Help! I am confused

[guest3042]

I have a Jazz Hybrid (2011) and am thinking of getting the Mk3, but I have read so many differing reviews I am confused.
Is the Mk3 so much better than the Mk2? Are the niggles, like automatic lights and the infotainment system, much discussed on this forum, deal breakers?
Is the EX worse over rough roads and bumps than the SE?
If you read Jeremy Clarkson's review you wouldn't touch the Mk3 with a barge pole. I don't take him too seriously, but reviews like his put doubts in your head.
Does anyone out there regret buying the Mk3?

Thanks

[trebor1652]

I have the EX and am very pleased with it.
Clarkson, Clarkson who?
What a dick head he is.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

[peteo48]

The only thing I have noticed (and bear in mind I have no experience of the Mk3) is that the residuals of late Mk2s - like mine - seem to be holding up very well - is that a sign that people want a Jazz but are put off by the Mk3?

The touchscreen is a major issue but Honda are not alone in this. I have been considering getting an electric car and have watched and read loads of reviews of cars like the Nissan Leaf and the issue of the touch screen comes up again and again.

It is technology for the sake of it and offers nothing in return. Especially when it comes to tuning your radio. In the case of the Leaf some people prefer the bog standard car (the Visia) because it has no touchscreen.

Given the age profile of Jazz owners, the information screen maybe a major cock up.

[guest3042]

Thanks for your observations.  I would prefer to do without a touchscreen, but I understand the radio can be operated from the steering wheel once tuned. Whatever else is on there I could probably ignore.
As for the age profile, I think Honda have been trying to target younger buyers, hence the funky colours of the Mk3.

[John Ratsey]

I had the hybrid for over 4 years then traded it in for the Mk 3. My reasons for swapping included (i) I wanted somewhere to put the spare wheel other than taking up space in the boot; (ii) I suffered badly from the Mk 2's dashboard glare on windowscreen problem (this appears to be related to driver's eyeball position - some people notice it and others don't) and a test in the Mk 3 revealed that the problem was less; (iii) much of my driving was in out-of-town situations where the hybrid didn't give much of an improvement to the economy and (i) I thought that the hybrid should go to someone who did higher mileage so they could try to wear it out before it died of old age.

My initial observations about the Mk 3 are at http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=7356.0. Other threads comparing the Mk 2 and Mk 3 include http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8038.0, http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=7893.0 and http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8033.0.

The Mk 3 proved nearly as economical as the hybrid (57.8 mpg vis 58.8 mpg) under my mainly out of town driving. However, there is the well-discussed proneness of the Mk 3 to rev the engine when pulling away (due to, we think, the low end of the engine rev range being Atkinson cycle and set up for economy) which the hybrid didn't need due to the boost from the motor. I also discovered that while the windscreen glare problem on the Mk 3 was less than on the Mk 2, it was still there.

I've now moved to the HR-V where the engine is able to accelerate the car without a lot of fuss and the windscreen glare problem happens to be minimal (but it swallows about 20% more fuel). In getting the HR-V I decided to to tolerate some of the annoyances such as the touchscreen (the HR-V adds another one for the heating controls), uncontrollable auto headlights and over-sensitve parking sensors.

I would suggest you keep the hybrid for another year and see whether the speculation about a 1 litre turbo engine appearing in the Jazz comes to materialise. Honda might update a few other aspects at the same time.

[guest3042]

Thanks John. I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking, particularly in view of the proposed turbo engine which was mentioned to me by the Honda dealership salesman.

[andruec]

Is the Mk3 so much better than the Mk2? Are the niggles, like automatic lights and the infotainment system, much discussed on this forum, deal breakers?

The automatic lights seem fine to me, no different to the Mk2. The automatic main beam is a bit iffy for commuting but does surprisingly well. The wipers are different to the Mk2 though. They aren't bad but I found I could just leave them alone with the Mk2 whereas I keep having to tweak the speed on the Mk3. Also when it's cold the wipers seem to trigger on condensation so I've had to disable them when leaving work on cold evenings.

