation of it. I truly thing that the HHR would be better if it did not look as awkward. GM bolted all sorts of crap on it to make it compete with the PT Cruiser which A: is not winning any beauty contests itself and B: was already considered outdated when the HHR first came out and was discontinued four years later.

And I suppose if I am going to talk about the HHR I am going to have to talk about the PT Cruiser. The PT Cruiser was a retro-styled hatchback introduced to the world by Chrysler in 2001. Contrary to what many people say about the PT Cruiser now, it was initially a huge success, even going on to be declared 2001 Car of the Year by Motortrend. 4 years later when PT Cruiser sales were just starting to decline, GM decided that Chevy needed to create a PT Cruiser rival. Interestingly enough, the PT Cruisers designer Bryan Nesbitt was poached from Chrysler by GM and designed the HHR which is where some of their similarities such as them both sharing headlights on the fenders came from. The only other car I found that is credited to him designing was the Seventh Gen Chevy Malibu which followed the time honored Malibu tradition of being....OK I guess.

And on that note it’s time to get into:

Interior Design:

The HHR’s interior is fine. The interior looked at its best in this beige color. When it was black it simply made the HHR’s interior look cheap as hell. But overall the design is pretty simplistic and that is good. It looks very early 2000′s, which depending on who you ask is a good thing or a bad thing. The PT Cruiser had a much worse interior in my opinion. The HHR looks a bit like a more streamlined version of the PT’s interior. Which makes sense since I mentioned that the guy who designed the PT also designed the HHR. 

There’s not much else to say about the HHR’s interior, it just looks a bit like a generic Chevy interior. It’s bland but bland is better than overtly ugly like the exterior, and it could have been so much worse. So in that respect the interior is certainly one of the HHR’s more positive points!

In the back the HHR had a bench seat which looked fine. It serves it’s purpose of hauling extra people and children around/being a decent load floor for cargo when put down. Not much really went on back there which I have no problem with. The HHR isn’t a Rolls Royce, it does not need to have a luxurious back seat!

Variants:

The HHR had a few different versions of it over the years. So here they are;

HHR SS:

This was the performance version of the HHR. It upgraded the HHR’s 155 horsepower to a respectable 260 Horsepower. I will admit that the HHR SS is actually kind of cool when looking at it from a performance standpoint. The HHR SS wasn’t too different from the base model when it came to looks. It got an SS badge on the side and a different looking bumper and grille. On the inside the HHR SS was basically the same as the base-model except the steering wheel had an SS Badge.

HHR Panel Van and HHR SS Panel:

Chevy offered a panel van version of the HHR which looked like what it was, a Chevy HHR that was converted into a panel van. The back windows are completely gone for instance. There was no way to open the panel vans door from the exterior and you instead had to push a button on the key fob to open them (although there was also a button on the dash to open the doors in case that didn’t work). 

The weirdest HHR variant however was the SS version of the panel van. That’s right, a crossover turned into a performance car turned into a van. No wonder a cash strapped GM cut this strange version of the HHR off after four months and only 216 units!

Pros And Cons:

Pros:

Decent Cargo room and way more practical than it’s rival the PT Cruiser.

The SS Version is actually quite sporty

Decent Interior

Cons:

Very Ugly

Can look cheap depending on what color you chose

Questionable reliability.

Final Verdict:

The HHR is an example of a retro design that just did not work! It’s certainly not the ugliest car ever made mind you, but it is certainly ugly and awkward. The interior is bland and inoffensive (which is certainly better than bad!). 

Exterior Styling Final Rating; 18/50

Interior Styling Final Rating; 21/50

Overall Styling Rating; 39/100.

Next Review: A Modern Luxury Sedan

[cardesignblog]

2011-2014 Nissan Murano Cross Cabriolet: An Answer To A Question Nobody Asked

The Cross Cabriolet, if anything, is certainly a unique vehicle. It is essentially a Nissan Murano crossover SUV, a car that was already rather unsightly, with the roof chopped off and replaced with a convertible top. Why Nissan felt like this was necessary is a question that nobody knows the answer to, although rumor has it the chairman of Nissan’s wife requested it and the chairman did say it was meant for affluent aged customers (because so many seniors want a convertible SUV with looks on par with Frankenstein’s Monster). But however it happened this four wheeled bad idea exists and is ugly as sin.

Exterior Styling:

Now if your well acquainted with how I write about car styling, I like to compare the cars I write about with similar cars, but the problem is that (thankfully) there’s really nothing quite like the Nissan Murano Cross Cabriolet. There is one car that is relatively similar which is the Range Rover Evoque Cabriolet which is also an SU-Vertible, but the difference is that the Evoque is slightly larger than the Cross Cabriolet (but small for a Range Rover) while the Cross Cabriolet is a small crossover, so as a result we have to start by talking about the Cross Cabriolet by itself, and man do we have a lot to unpack.

