Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums

Honda Jazz Forums => Honda Jazz Mk3 2015 - 2020 => Topic started by: Ozzie on April 25, 2016, 08:46:22 AM

Title: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Ozzie on April 25, 2016, 08:46:22 AM
Hiya,

This is aimed towards the Jazz owners of the current 2015+ models:

"If you were still able to buy a new version of the MkII Jazz would you have chosen the MkII or the MkIII?"

Thanks

Oz  8)
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Downsizer on April 25, 2016, 09:16:42 AM
Mk III without a doubt, for the improved ride, certainly compared with my 2008 MK II.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: trebor1652 on April 25, 2016, 09:42:39 AM
Went from the mk1 to the mk3.
Look at a mk2 but decided to wait for the mk3, glad I did. :-)

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: jazzeck on April 25, 2016, 12:34:28 PM
How does the mk3 drive? Six gear version especially?
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Sidot on April 25, 2016, 04:06:41 PM
Miss my Mk2 very much.
Clean lines nice dash board and spacious interior BUT the Mk3 with all its safety features and infotainment screen with messages telling me that various things don't work represents PROGRESS. .....
We have to evolve.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Ozzie on April 25, 2016, 06:46:30 PM
I am not sure that change for changes sake is beneficial. I took a test drive in the Mk3 and although it drives well, I wasn't a great fan of the gadgets, bearing in mind that I want a tuition car, and learners and gadgets isn't always good, sometimes learners need to think and take responsibility and not rely on the car to take care of it.

Things like auto-wipers, auto lights, parking sensors, lane departure warnings, sign detectors, may be progress but I want my pupils to think, if they later buy a car that can do it all thats fine, but not to rely on the car to get their licence and not be able to think for themselves once they have passed, and drive a car that doesn't do it either.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: John Ratsey on April 25, 2016, 07:10:08 PM
@Ozzie: I agree with what you say regarding a tuition car but shouldn't you therefore have a manual gearbox?

So maybe a later Mk 2 would be better for your needs.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5505 on April 25, 2016, 07:20:24 PM
Is there anyone who prefers their mk1, over mk 2 or 3?
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: trebor1652 on April 25, 2016, 07:29:46 PM
Loved my mk1, but it was 10 years old, only 48,500 miles and passed its mot with no advisories, but we can't stay in the past, so a mk3 EX now lives in my garage. :-)

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Paulwhitt20 on April 25, 2016, 07:53:16 PM
My wife prefers her MK 1 to the MK 3 Ex Navi. The ride is better but the gadgets make it feel to complicated. Especially when they don't work as you would expect.

Re the six speed gearbox. Gear change is a bit clunky but in normal driving 1 to 4 is OK round town. 5th for 50 to 60 on A roads. 6th for 70 on the motorway but don't expect to overtake a lorry or go uphill in sixth you will need to change down a gear or two. Ignore the indicator telling you when to change up.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: csp on April 25, 2016, 08:22:46 PM
It took me some time to get used to the Mk3 there are some compromises but overall I am pleased with the change from a Mk2. The CVT took some time to get the hang of and I am sure improved after a few miles, the CVT is very smooth.

The Mk3 intelligent speed limiter is impressive and the trip computer more comprehensive. The ride and road holding of the Mk3 seems better. The Mk3 auto lights can be annoying although the main beam assist seems quite good and the auto wipers are good.

It is quite annoying that the Mk3 Auto start stop on the CVT version restarts the engine as soon the break pedal is released even if Neutral is selected and the hand brake has been applied for longer stops.

The MK2 seemed to have more storage space, the door pockets and glove box were bigger and there was more leg room in the front seats.

The S version of the Mk3 has less gagets than the SE or EX so may be better for learners.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: fut1a on April 25, 2016, 08:49:25 PM
MK3 without a doubt. The Mk2 is a very good car but the game has moved on so much with the MK3.

When the wife picked hers up and we pulled in the drive and compared it to the MK2 it was like night and day. We still thought the MK2 looked nice, but when it was next to the MK3 it just looked so old.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Ozzie on April 25, 2016, 09:25:48 PM
@Ozzie: I agree with what you say regarding a tuition car but shouldn't you therefore have a manual gearbox?

So maybe a later Mk 2 would be better for your needs.
Not everyone is suited to driving manual, and offering automatic tuition helps those that are possibly less fortunate, those who are possibly disabled, have learning issues, or basically can't be bothered with gears. We have manual cars too, as well as automatics, but most driving schools are one man, one car operations, those cars are mainly manual. I noticed a niche in the market and we have it sussed, 14 cars, 6 automatics, 8 manual.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest1372 on April 25, 2016, 09:28:50 PM
Mk 3 for resale value in 5 years time.

Is there anyone who prefers their mk1, over mk 2 or 3?

Kept the Mk 1 because my needs haven't changed in the time I've owned it (since 2002 at 5 months old) and saved a couple of sets of initial depreciation in the process. Only change it now if it had a problem or I needed something other than a Jazz sized car. Prefer all cars that I rent, but that's probably because they are bigger/smoother.

