Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums

Honda Jazz, HR-V & Hybrid Forums => Honda Jazz Mk3 2015 - => Topic started by: trevg on January 26, 2018, 11:10:06 PM

Title: new revised mk 3
Post by: trevg on January 26, 2018, 11:10:06 PM
Took my jazz in for some warranty work and spotted the new revised mk3 jazz in the showroom. it looks miles better at the back end now they have removed those black plastic panels from the bumper section. The entry model starts at 14,000 plus and goes on up to 17,000 plus for the top of the range sport
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: trebor1652 on January 27, 2018, 09:58:49 AM
Yes I saw the EX in the showroom the other day in a new colour, a light metallic blue, very nice. I also liked the revised front end with the drl's blended into the new led headlights. It keeps the same wheels as it's predecessor which I liked.
Pity it's not time to change mine yet.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: andruec on January 27, 2018, 10:16:58 AM
There wasn't much difference inside of my courtesy car but then it was a middle-spec so didn't have the infotainment unit or climate control. The CVT box was different (possibly better). I'm at least a year away from changing. I typically change at the end of the warranty for historical reasons (although frankly these days that seems paranoid). But I fancy a vehicle with some kind of alternate power train. Possibly hybrid but I'm not sure how much I'd benefit from that. Hybrid technology is about reclaiming lost energy and I consider myself to be a very efficient driver so I'm not sure if enough could be reclaimed to reduce petrol consumption. I hardly ever use my brakes so I doubt if much energy can be reclaimed there and I'm not sure if simply lifting off would reclaim a great deal. A petrol engine doesn't consume any fuel when you lift off anyway.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: peteo48 on January 27, 2018, 10:52:31 AM
I've toyed with going for an EV or a hybrid. An EV would do 95% of my trips - it's that 5% that's the issue and, using resources like zap-map, these trips are in charging deserts where you simply wouldn't be able to charge up unless you took a massive diversion.

The Yaris Hybrid interests me. Which got some sensational mpg figures on the urban cycle - they were even better than what Toyota claimed at over 100 mpg. The combined figure was less good and the car was not that great, mpg wise, on the motorway. Having said that, and having spoken to somebody near us who drives an Auris, my typical driving - almost all short stuff - should see my average mpg leap from 44.2 mpg to 60 plus easily - possibly even more.

PS

Just to say that if I bought a Yaris registered before April last year - zero road tax forever.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: zemax on January 30, 2018, 10:51:29 PM
you must be a fool to purchase a new car just because it gets 5-10mpg better or because it has $20 less tax per year....
Fuel costs/tax are a very very small part of all the expenses on a car..
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Jocko on January 31, 2018, 06:54:50 AM
Fuel cost/tax are a major part of running my car. That is the reason I opted for the Jazz in the first place.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Deeps on January 31, 2018, 08:46:08 AM
Fuel cost/tax are a major part of running my car. That is the reason I opted for the Jazz in the first place.

How much has it depreciated since 2006 and cost in servicing and consumable components? Not forgetting insurance.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Jocko on January 31, 2018, 09:08:21 AM
I didn't buy it in 2006. I bought an old cheap Jazz. For the past year, 45% of my running costs have been fuel and petrol. Of the other 55% RAC membership, shampoo/polish and toys (dash cam and ScanGauge) are included. Hardly necessary on costs.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Downsizer on January 31, 2018, 09:50:12 AM
100,000 miles @ 10 miles/litre uses 10,000 litres, costing, say, 12,000. Over 5 years, this would be by far the largest cost item.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: andruec on January 31, 2018, 10:16:05 AM
you must be a fool to purchase a new car just because it gets 5-10mpg better or because it has $20 less tax per year....
Fuel costs/tax are a very very small part of all the expenses on a car..
It's only foolish if that's the only reason you're buying a new car. A lot of us like to buy new cars for the features and reliability (or at least to know that repair costs are covered by warranty). Choosing a vehicle with reduced fuel consumption does at least offset some of the inherent foolishness.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: culzean on January 31, 2018, 12:43:26 PM
you must be a fool to purchase a new car just because it gets 5-10mpg better or because it has $20 less tax per year....
Fuel costs/tax are a very very small part of all the expenses on a car..
It's only foolish if that's the only reason you're buying a new car. A lot of us like to buy new cars for the features and reliability (or at least to know that repair costs are covered by warranty). Choosing a vehicle with reduced fuel consumption does at least offset some of the inherent foolishness.

