Mk2 v Mk3 Jazz Honest John

[Johnocyprus]

In today’s DT HJ replies to an enquiry about the Mk 3 Jazz and recommends the Mk 2 saying that it’s more practical.
I’ve just bought a Mk3 Jazz CVT to replace my wife’s Mk1 which she’s pleased with and have been tasked by No1 daughter to find a newer CVT to replace her Mk1.
Is the Mk2 better than the Mk3?

[peteo48]

It's a very good question. My last Mk2 was a 1.4 EX Manual and I felt it was an excellent car. It had a panoramic roof, discontinued on the Mk3, and more cupholders (the Mk 2 had one on the passenger side). Another good feature of the Mk2 - discontinued on the Mk3 - was the two compartment glove box - the top section could be used to keep a drink cool as the air con was routed into this.

In terms of driving I think the Mk3 has the edge, it gives slightly better fuel consumption and I felt the acceleration was sharper (although the figures don't really reflect that).

On balance I think there is evidence of cost cutting on the Mk3.

[Derkie54]

I would sooner have a better driving experience, better fuel consumption and acceleration than the ability to keep a drink cool and more cupholders.

[Westy36]

Looking forward to a test drive of the Mk3 at some point. I prefer the looks and would like cruise control. However, I am not a fan of the extra tech fitted in the cabin touchscreen wise and the collision avoidance gubbins.

That said, I am hoping for another few years out of our Mk2, as with just 90k on the clock it's barely run in!

 

[John Ratsey]

I parted company with my early Mk 3 CVT after one year as I didn't like the way the CVT system was configured. I found it difficult to do moderate acceleration as anything more than a light touch on the accelerator resulted in the engine revs increasing to around 3000 rpm where the engine noise was noticeable (and the car often exceeding a 30 mph speed limit). I believe that Honda configured the system this way because the engine isn't very potent below around 3000 rpm due to the Atkinson cycle mode (which helps fuel economy https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom/fuel-economy-record-attempt but we don't all drive at a steady 40mph) . I've seen comments indicating that Honda modified the engine / CVT programming as part of the mid-term refresh to provide more progressive behavour.

One internal difference is that the Mk 3 has more generous rear seat legroom (better than many large cars) but at the expense of boot space. I suspect that Honda made this change so that the Mk 3 seats can be folded forwards, even with the front seats at their rear-most position, without having to remove the headrests. Look at both and decide if boot space takes precedence over ease of folding the rear seats. Both cars have the cinema seat option for the back seats.

The Mk 3 boot floor is somewhat flimsy and is supported by a big lump of plastic foam containing a few tools placed in the spare wheel well. If you put a spare wheel in the well then you have to improvise some boot floor support https://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8099.0 .