Lets start by talking about the how the Cross Cabriolet looks with the top up. The first thing you notice when you see the Cross Cabriolet with it’s top up is how terrible it’s proportions truly are! The Murano, while pretty ugly in hard top form although also not terrible, has relatively decent if not mildly awkward proportions. The Cross Cabriolet on the other hand has absolutely atrocious proportions! The #1 problem with the Cross Cabriolet (besides the obvious one which is it’s existence) is the ratio between the soft top and the rest of the car. The soft top is hilariously short and tiny while the normal Murano body looks ginormous in comparison. This is a problem that is also shared with the previously mentioned Range Rover Evoque Cabriolet and a couple other cars such as the infamous PT Cruiser Convertible.

 There’s a reason that soft tops stylistically work on sedans and not SUV’s and that reason is that sedans and sports cars tend to have pretty small lower bodies while SUV’s tend to be a lot higher off the ground. This means that when a soft top gets put onto a sedan or a sports car it looks natural because there is a good ratio between soft top and lower body. However when you put the soft top on an SUV, everything below it looks ginormous and the soft top itself looks ridiculous. 

“But surely it must look better with the top down right? After all, it’s a convertible so the top will be down most of the time anyway right?” If your asking this I have an answer to your question, NO! The Cross Cabriolet looks ridiculous with the top down as well!

When you look at the Cross Cabriolet when it has it’s top down it becomes extremely obvious that the Murano wasn’t designed to have a soft top. The Cross Cabriolet with the top down looks unnatural, it looks more like it was modified as opposed to being an actual production car. On the the back there are two giant humps, presumably to help accommodate the shape of the Murano’s windows and the soft top, (pictured here). These humps make the back look bulky and strange. The Cross Cabriolet also has a much more squared off back end than the regular Murano which makes the already bulky rear end even worse (and much less practical)!

The Cross Cabriolet was also also extremely overpriced back when it was sold new with a sticker price of $56,000 in 2021 dollars (it was $47,000 in 2011 money). Who on Earth would spend that much money on a crossover with less space, lame-o performance, and from what I have heard an extremely clunky ride. However Due to poor sales (what a shock) Nissan did offer them at a large discount in the last couple years of it’s existence, not that the discount would make the Cross Cabriolet even remotely close to the world of “worth it”.

Interior Design:

Inside the front seat of the Cross Cabriolet I am happy to report that it just looks like a standard second gen Nissan Murano. It had typical Nissan features like a very standard looking Nissan steering wheel and an infotainment system that some might recognize out of some other Nissan products, however there are some interesting things in the front end of the Cross Cabriolet that I can report on. For instance I find that the infotainment looks quite a bit off center due to the glovebox being so huge. The infotainment also really juts out which I am not crazy about. However, I like the beige color with wood accents that Nissan used in some of it’s mid 2010′s models like the Altima and this. The front seats also look quite comfy. Outside of that there’s really not much to talk about with the Cross Cabriolet’s front seat.

The rear seat on the other hand, well if you’ve ever felt like your job is pointless just remember that there was somebody in Japan (or Russia, both plants made Murano’s but I can’t find info on which one made Cross Cabrio’s) who installed rear seats in the Cross Cabriolet for three years! Now I have never been in a Cross Cabriolet and probably will never be in one (which I am fine with), but with that being said the Cross Cabriolet has some of the most pathetic back seats in SUV history. Yes I know it’s a convertible but still they are pretty lousy even by convertible standards. The front seat adjustment controls are also strangely located on the top end of the seats and are most easily adjustable from the back seat, but I suppose if your stuck in the back seat of a Cross Cabriolet you need as much help as you can get.  

Pros and Cons:

Pros: Uhhhh

I suppose that you could ride around with the top down and enjoy that

It is a great example of how some cars shouldn’t be turned into a convertible.

Decent amount of features in the front seat area and a decent sized glovebox

Apparently the front seats are comfy. Not that any of these make up for the small army of problems the Cross Cabrio has

Cons:

Absolutely hideous on the outside

Rather bland interior

Overpriced

Massive Blind Spots

Apparently the ride has massive cowl shake

Ridiculous rear seat adjustment placement

Considered one of the worst cars of all time

Final Verdict:

Just buy a used Murano. The Murano provides more practicality than a Cross Cabriolet, it looks better than a Cross Cabriolet, and it has the same amount of tech as the Cross Cabriolet. Sure you can’t “put the top down and feel the wind in your hair” but apparently driving the convertible Murano will make you wish that you actually bought a sane convertible like a BMW 328i which in 2011 costed around the same amount as a Cross Cabriolet and was simply better in every way.

Final Score

Exterior Styling Final Rating; 14/50

Interior Styling Final Rating; 17/50

Overall Styling Rating: 31/100

Next Review: A poor knockoff S-Class