Since when has reliability and repair cost been an issue on a Jazz, even older ones ?

As for improved economy It all reminds me of government scheme to get householder to replace older central heating boilers with new condensing boilers. Sure the new boilers are a bit more efficient but they are expensive, complicated, unreliable and have a service life of about 6 to 7 years, compared to 40 years plus for an old style boiler.

Made much more sense to keep old reliable boiler and pay slightly more in fuel than to splurge out over 2 grand on a new boiler that will only give a short life,  we have a top of the range vaillant condensing boiler, but it is a bit like 'triggers broom' in that it has had 3 new fans (yes condensing boilers have fans inside), a new heat exchanger a new pump (integral in boiler and expensive) and new control board, and vaillant are supposed to be the best you can buy. Our old cast iron 'dumb' boiler was about 40 years old when we got it and was still going strong when we fell for the stupid government scheme.  The pay back period is key to the economics, you will rarely get back money spent for 'increased economy' unless you do truly mega annual mileage. Some people go for new tech, but for me infotainment screens in newer cars are a step in the wrong direction and I prefer tactile easy to set controls.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: peteo48 on January 31, 2018, 02:39:51 PM
you must be a fool to purchase a new car just because it gets 5-10mpg better or because it has $20 less tax per year....
Fuel costs/tax are a very very small part of all the expenses on a car..

That's true to a point but if you change your car frequently because you just get fed up of it (guilty as charged) then, as audrec says, reduced running costs can be an offsetting factor.

I must admit, having only ever had one brand new car in my life, the idea of a 3 yearly change appeals to me. I wouldn't even attempt to justify it on economic grounds though.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Jocko on January 31, 2018, 03:28:41 PM
I only ever replace a car when the current one is done. My cast offs go for spares or repair or the scrappy. I always get my money's worth out of a car - and then some. Buy cheap, run for ever, walk away when no longer viable.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: madasafish on January 31, 2018, 03:35:52 PM
you must be a fool to purchase a new car just because it gets 5-10mpg better or because it has $20 less tax per year....
Fuel costs/tax are a very very small part of all the expenses on a car..
It's only foolish if that's the only reason you're buying a new car. A lot of us like to buy new cars for the features and reliability (or at least to know that repair costs are covered by warranty). Choosing a vehicle with reduced fuel consumption does at least offset some of the inherent foolishness.

Since when has reliability and repair cost been an issue on a Jazz, even older ones ?

As for improved economy It all reminds me of government scheme to get householder to replace older central heating boilers with new condensing boilers. Sure the new boilers are a bit more efficient but they are expensive, complicated, unreliable and have a service life of about 6 to 7 years, compared to 40 years plus for an old style boiler.

Made much more sense to keep old reliable boiler and pay slightly more in fuel than to splurge out over 2 grand on a new boiler that will only give a short life,  we have a top of the range vaillant condensing boiler, but it is a bit like 'triggers broom' in that it has had 3 new fans (yes condensing boilers have fans inside), a new heat exchanger a new pump (integral in boiler and expensive) and new control board, and vaillant are supposed to be the best you can buy. Our old cast iron 'dumb' boiler was about 40 years old when we got it and was still going strong when we fell for the stupid government scheme.  The pay back period is key to the economics, you will rarely get back money spent for 'increased economy' unless you do truly mega annual mileage. Some people go for new tech, but for me infotainment screens in newer cars are a step in the wrong direction and I prefer tactile easy to set controls.

