Mk2 or Mk3??

[guest5168]

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...

I test drove an mk2 recently and it was improvement for sure,except the build quality seemed very very cheap.

[mikebore]

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 

[Hobo]

I can almost buy a house for that here.

Out of interest where is here?

[guest5168]

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 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

[Madelvic]

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

[edam]

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!!

[guest5211]

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

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.

[John Ratsey]

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.

[guest1372]

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

[monkeydave]

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

[guest5251]

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.

[culzean]

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.

[guest5589]

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 ....

[guest5589]

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. .

[Downsizer]

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.