Assistive technologies on the driving test does seem like cheating.
--
TG
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: mikebore on April 26, 2016, 04:30:38 PM
Miss my Mk2 very much.
Clean lines nice dash board and spacious interior BUT the Mk3 with all its safety features and infotainment screen with messages telling me that various things don't work represents PROGRESS. .....
We have to evolve.

This sounds like you find the Mk3 less spacious than the Mk2? I thought the Mk3 has more legroom in the front...is that at the expense of the rear?

EDIT...just seen this post which says space due to extra length given to rear passengers?
http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8033.msg39443#msg39443 (http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8033.msg39443#msg39443)
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5168 on May 04, 2016, 01:12:20 AM
I only have my mk1 because No way in hell I would pay 16,000euros for a mk3 , I can almost buy a house for that here. I paid 3000 for my mk1 4years ago and will drive it till it falls apart, however at almost 400k km on it doesn't even wants to show any sign of being old and tired So the Mk1 it is!


you lucky rich english ********** change cars like socks... :D

I test drove an mk2 recently and it was improvement for sure,except the build quality seemed very very cheap.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: mikebore on May 04, 2016, 06:49:49 AM
you lucky rich english ********** change cars like socks...

Generalisations are nearly always a mistake...especially on the internet.

You should at least put a smiley, or people might think your were being serious  ;)
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Hobo on May 04, 2016, 02:38:12 PM
I can almost buy a house for that here.

Out of interest where is here?
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5168 on May 04, 2016, 02:44:07 PM
you lucky rich english ********** change cars like socks...

Generalisations are nearly always a mistake...especially on the internet.

You should at least put a smiley, or people might think your were being serious  ;)

done :D but honestly having been to uk several times all you drive are brand new economic class cars, and I can understand that, no point driving an old banger there if you get raped HARD if you ever need to fix something on an older car and can't do it yourself + no mot,lower taxes and cheap lease deals.. I would do the same :D

Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Madelvic on May 06, 2016, 07:13:34 PM
Pros and cons

Mk 3

More economical
Better spec by a long way
Better ride

Mk 2

Less evidence of cost saving
More storage space
Better trimmed (it's an insult to carpets to call the floor lining in the Mk3 a carpet)
Better looking (in my opinion)

Sadly I think both are way off the mark in terms of state of the art engines.  Daughter has a 1.0 triple VW Polo and it is a sewing machine in comparison  to the Jazz engines.  Quiet, rev, economical. Ford get a great write up too for their 1.0 engines

Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: edam on May 06, 2016, 11:53:10 PM
I have owned 2 Mk1's , 1 Mk2, and now I'm picking up a second hand Mk3 in a few days.
I'm also changing back to a manual after 2 CVT's.
I'm taking a big risk going back to a manual gearbox but as my left ankle hurts driving a CVT I'm hoping that keeping my left ankle more active may be better. The clutch pedal position is better for me than on a Mk2 so have had to buy a MK3.
If it doesn't work with the manual gearbox then I will have to stop driving .
Very much crunch time!!
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5211 on May 07, 2016, 05:39:46 AM
Pros and cons

Mk 3

More economical
Better spec by a long way
Better ride

Mk 2

Less evidence of cost saving
More storage space
Better trimmed (it's an insult to carpets to call the floor lining in the Mk3 a carpet)
Better looking (in my opinion)

Sadly I think both are way off the mark in terms of state of the art engines.  Daughter has a 1.0 triple VW Polo and it is a sewing machine in comparison  to the Jazz engines.  Quiet, rev, economical. Ford get a great write up too for their 1.0 engines
As long as they've had the recall work done, I guess.  Plenty have went pop due to coolant loss.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/user-article/111213/ford-focus-1-0 (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/user-article/111213/ford-focus-1-0)

As for the GK Jazz, I think it's very poor VFM and with very few options, (only one engine and three trim levels to choose from), it's hard to get excited about it.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: John Ratsey on May 07, 2016, 08:22:18 AM
I have difficulty in believing that Honda's 3 cylinder turbo which is due to show up in the Civic shortly won't also appear in the Jazz in due course, which would explain why there's currently only one engine option. A 3 cylinder turbo would have the capability of both better performance and better economy (but maybe not both at the same time) compared to the current engine so it will be interesting to see how Honda will play their options. Eco setting by default with a "sport" button would give the most favourable results in the standard tests.

There is the residual uncertainty about the longevity of the small turbo engines so the 4 cylinder non-turbo might stay on the line-up for a few years so that purchasers have a choice. I personally find this engine to be smooth and refined. There is the well-discussed tendency to rev (when coupled with the CVT gearbox) on initial acceleration but maybe that is to remind people that there is an engine because, for the rest of the time, one doesn't hear it.

