Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums
Honda Jazz Forums => Honda Jazz Mk3 2015 - 2020 => Topic started by: stephen_m on September 26, 2020, 07:25:59 PM
-
I've been reading that the 1.3 in the Mk 3 Jazz needs to be revved hard to get anywhere.
I like to putter around at low RPM though.
Is the 1.3 engine useable at low revs?
Thanks for any insights.
-
Unless I’m pushing on, my revcounter rarely rises much above 3000rpm which is only half the maximum available.
With the CVT gearbox you really don’t think about engine speed, you just leave the box to get on with it!
-
Thanks. (I would be going for the manual transmission. I wonder if the engine tuning is different.)
-
My Mk 1 1.2 i-DSi rarely exceeds 2,500 rpm and never goes near 3,000. The Mk 1 is the torquiest Jazz until the new Mk 4 arrived on the scene.
Stephen, is your Mk 1 a DSi engine?
-
@Jocko — my current car is actually a VW Up! Not sure why it said 2007 Jazz on my profile but I've changed that. Apologies for any confusion. (My next car will be a Mk 3 Jazz though.)
-
I have the 1.3 with the manual gearbox and it's fine for pottering about. It's true that the engine doesn't have a lot of torque at low revs but I find once I'm out of first gear the engine and it's close ratio gearbox are fine.
My previous car was a VW UP
-
I had a normally aspirated UP and the Jazz compares well with that.
I also had an UP with a turbo and from a standstill the UP was quicker as you'd expect but once I'm in second gear and beyond I find the Jazz is just fine.
Only my opinion but I think the Jazz is a better car and feels more solid than the UP.
If your talking about interior space then there's no comparison.
-
Not sure why it said 2007 Jazz on my profile
That's what confused me. No worries, I'm easily confused.
-
Just out of interest, why are you changing your UP for a Jazz ?
-
I had the CVT version of the Mk 3 and it had been programmed to substantially increase the engine revs in response to more than the lightest touch of the accelerator pedal which I found annoying (I think Honda might have adjusted the operating rules when they did the refresh). However, with the manual gearshift the driver has much more control over how the engine behaves. It will happily tick over at about 1000 rpm when pottering along at about 30 mph but be aware that there isn't much torque as the engine is in the more efficient Atkinson cycle mode. If you do need torque and power then the engine starts to deliver at around 3000 rpm.
-
Just out of interest, why are you changing your UP for a Jazz ?
Derkie — the Up! is fine for now but I'd like something with a better safety rating (The Up was downgraded to 3 stars by Euro NCAP recently).
Japanese reliability and the bigger load space also appeal to me.
My Up! is seven years old. Not sure how much longer I'll keep it. No great hurry to replace it but a Mk 3 Jazz will almost certainly be my next car.
-
I had the CVT version of the Mk 3 and it had been programmed to substantially increase the engine revs in response to more than the lightest touch of the accelerator pedal which I found annoying (I think Honda might have adjusted the operating rules when they did the refresh). However, with the manual gearshift the driver has much more control over how the engine behaves. It will happily tick over at about 1000 rpm when pottering along at about 30 mph but be aware that there isn't much torque as the engine is in the more efficient Atkinson cycle mode. If you do need torque and power then the engine starts to deliver at around 3000 rpm.
Thanks John. I'm not sure what the Atkinson cycle is but I'll look it up.
-
And this is what you can get in terms of fuel economy if you potter along at a steady 40 mph https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom/fuel-economy-record-attempt .
-
And this is what you can get in terms of fuel economy if you potter along at a steady 40 mph https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom/fuel-economy-record-attempt .
Cheers John. Interesting.
-
Be great if you were followed everywhere you went with an AA van with flashing amber lights behind you. I find I can drive slower, with better mpg, if there is nothing behind me, but feel duty-bound to speed up to nearer the speed for the road when something comes up behind.
-
Be great if you were followed everywhere you went with an AA van with flashing amber lights behind you. I find I can drive slower, with better mpg, if there is nothing behind me, but feel duty-bound to speed up to nearer the speed for the road when something comes up behind.
I like to putter along the B-Road out of this village at 35 but everybody hates me for it. Same story if I go at 45 along the local A-Road.
-
I find the engine is a bit gutless and unresponsive up to about 2000 rpm, whilst it is within the Atkinson cycle rev range, once you get to higher revs it is fairly gutsy for a 1.3L.
However the fuel economy is better within the Atkinson cycle and it is acceptable at low revs, getting the good economy, as long as you don't need to accelerate or drive up a steep hill, in which case you simply rev it up a bit.
