My wife and I actually kind of liked the HHR we were rented about a year and a half ago when her Isuzu needed to be left for repairs and we had a family get-together that weekend.
I say "were rented" because the Avis agent wanted so badly to give it to us she turned it around in fifteen minutes from its having been returned just after we walked in.
The one downside to it was that the rear hatch worked only until about halfway through the trip.
As for the visors, I guess I'm either too tall for most cars these days or I sit taller in the seat than most; I've had to flip visors halfway for years to get any benefit from them. My complaint is that they don't extend far enough laterally -- apparently their designers think people never drive between 15 and 30 degrees off of straight at the sun.
My two Toyotas have extendable visors. A "tab" (for lack of a more descriptive term) can be pulled out of the end as needed. It can be pulled behind the rear view mirror to cover the "blinding spot" that ordinary visors don't reach, and it can be pulled out when the visor is turned to the side to cover the whole length of the side window.
They also have two visors on each side. If the main visor is turned to the side, the secondary visor can be flipped down in front.
It's easy to use, it's inexpensive, and it works. I wonder why Chevy hasn't copied it?
I just got turned on to Skype, and you're right, it's great. I liked it so much, I paid for the Skype Out plan - unlimited US and Canadian outgoing calls for $29 a year. Very good quality.
The HHR looks vastly better than the PT Cruiser. I agree however about the ergonomics. I spent a month in the front passenger seat and it was the worst vehicle I've ever had to work in.
Skype is great. I used it to call home when I was in Europe, which is free if you call computer-to-computer. Recently we started using the video chat to stay in touch with my in-laws in Finland. Very Jetson-esque. :)
My experience is that the HHR is the better version of the PT cruiser. The cruiser doesn't seem to fit average site people or short people. Really, though, neither are good cars.
The PT cruiser was aimed at the young 20 something hip guy. GM, with the benefit of the equivalent of hindsight, designed it for the demographic that actually spend the bucks on the things: 40-55 year old women. Think about the ergonomics in those terms.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/04/things-ive-learned.html (7 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
My wife and I actually kind of liked the HHR we were rented about a year and a half ago when her Isuzu needed to be left for repairs and we had a family get-together that weekend.
I say "were rented" because the Avis agent wanted so badly to give it to us she turned it around in fifteen minutes from its having been returned just after we walked in.
The one downside to it was that the rear hatch worked only until about halfway through the trip.
As for the visors, I guess I'm either too tall for most cars these days or I sit taller in the seat than most; I've had to flip visors halfway for years to get any benefit from them. My complaint is that they don't extend far enough laterally -- apparently their designers think people never drive between 15 and 30 degrees off of straight at the sun.
My two Toyotas have extendable visors. A "tab" (for lack of a more descriptive term) can be pulled out of the end as needed. It can be pulled behind the rear view mirror to cover the "blinding spot" that ordinary visors don't reach, and it can be pulled out when the visor is turned to the side to cover the whole length of the side window.
They also have two visors on each side. If the main visor is turned to the side, the secondary visor can be flipped down in front.
It's easy to use, it's inexpensive, and it works. I wonder why Chevy hasn't copied it?
I just got turned on to Skype, and you're right, it's great. I liked it so much, I paid for the Skype Out plan - unlimited US and Canadian outgoing calls for $29 a year. Very good quality.
The HHR looks vastly better than the PT Cruiser. I agree however about the ergonomics. I spent a month in the front passenger seat and it was the worst vehicle I've ever had to work in.
Skype is great. I used it to call home when I was in Europe, which is free if you call computer-to-computer. Recently we started using the video chat to stay in touch with my in-laws in Finland. Very Jetson-esque. :)
My experience is that the HHR is the better version of the PT cruiser. The cruiser doesn't seem to fit average site people or short people. Really, though, neither are good cars.
The PT cruiser was aimed at the young 20 something hip guy. GM, with the benefit of the equivalent of hindsight, designed it for the demographic that actually spend the bucks on the things: 40-55 year old women. Think about the ergonomics in those terms.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>