The Mk 3 doesn't currently score well on value for money and one has to wonder if Honda isn't trying to shift large numbers of these vehicles in the UK. I wonder how busy the factory is? However, provided residual values stay good then paying a bit more is less of an issue.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest1372 on May 07, 2016, 09:41:50 PM
Honda's 3 cylinder turbo which is due to show up in the Civic shortly ... also appear in the Jazz in due course

The Mk 3 doesn't currently score well on value for money

I completely agree with you, athough I expect it will be a face lift model in 3-4 years so hope I can hold out until then

My car adjusted for inflation cost £16k so things are broadly similar to 2002. It seems there is room in the range for some of the extensive far eastern models to fit below the Jazz. Is Honda trying to be a more premium choice? Anyway new Civics will give the dealers a lift.
--
TG
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: monkeydave on May 08, 2016, 12:10:49 AM
i would never buy a car with a turbo as it decreases reliability a lot as they all fail, honda must be mad to risk their brand

if i couldn't get a honda without a turbo i would move to kia or toyota
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5251 on May 08, 2016, 08:25:58 AM
regardless of brand small engined turbo'd cars will only ever have a short engine life
due to them having the nuts rev'd off them to get them moving all day long ,car manufacturers
that take this easy route do it to reduce engineering time and associated costs
in the design stage of a new low emmision engine.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: culzean on May 08, 2016, 08:54:47 AM
regardless of brand small engined turbo'd cars will only ever have a short engine life
due to them having the nuts rev'd off them to get them moving all day long ,car manufacturers
that take this easy route do it to reduce engineering time and associated costs
in the design stage of a new low emmision engine.

Smaller engines are fitted to reduce ' pumping losses' where petrol engine is continually sucking against a closed / partially closed 'throttle' (throttle as 'to choke off') butterfly - diesel engines don't have these losses as their speed is governed by the injection of fuel and they don't have a throttle as such, and always have a turbo anyway otherwise their power is pretty low.   Fitting a smaller engine  means throttle has to be opened wider (revving the nuts off ha ha),  which reduces pumping losses.  To regain power with a smaller engine a turbo is now more or less a given,  and although turbos are more reliable now they still suffer from the fact that one end of the (very short) shaft is running red hot and the other is ice cold,  and because air is being compressed before being sent to engine it heats up - so then you need an inter-cooler to reduce inlet air temp and give a 'denser' charge of air and fuel.   Ceramic bearings and better lubricant means turbos are more reliable,  but still better to let them cool down  by running at tick-over for a few minutes before engine is turned off, but how many people would do that ???

Manufactures can always be relied on to take shortcuts and many mediocre engines were uprated by using a turbo while Honda continued to get very good power (and reliability) from normally aspirated engines 'the hard way' by clever VTEC and manifold tuning etc.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5589 on May 08, 2016, 09:22:41 AM
i would never buy a car with a turbo as it decreases reliability a lot as they all fail, honda must be mad to risk their brand

if i couldn't get a honda without a turbo i would move to kia or toyota

It is not 80s or 90s where Turbos were useless & how do you know KIA or Toyota won't be force fed by then, if not already? pretty much all diesel's including Honda's Isuzu based 2.2 iCDTI & their own 1.6 & 2.2 iDTEC are fitted with Turbos and there are Accords for sale with 300,000 miles on them. If you don't trust Honda to do a turbo well then ....
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5589 on May 08, 2016, 09:27:08 AM
regardless of brand small engined turbo'd cars will only ever have a short engine life
due to them having the nuts rev'd off them to get them moving all day long ,car manufacturers
that take this easy route do it to reduce engineering time and associated costs
in the design stage of a new low emmision engine.

Well a turbocharged car will require less revs to move about unlike a NA motor like the Yaris's VVTi 1.0 which needed to be thrashed if you wanted go anywhere + its actually more difficult to engineer a reliable turbo engine.

You all talk of Honda as if they don't know how to make engines. They were probably the last to offer Diesel engine and are almost the last to offer Turbo motors.. not becasue they cannot do it but because they only do it properly. .
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Downsizer on May 08, 2016, 09:53:31 AM
Quote:  "The Mk 3 doesn't currently score well on value for money..."
It depends what sector it's competing in.  When I decided to trade in my 7 1/2 yr old manual Jazz Mk 2 for an automatic, I was choosing between a Jazz Mk 3 SE or a VW 1.4 TSI Golf Match.  The VW Polo was too small in the back and the boot. Taking into account an extra £1100 trade-in and discount offered by the Honda dealer, the cost to change was £7500 less for the Honda.  Together with 5 years servicing for £550, and the expected reliability, the decision in favour of the Jazz was easy.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: culzean on May 08, 2016, 09:58:57 AM
regardless of brand small engined turbo'd cars will only ever have a short engine life
due to them having the nuts rev'd off them to get them moving all day long ,car manufacturers
that take this easy route do it to reduce engineering time and associated costs
in the design stage of a new low emmision engine.

Well a turbocharged car will require less revs to move about unlike a NA motor like the Yaris's VVTi 1.0 which needed to be thrashed if you wanted go anywhere + its actually more difficult to engineer a reliable turbo engine.

You all talk of Honda as if they don't know how to make engines. They were probably the last to offer Diesel engine and are almost the last to offer Turbo motors.. not becasue they cannot do it but because they only do it properly. .

Honda didn't offer a Diesel earlier (until they were basically forced into doing it by market in Europe ) because Diesel had already been investigated in Japan and they decided way back that 'in the search for low emissions, Diesel is a dead end technology' (ie the Europeans were backing a dead horse to win a race) - the Japs actually fell out with the European legislators over this and Jap companies were banned from Euro emissions panels (we all know now, following Volkswagengate etc. that the Japanese were 100% correct) - direct injection petrol engines also suffer form high NOx outputs. 

