Don't care for it, but its nice to see them try this. Seems to be perfect for light commercial use. Small business will love this. :thumbup: to them.


http://us.tnpv.net/2006/WKA200610/WKA2006100632485_pv.jpg

http://us.tnpv.net/2006/WKA200610/WKA2006100632295_pv.jpg

http://us.tnpv.net/2006/WKA200610/WKA2006100631450_pv.jpg

http://us.tnpv.net/2006/WKA200610/WKA2006100631439_pv.jpg

http://us.tnpv.net/2006/WKA200610/WKA2006100631877_pv.jpg

http://us.tnpv.net/2006/WKA200610/WKA2006100632403_pv.jpg


Chevrolet Announces Pricing For HHR Panel

Segment-exclusive model delivers unmatched functionality for less than $17,000

DETROIT – Chevrolet announced today that pricing for the new, segment-exclusive HHR Panel will begin at $16,750 (including destination) for a well-equipped LS model. Orders for the HHR Panel will begin in early January.

“Priced at only $200 more than an HHR passenger model, the HHR Panel demonstrates tremendous value to business customers,” said Ed Peper, Chevrolet general manager. “The HHR Panel is a model unlike anything else in the segment, offering commercial customers and expressive enthusiasts a bold, functional and different vehicle – and one that delivers more than 30 mpg on the highway.”

The HHR Panel features windowless side panels and rear cargo doors in place of conventional rear doors. A flat load floor provides more than 57 cubic feet (1,614 L) of cargo space, along with approximately 5 cubic feet (141 L) of additional covered, under-floor storage. Inside, the HHR Panel has seating for two and a large, flat cargo floor. Tie-down points are located strategically on the floor.

The LS model comes with a fuel-efficient 2.2L engine rated at 149 horsepower (111 kW). The LT model is equipped with a 2.4L engine rated at 175 horsepower (130 kW). With either engine, the HHR is rated at 30 mph in highway driving and can provide up to 450 miles of cruising range on a tank of gas.

Power front seats, a family of radios with MP3 capability and OnStar are available on LS and LT models. LT models also offer XM Satellite Radio, 17-inch wheels and leather-appointed seating. There is also a rear power plug connector with available 40-amp service, for a variety of specialty equipment needs. This feature answers the call of upfitters, who asked for an additional power source to suit their specialty vehicles.

OnStar with Turn-by-Turn Navigation is available on the HHR Panel, enhancing its value as a courier or delivery-type vehicle. OnStar Turn-by-Turn provides verbal instructions to assist the driver with right- and left-hand turn directions; and it establishes a new route if the driver needs to get back on track; for example, if a freeway exit is missed.

Chevrolet is America's No. 1-selling automotive brand. With the largest dealer network in the United States , Chevy is the leader in full-size trucks and the leader in sales of vehicles priced $35,000 and above. Chevrolet delivers more-than-expected value in every vehicle category, offering cars and trucks priced from $9,995 to $78,175. Chevy delivers expressive design, spirited performance and great value with standard features usually found only on more expensive vehicles.

Shouldn't it be cheaper than the normal HHR if anything?

Shouldn't it be cheaper than the normal HHR if anything?

I agree - you'd think they saved more than $200 by not having to include two sets of window mechanisms on the back doors. :uh:

wow, sooo ugly

great visibility

Another GM blunder if you ask me. If someone wants a minivan they will buy one.

Yeah, funeral homes might buy these

Thatc car would work here if they had a diesel and priced it at a good level.

Where's the market for something like this?

People looking for a panel van will buy a real full size van.
This is to small to be used for most business/work purposes.

Another great idea from a company trying to save themselves??:egads:

I like the two-tone model better than the monotone, but still too strange for my tastes. I wish this vehicle had more power.

And yet another reason GM is sliding down the tubes. Why don't they worry about making a car that most people will actually want to buy?

All GM has succeeded with this is giving women yet another vehicle that they will be reminded not to park next to at night in a parking lot.

I did a review on the HHR sometime ago. I agree that it has great retro looks, :thumbup: and has proven to be popular in the auto market, no doubt because of those good looks, but, underneath the skin, it is a piece of junk:thumbdn: ......and even the skin itself, in the sheet metal and trim quality, is less than impressive. It has the typical material and assembly cheapness of lower-priced Chevy products...and of lower-priced American-designed vehicles in general. In addition, it runs like a slug, especially with the automatic, and handles like a top-heavy turtle. However, it is great vehicle if you want to imitate the old woody beach crowd....and in this case, with the panel version, to carry things. The problem is, it doesn't have enough power to carry very much....GM should seriously consider a turbo version like what Chrysler does with the PT Cruiser...........and like the Woody PT Cruiser, the panel HHR would look great with a big wood decal down the sides.