Strangely enough we installed a new Potterton Kingfisher boiler in 1983. It has been well maintained and apart from annual cleaning, the odd gas thermostat and a new gas control valve (bought new two years in advance of it failing as I expected it),  it has been fault free (touches wood as spares are very limited). In the winters of 2010-11-12 when it was -16C it kept going when many recirculating boilers failed due to condensate freezing !
 
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: andruec on January 31, 2018, 03:55:04 PM
you must be a fool to purchase a new car just because it gets 5-10mpg better or because it has $20 less tax per year....
Fuel costs/tax are a very very small part of all the expenses on a car..
It's only foolish if that's the only reason you're buying a new car. A lot of us like to buy new cars for the features and reliability (or at least to know that repair costs are covered by warranty). Choosing a vehicle with reduced fuel consumption does at least offset some of the inherent foolishness.

Since when has reliability and repair cost been an issue on a Jazz, even older ones ?
The comment didn't say it only referred to a Jazz. It appeared to be a reply to a message where more than one make and model of vehicle had been mentioned.

But as regards the Jazz, until my Mk3, I'd have said reliability wasn't normally an issue but cost can be if you're unlucky. In my experience Honda spare parts are quite expensive. Don't know if that's because of low demand or reflects the high quality.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: peteo48 on January 31, 2018, 04:35:29 PM
I only ever replace a car when the current one is done. My cast offs go for spares or repair or the scrappy. I always get my money's worth out of a car - and then some. Buy cheap, run for ever, walk away when no longer viable.

That's definitely the way to do it (unless you drive a huge annual mileage). Wish I had the self discipline because there can be a pride in ownership - keeping a machine well maintained.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: culzean on January 31, 2018, 04:45:28 PM
I only ever replace a car when the current one is done. My cast offs go for spares or repair or the scrappy. I always get my money's worth out of a car - and then some. Buy cheap, run for ever, walk away when no longer viable.

That's definitely the way to do it (unless you drive a huge annual mileage). Wish I had the self discipline because there can be a pride in ownership - keeping a machine well maintained.

I tend to keep cars for a while as well and they get well looked after (but not polished), the problem in UK may be 'number plate snobbery' where people like to have the latest year plate on their car (other countries don't put date on number plate), the answer is to have a personal (vanity) plate which means others can't see just by the number plate how old your car is.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: TG on January 31, 2018, 04:48:57 PM
.... In my experience Honda spare parts are quite expensive. Don't know if that's because of low demand or reflects the high quality.
Probably as there is no UK shelf stock of anything of moderate value, some stuff might come from HME (Honda Motors Europe in Belgium) within the week, but often it's got to come from production parts diverted at source.  For e.g. a colleague needed an exhaust for a newish Lexus after damage, car was off road for more than two months waiting, so I doubt there are any MK3 CVT boxes held as spares anywhere. Also this is one reason lightly damaged new cars can so easily get written off, an undetermined lead time for original parts.
--
TG
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: andruec on January 31, 2018, 04:57:40 PM
I only ever replace a car when the current one is done. My cast offs go for spares or repair or the scrappy. I always get my money's worth out of a car - and then some. Buy cheap, run for ever, walk away when no longer viable.

That's definitely the way to do it (unless you drive a huge annual mileage). Wish I had the self discipline because there can be a pride in ownership - keeping a machine well maintained.
It'd be a boring world if we all only bought things we had to. I choose to fritter my spare funds on a new car every three or four years. I'm sure there are things you spend money on that aren't actually necessary. As long as no-one is getting into debt to satisfy their desires I don't see the problem. When I finally retire I will hang onto my cars for longer but right now a new car every three or four years is well within my financial reach. My savings accounts keep growing anyway.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: peteo48 on January 31, 2018, 05:25:56 PM
I agree with that as well audrec!

I seem able to hold 2 mutually exclusive views at the same time. Jocko has the economics spot on but that new car feeling is also something which, if you can afford it, gives a lot of pleasure. A mate of mine who changes every three years tells me that new cars are his "drug of choice"
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: andruec on February 01, 2018, 08:58:56 AM
I can understand the desire to see things last a long time - my boiler has been getting spare parts advisory warnings on its annual service but I am willing it to keep going. Not just because of the cost of replacing it but because there is something nice about seeing machinery keeping going and going. Something like The Curiosity rover on Mars is truly, truly awesome. But at the same time I believe in technological progress so when something I use and enjoy a lot can be improved on it gets replaced.

