2006 Chevrolet HHR vs. 2003 Holden UTE
To start off, 2006 Chevrolet HHR is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Holden UTE. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Holden UTE would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Holden UTE is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Holden UTE (204 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 61 more horse power than 2006 Chevrolet HHR. (143 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Holden UTE should accelerate faster than 2006 Chevrolet HHR.
Because 2003 Holden UTE is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2003 Holden UTE. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Chevrolet HHR, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2003 Holden UTE (305 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 102 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Chevrolet HHR. (203 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2003 Holden UTE will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Chevrolet HHR.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Chevrolet HHR | 2003 Holden UTE | |
Make | Chevrolet | Holden |
Model | HHR | UTE |
Year Released | 2006 | 2003 |
Body Type | Hatchback | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2194 cc | 3791 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 143 HP | 204 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 203 Nm | 305 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3600 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 5060 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1850 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1490 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2640 mm | 2950 mm |