( I agree with LexMex, though........barring a wood-tone version, the two-tone looks much better than the monotone).

The biggest problem I've had with this car right from the beginning is that it
blatantly coppied the PT Cruiser concept. Sure, it doesn't look identical, but it's an obvious immitation. It's pathetic when the world's largest automaker can't come up with it's own idea's.

The biggest problem I've had with this car right from the beginning is that it
blatantly coppied the PT Cruiser concept. Sure, it doesn't look identical, but it's an obvious immitation. It's pathetic when the world's largest automaker can't come up with it's own idea's.

Yes and no. It is a very loose comparison to the PT Cruiser at best. The PT Cruiser was designed with a late 30's styling theme and the woody beach vehicles. The HHR has late 40's styling reminiscent of the '49 Suburban...a very different vehicle than what the PT Cruiser was designed to imitate.

I'm really doubting that the cost of them creating this light commercial use model was anything significant when they already had the HHR designed. So even if it only sells a few thousand a year it was probably worth it to them.

With that said the HHR is probably among my least favorite cars on the market today in terms of interior and exterior styling.

I'm really doubting that the cost of them creating this light commercial use model was anything significant when they already had the HHR designed. So even if it only sells a few thousand a year it was probably worth it to them.

With that said the HHR is probably among my least favorite cars on the market today in terms of interior and exterior styling.

The factory cost of converting the windows version to the panel version should be very small. And, once the conversion is done, the panel version, obviously, can be built even cheaper than the passenger version because it uses fewer materials...........and, as I mentioned earlier...even the passenger version is CHEAP.

You may not like its styling ( and yes, I agree the styling is controversial ).
I generally DO like the styling....but little else about the vehicle. It drives poorly and has very poor fit-and-finish....some of the worst fit-and-finish I have seen outside of Dodge-built compacts.

The factory cost of converting the windows version to the panel version should be very small. And, once the conversion is done, the panel version, obviously, can be built even cheaper than the passenger version because it uses fewer materials...........and, as I mentioned earlier...even the passenger version is CHEAP

I figured the cost of materials would actually be less, but there is always a cost associated with any additional design options including things like paying the engineers to create and test an alternative design like this, the factory tooling, additions to the service manual, etc, etc...

But in this case I still have to assume the cost is pretty minimal

I figured the cost of materials would actually be less, but there is always a cost associated with any additional design options including things like paying the engineers to create and test an alternative design like this, the factory tooling, additions to the service manual, etc, etc...

But in this case I still have to assume the cost is pretty minimal

True....but obviously, a panel version will soon recover the small cost of conversion, simply from the fact that it will use less glass, have simpler body stampings, have fewer seats, less carpet, less sound insulation, fewer belts, airbags, cupholders, arm rests, etc........

What's the point of a panel version? Why is that beneficial for commercial use?

And what's the deal with Chevy saying they're #1 in full-size trucks? I thought that was Ford's deal. Maybe Chevy + GMC, but not Chevy alone...

What's the point of a panel version? Why is that beneficial for commercial use?

And what's the deal with Chevy saying they're #1 in full-size trucks? I thought that was Ford's deal. Maybe Chevy + GMC, but not Chevy alone...

Silverado and Sierra are and always have been 99% rebadges with a few changes in packaging configuration and then more recently a couple of unique models like the Denali and SS.

They've always combined the sales numbers when making that statement and when they make that statement they'll either say "GM" instead of Chevy, or they'll have a footnote that says Sierra and Silverado sales combined.

Commercial users prefer an enclosed, windowless box for security reasons. Putting your tools and cargo on display invites theft, while eliminating glass reduces the ease of a smash and grab operation.

The need for smaller panel/delivery vehicles corresponds to the downsizing of a lot of equipment. I used to have to haul over 800 lbs of gear into the field - requiring at least a 3/4-ton Suburban, if not a 3-ton "bread van". Today it all fits under the roller shade of my RX. Other businesses have had similar or even more dramatic reduction in the bulk and weight of field equipment. A Pocket PC can often replace two six-foot racks of electronics in many data acquisition and analysis applications.

I think your Integra By Bob Vila guy needs one of these. :D

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253206

Commercial users prefer an enclosed, windowless box for security reasons. Putting your tools and cargo on display invites theft, while eliminating glass reduces the ease of a smash and grab operation.

The need for smaller panel/delivery vehicles corresponds to the downsizing of a lot of equipment. I used to have to haul over 800 lbs of gear into the field - requiring at least a 3/4-ton Suburban, if not a 3-ton "bread van". Today it all fits under the roller shade of my RX. Other businesses have had similar or even more dramatic reduction in the bulk and weight of field equipment. A Pocket PC can often replace two six-foot racks of electronics in many data acquisition and analysis applications.

I figured as much, but thought I'd ask for confirmation. Thanks. :thumbup: