Author Topic: new revised mk 3  (Read 2373 times)

trevg

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: honda jazz si 2015
new revised mk 3
« 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

trebor1652

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 438
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #1 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


andruec

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 717
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: Jazz Mk3 EX-t
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #2 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.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 03:24:16 PM by andruec »

peteo48

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1082
  • Country: gb
  • I have entered the Jazz Age
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2017 Honda Jazz 1.3 SE CVT Tinted Silver
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 10:54:46 AM by peteo48 »

zemax

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: jazz mk1
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #4 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..

Jocko

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2577
  • Country: scotland
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2006 GD5 Jazz 1.2 i-DSi S in Vivid Blue Pearl
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #5 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.

Skyrider

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 918
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: 1.5 Sport CVT.
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #6 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.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 09:00:42 AM by Deeps »

Jocko

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2577
  • Country: scotland
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2006 GD5 Jazz 1.2 i-DSi S in Vivid Blue Pearl
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #7 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.

Downsizer

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 322
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: Jazz 1.3 SE cvt - Feb '16 - Blue
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #8 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.

andruec

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 717
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: Jazz Mk3 EX-t
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #9 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.

culzean

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3907
  • Country: england
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #10 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.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 01:17:31 PM by culzean »
Some people will only consider you an expert if they agree with your point of view or advice,  when you give them advice they don't like they consider you an idiot

peteo48

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1082
  • Country: gb
  • I have entered the Jazz Age
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2017 Honda Jazz 1.3 SE CVT Tinted Silver
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #11 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.

Jocko

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2577
  • Country: scotland
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2006 GD5 Jazz 1.2 i-DSi S in Vivid Blue Pearl
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #12 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.

madasafish

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 805
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: 1.4 ES CVT -2012
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #13 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 !
 

andruec

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 717
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: Jazz Mk3 EX-t
Re: new revised mk 3
« Reply #14 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.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 04:05:41 PM by andruec »

Tags:
 

Back to top