Originally Posted By: cousincletus
I wonder why the PT and the Chevy HHR don't get similar mileage. The shape of the car looks the same, and the engine size is about the same, but a difference in fuel mileage?
The difference isn't very large, just a couple of MPG. We get about 27 out of or 2005 PT on the highway, about 21-22 around town. Not great for a car of that overall size, but when you factor in the versatility of the PT (you can haul a washing machine back there with the rear seats removed, or a step ladder with the front seat down, or you can have concealed trunk space with the rear seats up and the movable panel in the high position) it is pretty good. Plus as I've said, the thing is just built superbly- no rattles, no flimsy panels, high-quality interior plastics and fabrics- the whole 9 yards. Its the complete antithesis of the Caliber with its cheap flimsy interior. The HHR, piece of poorly-assembled, rattling, buzzing, cheap plastic filled [censored] that it was its first few years- I hear its better now, but I haven't driven one since 07- does benefit from a more advanced engine and transmission combo. GM's Ecotec is one of the bright spots in GM engineering in recent years and is available with VVT whereas the old Chrysler 2.4 in the PT is not. GM FWD automatics have always been very efficient. That's why I think Chrysler *should* have gone ahead and put their GEMA 2.4 with VVT and a Jatco CVT in the PT- it would have then been a serious HHR-killer. But the certification process is probably what is cost-prohibitive this near end-of-life for the PT platform.