lack of choice on engine size

[andruec]

The A55 near Rhaullt in North Wales is a steep, long section of dual carriageway, it actually has a crawler lane. If I remember correctly with CC set at 60mph the revs on my CVT car climb steadily from 2,000 to 3,000 then jump to 4,000 and climb to 4,500 before dropping back to 4,000 half way up then climbing up to 4,500 for the summit before dropping back 2,000.

Shortly after I bought the car I drove it and set the CC to 80 to see what happened. I don't remember what the RPMs did but the car maintained 80mph all the way up. One of my previous Jazz did the same at 90mph for a laugh. That was several years ago and the only thing I remember is my girlfriend at the time telling my pet budgie to flap his wings just in case. From what I remember it managed to hold 90mph but only just. Damn' budgie clearly wasn't trying

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dJxndpYLoV6wg4Dk6

[peteo48]

Know that stretch quite well although not been up it for a bit. I'm interested to see how the CVT manages a hill in cruise control.

[Jocko]

Don't try that hill in fourth in a 1.3! I was on that road yesterday.

I take it that is due to the Atkinson Cycle. Surely, the pre-Atkinson engines were a lot more versatile at lower revs?

[Skyrider]

Don't try that hill in fourth in a 1.3! I was on that road yesterday.

I take it that is due to the Atkinson Cycle. Surely, the pre-Atkinson engines were a lot more versatile at lower revs?

I don't know, but would expect that to be correct. The 1.3 is plenty powerful enough for the car, it is the delivery of the power that is not suited to a non hybrid car. My 1960s MINI was about 30bhp in total so delivered properly the 100 bhp of the 1.3 should be adequate.

[John Ratsey]

I traded in a Mk. 3 Jazz CVT for an HR-V CVT. The Jazz was economical but whenever I tried to accelerate the engine revved above 3,000 rpm. This burst of power (and extra noise) meant I often found myself exceeding the speed limit and having to slow down. If, on the other hand, I was easy on the right pedal to avoid the engine shifting out of Atkinson cycle mode then any build-up of speed was painfully slow. After a year of putting up with this behaviour I opted for the more relaxed drive which the HR-V delivers very satisfactorily (and the 1.5 Jazz must provide even better as there's a bit less vehicle being moved by the same powertrain). A 1.5 Jazz SE would be a useful addition to Honda's line-up and provide the more relaxed driver experience without paying for the extra bling. I agree that the 1.3 engine would be a good choice if coupled with a hybrid system to provide the low end power.

Perhaps Honda were planning to put the 1.0 turbo into the Jazz but once they saw the real life fuel economy (and the extra emissions) they had a change of heart and opted for the HR-V drive-train (which must have needed minimal modifications given that the HR-V uses the Jazz platform). Honda didn't get something right with the Civic - see https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/honda/civic-2017 - the 1.0 turbo Civic is thirstier than the 1.5 turbo so it must be struggle to drive the 1.0 in an economical manner.

[andruec]

Know that stretch quite well although not been up it for a bit. I'm interested to see how the CVT manages a hill in cruise control.

I remember it (just) from before the the DC was built. My parents have lived in Llandudno since before I left Polytechnic and I've travelled it four or five times a year for the last 30 years when visiting them. The DC is a big improvement (especially the Rhuallt section) but it can be a pain when it gets congested. I've never known a DC like it - vehicles travelling at 40/50 in lane one with plenty of room between them and vehicles in lane two travelling nose to tail at 60mph.

It'll be odd when my Dad finally passes. I'll no longer have any reason to travel that route. Hopefully he's got a few more years in him yet.

[Jocko]

Perhaps Honda were planning to put the 1.0 turbo into the Jazz but once they saw the real life fuel economy (and the extra emissions) they had a change of heart and opted for the HR-V drive-train (which must have needed minimal modifications given that the HR-V uses the Jazz platform). Honda didn't get something right with the Civic - see https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/honda/civic-2017 - the 1.0 turbo Civic is thirstier than the 1.5 turbo so it must be struggle to drive the 1.0 in an economical manner.

My brother was in today and is talking about buying a Jazz. I suggested he tries the 1.5 Sport.  He would prefer a diesel (he currently has a 14 plate 320D xDrive Touring Estate, but fancies a "radical change"). My sister-in-law bought a 1.0 EcoBoost Fiesta, earlier this year. My brother says he loves it, and would have one in a minute, but the fuel consumption is terrible, struggling to get better than 40 mpg on a tankful of mixed driving motoring.

[Skyrider]

Perhaps Honda were planning to put the 1.0 turbo into the Jazz but once they saw the real life fuel economy (and the extra emissions) they had a change of heart and opted for the HR-V drive-train (which must have needed minimal modifications given that the HR-V uses the Jazz platform). Honda didn't get something right with the Civic - see https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/honda/civic-2017 - the 1.0 turbo Civic is thirstier than the 1.5 turbo so it must be struggle to drive the 1.0 in an economical manner.

My brother was in today and is talking about buying a Jazz. I suggested he tries the 1.5 Sport.  He would prefer a diesel (he currently has a 14 plate 320D xDrive Touring Estate, but fancies a "radical change"). My sister-in-law bought a 1.0 EcoBoost Fiesta, earlier this year. My brother says he loves it, and would have one in a minute, but the fuel consumption is terrible, struggling to get better than 40 mpg on a tankful of mixed driving motoring.

My Sport is giving low 40s in mixed use, last tankful 44.5 mpg. I must have been taking it easy!

[John Ratsey]

My Sport is giving low 40s in mixed use, last tankful 44.5 mpg. I must have been taking it easy!

Or maybe warmer weather, which appears to result in a substantial reduction in the fuel-guzzling engine warm-up period.

You shouldn't have much difficulty in getting 50 mpg or more from a tankful. I've just got home after a 2,000 mile trip to/from and around Scotland in my HR-V and 2003 miles using 165.7 litres indicates, by my reckoning, 55 mpg.

[Skyrider]

I will be doing Scotland to London and back soon, that will be a good check over about 1,000 miles with a bit of running about included.

[culzean]

My Sport is giving low 40s in mixed use, last tankful 44.5 mpg. I must have been taking it easy!

Or maybe warmer weather, which appears to result in a substantial reduction in the fuel-guzzling engine warm-up period.

You shouldn't have much difficulty in getting 50 mpg or more from a tankful. I've just got home after a 2,000 mile trip to/from and around Scotland in my HR-V and 2003 miles using 165.7 litres indicates, by my reckoning, 55 mpg.

There is another variable to consider with fuel, during the winter the fuel has more volatile components in it to assist it to evaporate in colder weather for starting and smooth running,  in summer the mix is different with less volatility. 

https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-reid-vapor-pressure

[guest7675]

I heard mention of 1.5 turbo the sport is non turbo in the jazz which i think is better due to long term reliability my daihatsu 1.3  turbo was water cooled but needed servicing more and oil cooled need oil changed more often although ford and other new 1lr turbos go longer on servicing i still wonder if them small engines will be as good in high miles as good old large engines as you need to rev them more.

[Jocko]

i still wonder if them small engines will be as good in high miles as good old large engines as you need to rev them more.

I have my doubts. They are too highly stressed for my liking. My biggest worry would be the longevity of the turbo.

[Skyrider]

+1

Another reason I bought a jazz, no turbo!

[guest4871]

+1

Another reason I bought a jazz, no turbo!

+1