I have always seen bolting a turbo onto an engine as a shortcut to higher power but less reliability,  but as many engine tuners around the world have know for decades,  Honda engines are basically that well engineered you can bolt a turbo or supercharger onto them without any drama.    Unlike most car engine makers Honda had the benefit of their superb motorcycle engine technology to make lightweight and powerful engines without resorting to forced induction,  and blew away the old cast iron lumps with turbos on them being offered by other makers at the time.

SAAB (bless them) used low pressure forced induction as a way to reduce emissions, but SAAB never made a penny profit on any car they made and are now consigned to history of failed car-makers.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: culzean on May 08, 2016, 10:05:00 AM
i would never buy a car with a turbo as it decreases reliability a lot as they all fail, honda must be mad to risk their brand

if i couldn't get a honda without a turbo i would move to kia or toyota

It is not 80s or 90s where Turbos were useless & how do you know KIA or Toyota won't be force fed by then, if not already? pretty much all diesel's including Honda's Isuzu based 2.2 iCDTI & their own 1.6 & 2.2 iDTEC are fitted with Turbos and there are Accords for sale with 300,000 miles on them. If you don't trust Honda to do a turbo well then ....

Without a Turbo a Diesel engine is nothing more than a power deficient lump of an engine - only fit for a steamroller or tractor
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5589 on May 08, 2016, 12:07:46 PM
regardless of brand small engined turbo'd cars will only ever have a short engine life
due to them having the nuts rev'd off them to get them moving all day long ,car manufacturers
that take this easy route do it to reduce engineering time and associated costs
in the design stage of a new low emmision engine.

Well a turbocharged car will require less revs to move about unlike a NA motor like the Yaris's VVTi 1.0 which needed to be thrashed if you wanted go anywhere + its actually more difficult to engineer a reliable turbo engine.

You all talk of Honda as if they don't know how to make engines. They were probably the last to offer Diesel engine and are almost the last to offer Turbo motors.. not becasue they cannot do it but because they only do it properly. .

Honda didn't offer a Diesel earlier (until they were basically forced into doing it by market in Europe ) because Diesel had already been investigated in Japan and they decided way back that 'in the search for low emissions, Diesel is a dead end technology' (ie the Europeans were backing a dead horse to win a race) - the Japs actually fell out with the European legislators over this and Jap companies were banned from Euro emissions panels (we all know now, following Volkswagengate etc. that the Japanese were 100% correct) - direct injection petrol engines also suffer form high NOx outputs. 

I have always seen bolting a turbo onto an engine as a shortcut to higher power but less reliability,  but as many engine tuners around the world have know for decades,  Honda engines are basically that well engineered you can bolt a turbo or supercharger onto them without any drama.    Unlike most car engine makers Honda had the benefit of their superb motorcycle engine technology to make lightweight and powerful engines without resorting to forced induction,  and blew away the old cast iron lumps with turbos on them being offered by other makers at the time.

SAAB (bless them) used low pressure forced induction as a way to reduce emissions, but SAAB never made a penny profit on any car they made and are now consigned to history of failed car-makers.

I agree 100% however that is besides the point. I was taking note of the blanket statement that a turbo engine will be less reliable & need a lot of revs to work.. it was the case with turbo cars of bygone era where the turbo lag was just endless. Current cars with LPTs are a different thing all together.

Ofcourse like a 2016 has more things that might go wrong compared to a 60s car with an engine gearbox and one dial but if you know Honda as a company, you know they don't make half hearted attempts. They are in the market to make money after all so rightly or wrongly the EU market demand forced them offer a Diesel and they did. Similarly if they have any hope of even maintaining their current market share let alone increase it, they needed to bring up a small turbo.

Designing a turbo engine from ground up is not the same as bolting a turbo onto an existing design. FK2 CTR is a turbo four pot. Can we really say its a compromised design? the VTEC, unlike every other Honda is actually activated at small revs and as the revs rise and the turbo comes on boost, the VTEC disengages so if done properly I don't think we have to worry about.

Contrary to general perception if you go to any CTR forum and you will find EP3, FN2s with as low as 80k on their NA iVTEC engines suffering from jumped chains due to abuse and improper maintenance. Now someone can stand up and say thats an unreliable motor? but no..we all know that is not true.

Not to say they don't know how to do turbos. USDM 2000s RDX and JDM City Turbo from 80s all benefited from forced induction.

But yeah I think the idea that Honda will engineer a compromised design just to meet market needs does not hold any credibility.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest1372 on May 08, 2016, 12:27:41 PM
Although normal driving shouldn't ever cause it, there are many diesel drivers who have suffered from failed turbo oil seals, so much so that our fleet manager had a page explaining correct cool down procedure when signing for a car. Affected the Volvos and BMWs and subject to financial penalty by the supplying lease company.

Can't see the average UK Jazz owner putting much stress on a turbo. Modern engine management and sensors should also maintain correct operating parameters and promote reliability.
--
TG
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: John Ratsey on May 08, 2016, 09:48:08 PM
Quote:  "The Mk 3 doesn't currently score well on value for money..."
It depends what sector it's competing in.  When I decided to trade in my 7 1/2 yr old manual Jazz Mk 2 for an automatic, I was choosing between a Jazz Mk 3 SE or a VW 1.4 TSI Golf Match.  The VW Polo was too small in the back and the boot.
The problem is that many potential purchasers compare the Jazz with other vehicles of similar external size. We Jazz owners know that internally the vehicle belongs in a larger size category where prices are higher. External size and economy of a Fiesta with the internal space of a Focus is how I describe the Jazz.

Honda need to bring in a lower priced smaller car to help get people into the showrooms and also cater for those potential customers who only want the internal space of a Fiesta or Polo with price tag to match.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: edam on May 09, 2016, 06:38:52 PM
The bottom line is that the MK3 manual does not hurt to drive but I'm having problems with it running rough at low revs.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: John Ratsey on May 09, 2016, 09:10:55 PM
The bottom line is that the MK3 manual does not hurt to drive but I'm having problems with it running rough at low revs.
Is that rough when idling or rough when pulling away? The CVT Mk 3 always puts on a few revs (typically 2500 rpm) when pulling away. This appears to be by design to compensate for the engine not having a lot of power at the bottom end of the rev range. The manual version might need similar treatment but we need someone with the manual gearbox to confirm this.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5679 on May 10, 2016, 10:28:52 AM
... The CVT Mk 3 always puts on a few revs (typically 2500 rpm) when pulling away. This appears to be by design to compensate for the engine not having a lot of power at the bottom end of the rev range. ...

Have you had a change of mind?  On a previous append in another thread, I believe you wrote that you viewed this initial revving when pulling away as a positive aspect of the Mk3 CVT behaviour leading to a reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.  In what you wrote above, this initial revving could be interpreted as an attempt to cover up a flaw or deficiency in the design of the engine.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: John Ratsey on May 10, 2016, 11:12:34 AM
Have you had a change of mind?  On a previous append in another thread, I believe you wrote that you viewed this initial revving when pulling away as a positive aspect of the Mk3 CVT behaviour leading to a reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.  In what you wrote above, this initial revving could be interpreted as an attempt to cover up a flaw or deficiency in the design of the engine.
I've not changed my mind but may be re-interpreting the evidence. The lower end of the rev range is tuned for economy (probably Atkinson cycle which has been mentioned in some of the Mk 3 reviews) which isn't good for accelerating although it provides enough power to cruise very smoothly (eg 60 mph at around 2000 rpm). The initial revving of the CVT version on pulling away gets the car quickly up to a speed where it can then drop back into the economy mode. Hence, if someone with the manual gearbox is trying to accelerate with the revs a bit low then the engine is going to struggle (not recommended at the best of times but particularly with a new engine). However, we need more info from edam about the symptoms before jumping to conclusions. It could well be that something has escaped Honda's quality control.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: edam on May 10, 2016, 12:01:17 PM
I have been giving it a drive around this morning and the roughness is most noticeable at about 1500rpm in 1st gear
If you are stuck in traffic doing 8 -10 mph then its not pleasant to drive.
Also when you are changing up then the revs drop to the rough area again so I'm having to keep the revs up more.
I must also add that's its a secondhand Mk3 with 4000 miles on the clock
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: ColinS on May 10, 2016, 08:38:08 PM
You have a fault.  I don't see any issue like this on mine, you can drive it at 1000 rpm and it runs smoothly but clearly does not accelerate well at such revs unless in first gear.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5679 on May 11, 2016, 09:52:51 AM
... I've not changed my mind but may be re-interpreting the evidence. ...

I wish someone from Honda would explain why they changed the behaviour of the CVT in the Mk3 Jazz.  Loyal customers should not be left in a position of interpreting the evidence.  If a good explanation were forthcoming, and I agreed with what Honda are trying to achieve, I might be more inclined to buy a Mk3 Jazz.

Some months ago now, I sent an email to Honda UK/Europe asking for explanations on why they changed the behaviour of the CVT and the other aspects of the Jazz that are preventing me from ordering a Mk3.  They simply forwarded the email to my local dealer.  And, of course, the dealer could not provide any explanations and, most disappointingly, they were not prepared to intervene on my behalf.  Their basic philosophy is that they sell what they are given.  "Theirs not to reason why ..."
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: John Ratsey on May 11, 2016, 10:17:29 AM
I have been giving it a drive around this morning and the roughness is most noticeable at about 1500rpm in 1st gear
If you are stuck in traffic doing 8 -10 mph then its not pleasant to drive.
Also when you are changing up then the revs drop to the rough area again so I'm having to keep the revs up more.
I must also add that's its a secondhand Mk3 with 4000 miles on the clock
There's definitely something not right: The engine should be smoother at 1500rpm than at 1000rpm.

Take it back to be fixed - it should be easy to demonstrate the problem without leaving the dealer's forecourt.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: edam on May 11, 2016, 11:12:19 AM
It went in this morning and was checked out but they could not find anything wrong.
I test drove it with a tech. and it was Ok as well.
I will put some Momentum in it and see how it goes.
Also where do I put my trolley £1 coin . The little cubby hole behind the steering column has gone.!!!
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: guest5679 on May 11, 2016, 11:36:11 AM
... When I decided to trade in my 7 1/2 yr old manual Jazz Mk 2 for an automatic, I was choosing between a Jazz Mk 3 SE or a VW 1.4 TSI Golf Match. ...