The only time I've thought I really had to cane it was 4up with a roof box on the motorway driving to Scotland through mountain ranges.
To be sure it'll do what you want, you really need to test drive one over the type of roads you plan to use it on.
Mine has been faultless over the two and a half years I've owned it.
-
I had the same worries before getting my Jazz. (68 with 5000 when purchased)
I did a long test drive 12 + miles over some hilly bits.
Seemed ok.
Not disappointed at all. It will potter about 1500-2500, obviously it won't do a bat out of hell at those rpm but its OK.Also mpg is outstanding, did 65.3 on a 125 miles Motorway journey (a real 58-60?.
-
Just out of interest, why are you changing your UP for a Jazz ?
Derkie — the Up! is fine for now but I'd like something with a better safety rating (The Up was downgraded to 3 stars by Euro NCAP recently).
Consider that also the MK3 Jazz could be downgraded since protocols have been recently modified.
-
Just because they downgrade it doesn't mean it is any less safe than it was before. 🤫
-
Just because they downgrade it doesn't mean it is any less safe than it was before. 🤫
I like your thinking.
-
🤫
Don't know where that came from!
-
I came to the Jazz from a 1.2 tsi 110 ps Manual Fabia. The jazz doesn't match the performance but I knew it wouldn't. In my dotage, performance is way down the pecking order.
I love the quirky CVT box and am learning to drive it in sedate or hurried form. Great fun and also the tech I have plus the magic seats mean it's a real upgrade.
The little Jazz is a nice drive too as most of the time it's tootling around town.
On the odd occasion I've taken a 70 mph dual carriageway it's been more than adequate for my needs.
Harry
-
Just because they downgrade it doesn't mean it is any less safe than it was before. 🤫
This is generally true, also for the downgraded Up.
I say generally because sometimes manufacturers remove some hidden features (soundproof, servos, software, and sometimes safety) when a model becomes "old" and it living the last part of its commercial life. Ten years ago, for instance, Renault removed rear-preloading devices from Clios and Modus after the last restyling, since no further crash test would have been done on them. Moreorless the same of the Fiat Punto.
That's why now Euroncap re-test some old models, trying to convince manufacturers to keep untouched the safety equipment of their cars.
-
This is true for the model, but unless corrosion has weakened the vehicle, YOUR OWN CAR is just as safe (or otherwise) as it always was.
-
This is true for the model, but unless corrosion has weakened the vehicle, YOUR OWN CAR is just as safe (or otherwise) as it always was.
Yep.
-
I've been reading that the 1.3 in the Mk 3 Jazz needs to be revved hard to get anywhere.
I like to putter around at low RPM though.
Is the 1.3 engine useable at low revs?
Thanks for any insights.
If you like low revs then the Jazz isn't the best choice. By comparison a VW Polo 1.0 TSI turbo engine has peak torque of 140Nm at 1700 - 2500 rpm half the revs of the Jazz which means it can stay in a low gear and more flexible engine / less gear changing.
-
I've been reading that the 1.3 in the Mk 3 Jazz needs to be revved hard to get anywhere.
I like to putter around at low RPM though.
Is the 1.3 engine useable at low revs?
Thanks for any insights.
If you like low revs then the Jazz isn't the best choice. By comparison a VW Polo 1.0 TSI turbo engine has peak torque of 140Nm at 1700 - 2500 rpm half the revs of the Jazz which means it can stay in a low gear and more flexible engine / less gear changing.
Strange you say that as many on VW forums say the polo 1.0 tsi 95ps engine is too high geared and keeping the revs at 2000 sees the engine labouring and a pain. It's said to be an engine with mpg in mind.
I never owned the 1.0 tsi so can only report their comments but I have seen others complain about the high gearing on the Briskoda forum.
-
I've been reading that the 1.3 in the Mk 3 Jazz needs to be revved hard to get anywhere.
I like to putter around at low RPM though.
Is the 1.3 engine useable at low revs?
Thanks for any insights.
If you like low revs then the Jazz isn't the best choice. By comparison a VW Polo 1.0 TSI turbo engine has peak torque of 140Nm at 1700 - 2500 rpm half the revs of the Jazz which means it can stay in a low gear and more flexible engine / less gear changing.
Strange you say that as many on VW forums say the polo 1.0 tsi 95ps engine is too high geared and keeping the revs at 2000 sees the engine labouring and a pain. It's said to be an engine with mpg in mind.
I never owned the 1.0 tsi so can only report their comments but I have seen others complain about the high gearing on the Briskoda forum.
Just going off the figures on paper it seems more accessible torque at far lower revs in comparison to the Jazz, would depend I support which gear you were in at the time and down to individual driving methods.