Same deal - sorta - with my desire for reduced fuel consumption. I could reduce it by buying a smaller car..but that would be a backward step in my eyes. That's avoiding a problem rather than solving it. I don't see technology as bad - I see it as good.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: LJs JAZZ on February 01, 2018, 10:01:05 AM
Just another angle on personalized numberplates, we have such a plate on our car, just because my wife could never find our car on the larger car parks. We had silver cars whe that colour was popular, we now have grey, try finding a car that colour on a big car park.
My wife is hopeless when it comes to cars, dose not even no what make /  model we have, but remembers the reg no!!
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: ColinB on February 01, 2018, 10:06:07 AM
Forgive the digression, but I can't resist it ...
... there is something nice about seeing machinery keeping going and going. Something like The Curiosity rover on Mars is truly, truly awesome.
Curiosity is the new boy on Mars, it's only (!) been there since Aug 2012. The really impressive machine is Opportunity which has just celebrated it's 14th anniversary of landing in January 2004, and is still going strong. See: https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/home/
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: andruec on February 01, 2018, 10:24:17 AM
Forgive the digression, but I can't resist it ...
... there is something nice about seeing machinery keeping going and going. Something like The Curiosity rover on Mars is truly, truly awesome.
Curiosity is the new boy on Mars, it's only (!) been there since Aug 2012. The really impressive machine is Opportunity which has just celebrated it's 14th anniversary of landing in January 2004, and is still going strong. See: https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/home/
Good point. But I'll see your Opportunity and raise you Voyager 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1) :)

Something that humans built, is out there right now. Still working. Amazing.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: culzean on February 01, 2018, 10:24:50 AM
Forgive the digression, but I can't resist it ...
... there is something nice about seeing machinery keeping going and going. Something like The Curiosity rover on Mars is truly, truly awesome.
Curiosity is the new boy on Mars, it's only (!) been there since Aug 2012. The really impressive machine is Opportunity which has just celebrated it's 14th anniversary of landing in January 2004, and is still going strong. See: https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/home/

They are mere babies compared to voyager 1 and 2 -   https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Deeps on February 01, 2018, 12:43:40 PM
There is a first drive report of the 1.5 Jazz in this week's Auto Express. It seems the suspension is stiffer, it is noisier,  and they prefer the 1.3 model. It doesn't cut it as a warm hatch, and they think it is overpriced.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Jocko on February 01, 2018, 01:27:14 PM
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/honda/jazz/102456/new-honda-jazz-sport-2018-review (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/honda/jazz/102456/new-honda-jazz-sport-2018-review)

Don't think I will ever want one. Lacks low down torque, noisy at motorway speeds, needs the gearbox to be used to keep on the boil. Everything my Jazz isn't.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: peteo48 on February 02, 2018, 12:36:15 PM
There is a first drive report of the 1.5 Jazz in this week's Auto Express. It seems the suspension is stiffer, it is noisier,  and they prefer the 1.3 model. It doesn't cut it as a warm hatch, and they think it is overpriced.

Yes - if you want speed from a small hatchback you are going to look at offerings from Ford and VW before this car. Kind of falls between 2 stools.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: culzean on February 02, 2018, 01:44:05 PM
There is a first drive report of the 1.5 Jazz in this week's Auto Express. It seems the suspension is stiffer, it is noisier,  and they prefer the 1.3 model. It doesn't cut it as a warm hatch, and they think it is overpriced.

Yes - if you want speed from a small hatchback you are going to look at offerings from Ford and VW before this car. Kind of falls between 2 stools.