I've sent you a personal message regarding your choice of a Honda Jazz instead of a VW Golf.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: robark on May 11, 2016, 05:19:13 PM
I have been giving it a drive around this morning and the roughness is most noticeable at about 1500rpm in 1st gear
If you are stuck in traffic doing 8 -10 mph then its not pleasant to drive.
Also when you are changing up then the revs drop to the rough area again so I'm having to keep the revs up more.
I must also add that's its a secondhand Mk3 with 4000 miles on the clock

I also have a mark 3 manual with the 1.3 engine. It exhibits the same rough behaviour you describe at low revs, in fact it sounds almost like a diesel with increased noise accompanying the roughness until the revs build up.
I attribute this characteristic to the fact that at low revs the engine is working in the "Atkinson" mode which is characterised by a higher efficiency caused by an increased increased compression ratio (which is in turn caused by a modification in the valve timing at low revs).
I agree with John Ratsey when he makes the point that the higher revs that the cvt versions exhibit on pull away is to overcome the weak engine porformance at low revs. It appears to me that the cvt version of the mark 3 is the better option to buy, if you want decent acceleration from standstill, unless you are prepared to make more than average use of the accelerator pedal with the manual version.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: culzean on May 11, 2016, 05:54:15 PM
I attribute this characteristic to the fact that at low revs the engine is working in the "Atkinson" mode which is characterised by a higher efficiency caused by an increased increased compression ratio (which is in turn caused by a modification in the valve timing at low revs).

I think Atkinson cycle (the Honda i-VTEC version) leaves the inlet valves open as the piston is going up, this forces some of the cylinder petrol / air mixture back into inlet manifold,  while this is happening the throttle is actually open more than it should be for the revs (a bit magical) this reduces 'pumping losses' that happen when engine is sucking against a closed / partially closed inlet manifold.  Allowing some of the mixture to escape actually reduces compression ratio at low throttle openings,  which is 'Atkinson cycle' ala Honda. 

http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/ (http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/)

Apparently Honda have in the pipeline a direct injection Atkinson cycle engine ?? but direct injection engines, whether diesel or petrol suffer from high Nox emissions - but maybe Honda have a trick,  direct injection engines allow a higher compression ratio (up to over 16:1) because fuel is not compressed with the air in the cylinder,  but is injected when compression stroke is nearly finished, this prevents engine knocking (pre-ignition).

Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: edam on May 11, 2016, 06:56:14 PM
So basically I have not just changed from a type of gearbox but also I have changed from a type of engine  as well.
Too many steps perhaps .
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: robark on May 11, 2016, 08:26:32 PM
I attribute this characteristic to the fact that at low revs the engine is working in the "Atkinson" mode which is characterised by a higher efficiency caused by an increased increased compression ratio (which is in turn caused by a modification in the valve timing at low revs).

I think Atkinson cycle (the Honda i-VTEC version) leaves the inlet valves open as the piston is going up, this forces some of the cylinder petrol / air mixture back into inlet manifold,  while this is happening the throttle is actually open more than it should be for the revs (a bit magical) this reduces 'pumping losses' that happen when engine is sucking against a closed / partially closed inlet manifold.  Allowing some of the mixture to escape actually reduces compression ratio at low throttle openings,  which is 'Atkinson cycle' ala Honda. 

You are correct and I was wrong, the compression ratio is reduced during the Atkinson mode of operation. The 13.5 compression ratio seems to quite high for a petrol power plant. Maybe a higher octane fuel may help prevent the roughness that I and others have experienced with this engine at low revs. I will try some Shell Nitro Plus and see if that has any affect.

http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/ (http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/RiVTEC/)

Apparently Honda have in the pipeline a direct injection Atkinson cycle engine ?? but direct injection engines, whether diesel or petrol suffer from high Nox emissions - but maybe Honda have a trick,  direct injection engines allow a higher compression ratio (up to over 16:1) because fuel is not compressed with the air in the cylinder,  but is injected when compression stroke is nearly finished, this prevents engine knocking (pre-ignition).
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: John Ratsey on May 11, 2016, 09:17:23 PM
I'm not 100% convinced that the rough engine problem is normal. At the end of August before I confirmed my order for the Mk 3 my dealer took me for a spin in his newly-received Mk 3 manual (hence I got him to drive - I didn't want to trash the gearbox!) but everything seemed to run very smoothly but perhaps we didn't do much crawling along at the problem rev range.