The infotainment unit seems to be fixed. It's still not a particularly well laid out UI but if you buy a new Jazz today I don't think you'll experience any glitches.

Is the EX worse over rough roads and bumps than the SE?

Dunno but my Mk3 EX feels better than the Mk2 and a lot better than the Mk1.

If you read Jeremy Clarkson's review you wouldn't touch the Mk3 with a barge pole.

I couldn't care less what that fool thinks.

Does anyone out there regret buying the Mk3?

They might. I still say that next time I'll actually look at the opposition first but now that the infotainment centre issue is resolved I'm a lot happier.

It's a good car. It could be better but if you can't think of anything else to spend your money on then it's a good upgrade from the Mk2 in most aspects. My only main niggle is the rearrangement of the boot. Using the spare wheel well as storage on the Mk2 was inspired and well executed. Using a bit of hardboard covered with felt for the floor and filling the wheel well with polystyrene on the Mk3 was stupid.

[andruec]

the touchscreen (the HR-V adds another one for the heating controls)

So does the EX Jazz. Wasn't too much of a problem in summer but in winter having to glance down and fumble to activate windscreen or rear window demisters then not being sure if I managed it is quite irritating.

[guest6425]

I've read enough to know that the extra benefits like the 1-2 mpg better don't outweigh the many many negatives (for me) I'll keep a mk2 facelift EX for a while yet I think.

[guest3042]

Thanks for all your helpful comments.
One other thing. Is it me, or does the Mk3 have slightly less legroom in the driver's seat than the previous model? It feels to me that the seat should go back a couple of inches more. The rear seat space is definitely better.

[peteo48]

I've read enough to know that the extra benefits like the 1-2 mpg better don't outweigh the many many negatives (for me) I'll keep a mk2 facelift EX for a while yet I think.

I think I'd have to drive one before making a judgement but the Mk2 Jazz was/is so good that a quantum leap to something better would be really hard to pull off. I just wonder if by trying to appeal to a younger market (in the UK anyway) but retain it's old customer base it has fallen between 2 stools. A pity that there is no hybrid but the 1.0 litre turbo charged engine could be a game changer?

[Skyrider]

As you have a previous model Jazz you are bound to make comparisons, just remember that the Mk3 is a complete redesign and should be compared to equivalent cars from other manufacturers as well as your current Jazz. My Mk3 is my first Honda, it suits my needs and I did not compare it to the older model Jazz. Don't fall for the "It hasn't got a turbo marketing waffle" my last car was a turbo diesel, the jazz has a 100 BHP engine, plenty adequate for the type of car and it has better performance than any previous jazz sold in the UK.

[John Ratsey]

I was thinking that the turbo could provide more torque and power at the lower end of the revs range (and hence reduce the Jazz's need for revs when pulling away from the traffic lights) rather than just provide more power. However, that assumes that the turbo boost can work with the Atkinson cycle in order to maintain the current economy when cruising.

[Skyrider]

I have no problem with using an engine as it is intended and designed to be used. Why do some people seem to be terrified of using its rev range?  You will not hurt it. If you want a low reving engine buy a diesel.

[peteo48]

I have no problem with using an engine as it is intended and designed to be used. Why do some people seem to be terrified of using its rev range?  You will not hurt it. If you want a low reving engine buy a diesel.

Fair comment but people are becoming accustomed to effortless acceleration both from turbo charged diesels and the new generation of turbo charged petrol engines. It's all to do with how a car feels. It's why people rave about the acceleration of electric cars - the Nissan Leaf has more or less identical performance to the Jazz - 0-60 in around 11 seconds - but delivers its torque almost immediately.

None of this bothers me as I am an old git and drive pretty conservatively these days so the Jazz suits me fine but people want effortless acceleration, they don't want to have to push the car.

Laziness I guess but that's what people want.