A 1.5 without a turbo was never going to be more than a 'slightly tepid' hatch. What Honda has made is a slowish car that looks fast, but I would rather have a wolf in sheeps clothing than the opposite. This car is short of about 70 ponies.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: RichardA on February 04, 2018, 11:57:14 AM
A naturally aspirated 130bhp engine in a supermini doesn't cut it as a warm hatch or as economy transport.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: JazzandJag on February 11, 2018, 08:29:07 PM
Saw two Sport models at Listers today. Had a test drive in the CVT and it is impressive. It is much better at pulling away across busy islands etc and does not need to be revved all the time to make progress.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: auntyneddy on February 12, 2018, 09:18:56 AM
I thought the new sport model was having the 1.5 engine that has been in production for other climes and the auto was just that a proper auto. The auto box/ 1.5 configuration  was being produced alongside the MK2 at Swindon and exported to South Africa. I believe Honda made the excuse that it was emissions that prevented it being sold here.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: peteo48 on February 12, 2018, 10:43:05 AM
Interested in your comments about the CVT paired with this new engine. Without wanting to re-open an old and sometimes heated debate I still go back to the drive I had with a pal in his 1.4 Mk 2 CVT and how the engine screamed when he wanted to get a shift on with little immediate acceleration - this might mean a much more leisurely drive.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: andruec on February 12, 2018, 12:04:12 PM
Interested in your comments about the CVT paired with this new engine. Without wanting to re-open an old and sometimes heated debate I still go back to the drive I had with a pal in his 1.4 Mk 2 CVT and how the engine screamed when he wanted to get a shift on with little immediate acceleration - this might mean a much more leisurely drive.
I'm not convinced about your description of it 'screaming'. Above 4,000 rpm it gets loud but it's more like a 'weak roar' than a 'scream' to my ears and not particularly out of keeping for what you're asking the car to do. If you insist on slamming the accelerator pedal to the floor you can hardly expect a quiet humming noise ;)

But as I said last time you mentioned it it's also something that I don't often need to do. I occasionally let rip just for the fun of it but I rarely ever need my Jazz to rev beyond 4,000 rpm. There's plenty of power below 4,000 to let me keep up with (and often get away from) those around me. Between 3,000 and 4,000 and the engine just sounds 'eager' with a nice throaty undertone. I particularly like the way it maintains a constant RPM - to me sounds like it's just 'getting the job done'.

As I think I mentioned the last time:It sounds like your friend hasn't yet worked out how to use the accelerator pedal. You do have to signal your intent to move but there's no need to actually floor it. A rapid and positive down shift of a few degrees will suffice. I can now reliably jump the revs to 3,000 rpm when I want to get going. If you don't do that the engine may bog down in Atkinson mode which definitely isn't fun when you're trying to make progress.

However I did notice when I drove a courtesy car recently that the latest CVT seems to have a bit more pep at low RPM anyway, along with a more 'traditional' way of handling foot-to-the-floor acceleration. It may be that Honda have tweaked the low-speed throttle/CVT response to address these concerns.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Dayjo on February 12, 2018, 01:43:19 PM
Saw two Sport models at Listers today. Had a test drive in the CVT and it is impressive. It is much better at pulling away across busy islands etc and does not need to be revved all the time to make progress.

Which engine, was fitted in your test car? 1.3, or 1.5?
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: JazzandJag on February 12, 2018, 03:33:45 PM

I'm not convinced about your description of it 'screaming'. Above 4,000 rpm it gets loud but it's more like a 'weak roar' than a 'scream' to my ears and not particularly out of keeping for what you're asking the car to do. If you insist on slamming the accelerator pedal to the floor you can hardly expect a quiet humming noise ;)

Perhaps screaming was the wrong word, I was trying to convey that the 1.5 does at 4000 rpm what the 1.3 needs 5000 rpm to achieve. Yes it is more like a roar which is not in itself unpleasant.

Which engine, was fitted in your test car? 1.3, or 1.5?

It was the 1.5

I thought the new sport model was having the 1.5 engine that has been in production for other climes and the auto was just that a proper auto. The auto box/ 1.5 configuration  was being produced alongside the MK2 at Swindon and exported to South Africa. I believe Honda made the excuse that it was emissions that prevented it being sold here.

This is the same unit as fitted ti the HRV and the auto is CVT, but improved in the way that Andruec has described. As to Honda's excuses, perhaps they were just that!
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: andruec on February 12, 2018, 04:22:38 PM

I'm not convinced about your description of it 'screaming'. Above 4,000 rpm it gets loud but it's more like a 'weak roar' than a 'scream' to my ears and not particularly out of keeping for what you're asking the car to do. If you insist on slamming the accelerator pedal to the floor you can hardly expect a quiet humming noise ;)

Perhaps screaming was the wrong word, I was trying to convey that the 1.5 does at 4000 rpm what the 1.3 needs 5000 rpm to achieve. Yes it is more like a roar which is not in itself unpleasant.
Ah. Yes, that would make sense. I would like to try the 1.5 version esp with the new CVT. I'm still a little unsure about the changes at the top of the range (making it sound like it was changing up) but it felt smooth and did give more engine braking. But I'm still thinking I'll want something with an alternative fuel source of some description. It's at least a year away for that decision. The only thing I've decided so far is that I won't be going back to the dealer that's been 'looking after me' for over ten years.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: peteo48 on February 12, 2018, 05:40:57 PM
I think I'm in a similar if not identical position to you audrec. A couple of physiological issues have reared their ugly heads - impingement syndrome in my left shoulder and a weak left ankle and my GP thinks I might want to consider an automatic next time. I'm also curious in a nerdy sort of way about alternative fuel vehicles. Tried a Yaris - too small overall and sat in but didn't drive an Auris hybrid. It felt claustrophobic even though it's a bigger car than the Jazz. It has a slab like dashboard that seems to enclose you whereas the Jazz has that open airy feel up front.

So I'm looking at Jazz Mk 3s with the CVT box and the Nissan Leaf. I'd like the latter if truth be told but there are a couple of journeys it might struggle with range wise although I could charge up at a rapid charger for one of them. All the rest of my round trips are under 30 miles - should I be put off by 2 journeys a year which might be mildly inconvenient or should I indulge my urge to have something different.

I used to be undecided but now I'm not so sure!
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Jocko on February 12, 2018, 05:58:30 PM
For two journeys a year you could hire a car. I looked at hiring a car, from Enterprise, for two days. 86. That's two tanks of petrol. I intend getting a Leaf, just as soon as we move and I have off road parking for charging.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: peteo48 on February 12, 2018, 07:10:17 PM
I'm lucky in having off road parking (although no garage). Only prob is I might need quite a long charging cable given where our consumer unit is.

Still swithering!
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: andruec on February 12, 2018, 09:30:47 PM
I'm lucky in having off road parking (although no garage). Only prob is I might need quite a long charging cable given where our consumer unit is.

Still swithering!
I've got a garage and I'm not afraid to use it :)

At the moment long distance driving would be a concern as I have an ageing father 180 miles away but aside from that drive I rarely go more than fifty miles from home. A true EV would be fine for me. I'd like to try an HEV though first as that might be the best of both worlds. I'm just not sure how effective a hybrid would be for an efficient driver like me that doesn't use the brakes very much.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Deeps on February 13, 2018, 01:12:46 PM
I'm lucky in having off road parking (although no garage). Only prob is I might need quite a long charging cable given where our consumer unit is.

Still swithering!

I assumed that the charger was put somewhere convenient to plug the car into and a there is a permanent cable connecting the charger  to the power supply.
Title: Re: new revised mk 3
Post by: Downsizer on February 13, 2018, 03:12:51 PM
I've been comparing the brochure specs for the 2018 mk3 with the original 2016 ones, and there are subtle differences, including a small length and weight increase and a slightly heavier fuel consumption.  Most curiously, the turning circle in 2016 was quoted as 10.8 m for all models, whereas it is now said to be only 10.6 m for the S and SE models, but 11.2 m for the EX and 11.1 m for the sport, which must be related to body trim changes.