Go up a long reasonable steep hill where you can give the engine a good workout. That might blow out a few cobwebs and get it running like new.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: ColinS on May 11, 2016, 10:06:44 PM
As I said before, mine is absolutely fine so it cannot possibly be a generic problem or they would all be like it.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Madelvic on May 12, 2016, 06:17:07 PM
Pros and cons

Mk 3

More economical
Better spec by a long way
Better ride

Mk 2

Less evidence of cost saving
More storage space
Better trimmed (it's an insult to carpets to call the floor lining in the Mk3 a carpet)
Better looking (in my opinion)

Sadly I think both are way off the mark in terms of state of the art engines.  Daughter has a 1.0 triple VW Polo and it is a sewing machine in comparison  to the Jazz engines.  Quiet, rev, economical. Ford get a great write up too for their 1.0 engines
As long as they've had the recall work done, I guess.  Plenty have went pop due to coolant loss.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/user-article/111213/ford-focus-1-0 (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/user-article/111213/ford-focus-1-0)

As for the GK Jazz, I think it's very poor VFM and with very few options, (only one engine and three trim levels to choose from), it's hard to get excited about it.

Interesting perspective Chris.  I didn't know about the Ford issue and I've yet to drive one.

As for vfm I think the Jazz stacks up pretty well.  We had a look at a lot of competitor vehicles and a pro for me was all the options are included in the price which reflects in the residuals.  I've just sold an old Audi, that new had more than the cost of a new Jazz in extras, for heavens sake.   I was fortunate in being able to find a private buyer who valued the extras, but in recent conversations with dealers they gave no allowance for all the extras on my Audi

A choice of engines would be good.  Ours is noticeably loosening up with 1500 miles so I may have been a bit too harsh in my comments

Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: ColinS on May 13, 2016, 11:24:45 AM
A choice of engines would be good.  Ours is noticeably loosening up with 1500 miles so I may have been a bit too harsh in my comments
I agree.  I was most disappointed when I first drove mine but the salesman assured me that it would improve with miles.  Indeed, I now have just over 2000 miles on the clock and it has much better performance.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: edam on May 14, 2016, 06:10:05 PM
I think my problem with stuttering at low revs is worse when the air con is on. Despite another visit to a service dept. no fault has been found.
I think this will have to wait until I can compare it to a loan car when the service is due.

Also I'm surprised how low geared it is.
When I'm driving in 6th I still feel that I should change up to another gear. I can overtake on a motorway without having to change down to 5th and that was when I was going uphill!!!
Something else to check on a loan car
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: ColinS on May 15, 2016, 10:47:19 AM
Also I'm surprised how low geared it is.
When I'm driving in 6th I still feel that I should change up to another gear. I can overtake on a motorway without having to change down to 5th and that was when I was going uphill!!!
I am now getting quite intrigued.  How many revs are you showing at say 60mph in sixth grear?
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: VicW on May 15, 2016, 11:46:44 AM
The GE manual 1.4 that I had was very low geared at about 21mph/1000rpm.
My current GE facelift CVT is very highly geared at about 30mph/1000rpm but the CVT is very responsive changing down when a bit of boot is applied.

Vic.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: robark on May 15, 2016, 12:37:09 PM
According to the info given at www.automobile-catalog.com (http://www.automobile-catalog.com) , the gearing for the latest Manual version of the Jazz is, 22.2 mph/1000 rpm in 6th gear
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: edam on May 15, 2016, 02:38:25 PM
According to the info given at www.automobile-catalog.com (http://www.automobile-catalog.com) , the gearing for the latest Manual version of the Jazz is, 22.2 mph/1000 rpm in 6th gear

That seems about right as I was doing 70mph in 6th gear at 3000rpm.

I was expecting 6th to be more of a overdrive, from reading other comments on the forum, but that is not the case.

Also its worth noting that my Jazz has 4000 miles on the clock
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: John Ratsey on May 15, 2016, 05:58:39 PM
I would have also expected Honda to have provided higher gearing on the 6th gear. We know from the CVT version that the engine has the power at around 2200 rpm to move the car at 70mph. I now appreciate why I couldn't understand the reviewers who complained about engine noise on the motorway - they were obviously driving a manual Jazz.

Running the aircon inherently puts more load on the engine. It's possible that the CVT version increases the revs a bit to compensate.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: edam on May 15, 2016, 06:04:05 PM
The low gearing on the manual explains why the CVT is more economical.

Also I feel that rather than adding another gear to the Mk2 5 speed they have put another gear between 4 and 5 on the old box.
So you are driving 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5 ,5 if that makes sense
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: dzidrisiya on August 10, 2016, 10:05:40 PM
Mk3 over mk2 or 1 every time

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Kenneve on August 14, 2016, 11:03:21 AM
Hi Guys

My existing 2013 Honda Jazz EX CVT car recently went in for routine service and it's first MOT and I was provided with a 2016 Honda Jazz SE CVT as a courtesy car
This evaluation is based upon the desire to possibly part-exchange the car for a new one and my findings are compared with the existing car, over a distance of approximately 60 miles

Positive Points:-

1. The ride is much better and the suspension seems more compliant and able to soak up potholes/speed bumps more easily.
2. The steering is more precise and has a slightly stronger self centring action, so is less likely to wander on motorways etc.
3. The execution of the cruise control is improved with the ability to show the actual set cruise speed and also link to prevailing speed limits.
4. Fuel consumption seems to be marginally better.
5. Integration of a mobile phone is much improved with the ability to connect to the phone's directory etc.

Negative points:-

1. The engine seems noisier than the MK2 particularly under acceleration in the 2-3000 rpm  range sounding more akin to a high speed diesel engine than petrol. Noise levels at cruise speeds were acceptable.
2. The execution of the CVT is poor in comparison, again particularly in the mid range, where in order overtake someone, it was necessary to either floor the accelerator or flip the down paddle. There also appears to be a number of 'steps' in the gears, more akin to a conventional auto gearbox. The previous system is more progressive and proportional to pedal position.
3. My overall enjoyment was somewhat spoilt by my inability to properly see the instruments.They seem to be very poorly illuminated in daylight and no amount of adjustment with the control seemed to make much difference, could it be due to the change from an orange to blue backlight. It was a bright sunny day and I was not wearing sunglasses at the time. My dealer now tells me, that there is a specific procedure, to adjust the lights, which involves the auto lights being activated
4. The auto headlights seem to have mind of their own. At one point I was stopped at traffic lights under overhanging trees and the headlights came on.  What the guy in front of me thought, I can only guess! Unfortunately it is not possible to permanently disable the system, since the Off position is springloaded to Auto. Why? I know my existing car has auto headlights, but I can switch them off, if necessary. It would seem that the only way get round this problem, is to drive on sidelights, which of course defeats the object of DRLs.
5.   The armrest as part of the storage box, is useless and much too far away when the seat is raised.
It needs to be attached to the seat as previous, so that it rises and falls with the seat.
6. The boot floor would be far too flimsy when the polystyrene blocks are removed, to accommodate a spare wheel and needs to be stiffened up to  suit. My dealer now tells me that there is a polystyrene block available, designed to accommodate the spare wheel

So, whilst finding one or two details that I was not impressed with, I think overall there is a significant improvement compared with the previous car and have just ordered a EX CVT for delivery in September.
I just hope I have done the right thing and can live with these peculiar foibles.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: mikebore on August 14, 2016, 11:36:13 AM

2. The steering is more precise and has a slightly stronger self centring action, so is less likely to wander on motorways etc.
4. Fuel consumption seems to be marginally better.

Negative points:-

1. The engine seems noisier than the MK2 particularly under acceleration in the 2-3000 rpm  range sounding more akin to a high speed diesel engine than petrol. Noise levels at cruise speeds were acceptable.
2. The execution of the CVT is poor in comparison, again particularly in the mid range, where in order overtake someone, it was necessary to either floor the accelerator or flip the down paddle. There also appears to be a number of 'steps' in the gears, more akin to a conventional auto gearbox. The previous system is more progressive and proportional to pedal position.

I have just quoted the points I can strongly identify with after 2500miles of Mk3 ownership following previous Mk2.

The steering on the Mk2 was too light as well as having less self centering. More feedback from Mk3

Fuel consumption is a solid 10% better than my Mk2. I keep detailed records. I don't know if you regard this as marginal.

I agree about the engine being noisier, but mine has improved as it has run in. The quid pro quo is that mostly the car is more lively than the Mk2. I say mostly because, linked to the next point, there do seem some flat spots.

IMO the CVT feels different for two reasons:
1. Honda have stated that they have deliberately tried to make the CVT more like a normal automatic, presumably to counter the oft stated criticism that when you try and accelerate a CVT you put your foot on the gas and the engine revs up but nothing else happens until the car catches up.
2. The engine uses two different cycles achieved via valve timing: the economical Atkinson at lower power and the conventional Otto at higher power. The CVT has a extra job to to manage the transition between cycles as well as everything else.

My personal experience is that my true feelings about any car are not really apparent until I have driven it for a few months. In the case of the Mk3, while I liked it when it was new and on a test drive, I like it a whole lot more now it feels totally familiar.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Kenneve on August 14, 2016, 12:06:08 PM
Hi Mike

Many thanks for your quick response, it's just the sort of thing I was looking for, to put my mind at rest regarding some of my concerns
Certainly  the 10% improvement in fuel consumption is a good plus point and I'm pleased to here that the engine has quietened down having done this mileage.
I expect the auto headlights will bug me for while, will just have get used to them.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: monkeydave on August 16, 2016, 11:05:00 AM
maybe the engine is noisier because it is twin cam? and is the 10% better fuel, do you use supermarket or shell etc, i seem to get 5mpg more on shell than morrisons and that is my workings not the display on my mk2.

what revs is the mk3 doing on the motorway at 70 in 6th gear?
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: Downsizer on August 16, 2016, 09:35:33 PM
My 10% fuel consumption gain is using supermarket 95 in both the Mk2 and the Mk 3, mostly ASDA. There has been much discussion about fuel types elsewhere in this forum.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: VicW on August 25, 2016, 04:02:34 PM
From what I have read in this topic I would be happy to change my 2011 EX CVT for a new Jazz but I would buy the 'S' model with CVT as it has everything I need in the spec.
Fortunately it doesn't have the 'Connect Infotainment' system which I do not need and is in any case nothing but a pain in the 'arris going by reports in this forum.

Vic.
Title: Re: Mk2 or Mk3??
Post by: trebor1652 on August 26, 2016, 02:48:28 PM
My ex CVT does 70mph at 2200rpm and has just returned an indicated 52.4 mpg on motorway and 45 minutes of stop start driving.
Quite pleased with that.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk