Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums
Honda Jazz Forums => Honda Jazz Mk3 2015 - 2020 => Topic started by: guest3042 on January 14, 2017, 10:05:37 AM
-
I have a Jazz Hybrid (2011) and am thinking of getting the Mk3, but I have read so many differing reviews I am confused.
Is the Mk3 so much better than the Mk2? Are the niggles, like automatic lights and the infotainment system, much discussed on this forum, deal breakers?
Is the EX worse over rough roads and bumps than the SE?
If you read Jeremy Clarkson's review you wouldn't touch the Mk3 with a barge pole. I don't take him too seriously, but reviews like his put doubts in your head.
Does anyone out there regret buying the Mk3?
Thanks
-
I have the EX and am very pleased with it.
Clarkson, Clarkson who?
What a dick head he is.
Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk
-
The only thing I have noticed (and bear in mind I have no experience of the Mk3) is that the residuals of late Mk2s - like mine - seem to be holding up very well - is that a sign that people want a Jazz but are put off by the Mk3?
The touchscreen is a major issue but Honda are not alone in this. I have been considering getting an electric car and have watched and read loads of reviews of cars like the Nissan Leaf and the issue of the touch screen comes up again and again.
It is technology for the sake of it and offers nothing in return. Especially when it comes to tuning your radio. In the case of the Leaf some people prefer the bog standard car (the Visia) because it has no touchscreen.
Given the age profile of Jazz owners, the information screen maybe a major cock up.
-
Thanks for your observations. I would prefer to do without a touchscreen, but I understand the radio can be operated from the steering wheel once tuned. Whatever else is on there I could probably ignore.
As for the age profile, I think Honda have been trying to target younger buyers, hence the funky colours of the Mk3.
-
I had the hybrid for over 4 years then traded it in for the Mk 3. My reasons for swapping included (i) I wanted somewhere to put the spare wheel other than taking up space in the boot; (ii) I suffered badly from the Mk 2's dashboard glare on windowscreen problem (this appears to be related to driver's eyeball position - some people notice it and others don't) and a test in the Mk 3 revealed that the problem was less; (iii) much of my driving was in out-of-town situations where the hybrid didn't give much of an improvement to the economy and (i) I thought that the hybrid should go to someone who did higher mileage so they could try to wear it out before it died of old age.
My initial observations about the Mk 3 are at http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=7356.0 (http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=7356.0). Other threads comparing the Mk 2 and Mk 3 include http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8038.0 (http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8038.0), http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=7893.0 (http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=7893.0) and http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8033.0 (http://clubjazz.org/forum/index.php?topic=8033.0).
The Mk 3 proved nearly as economical as the hybrid (57.8 mpg vis 58.8 mpg) under my mainly out of town driving. However, there is the well-discussed proneness of the Mk 3 to rev the engine when pulling away (due to, we think, the low end of the engine rev range being Atkinson cycle and set up for economy) which the hybrid didn't need due to the boost from the motor. I also discovered that while the windscreen glare problem on the Mk 3 was less than on the Mk 2, it was still there.
I've now moved to the HR-V where the engine is able to accelerate the car without a lot of fuss and the windscreen glare problem happens to be minimal (but it swallows about 20% more fuel). In getting the HR-V I decided to to tolerate some of the annoyances such as the touchscreen (the HR-V adds another one for the heating controls), uncontrollable auto headlights and over-sensitve parking sensors.
I would suggest you keep the hybrid for another year and see whether the speculation about a 1 litre turbo engine appearing in the Jazz comes to materialise. Honda might update a few other aspects at the same time.
-
Thanks John. I am beginning to come around to your way of thinking, particularly in view of the proposed turbo engine which was mentioned to me by the Honda dealership salesman.
-
Is the Mk3 so much better than the Mk2? Are the niggles, like automatic lights and the infotainment system, much discussed on this forum, deal breakers?
The automatic lights seem fine to me, no different to the Mk2. The automatic main beam is a bit iffy for commuting but does surprisingly well. The wipers are different to the Mk2 though. They aren't bad but I found I could just leave them alone with the Mk2 whereas I keep having to tweak the speed on the Mk3. Also when it's cold the wipers seem to trigger on condensation so I've had to disable them when leaving work on cold evenings.
The infotainment unit seems to be fixed. It's still not a particularly well laid out UI but if you buy a new Jazz today I don't think you'll experience any glitches.
Is the EX worse over rough roads and bumps than the SE?
Dunno but my Mk3 EX feels better than the Mk2 and a lot better than the Mk1.
If you read Jeremy Clarkson's review you wouldn't touch the Mk3 with a barge pole.
I couldn't care less what that fool thinks.Does anyone out there regret buying the Mk3?
They might. I still say that next time I'll actually look at the opposition first but now that the infotainment centre issue is resolved I'm a lot happier.
It's a good car. It could be better but if you can't think of anything else to spend your money on then it's a good upgrade from the Mk2 in most aspects. My only main niggle is the rearrangement of the boot. Using the spare wheel well as storage on the Mk2 was inspired and well executed. Using a bit of hardboard covered with felt for the floor and filling the wheel well with polystyrene on the Mk3 was stupid.
-
the touchscreen (the HR-V adds another one for the heating controls)
So does the EX Jazz. Wasn't too much of a problem in summer but in winter having to glance down and fumble to activate windscreen or rear window demisters then not being sure if I managed it is quite irritating.
-
I've read enough to know that the extra benefits like the 1-2 mpg better don't outweigh the many many negatives (for me) I'll keep a mk2 facelift EX for a while yet I think.
-
Thanks for all your helpful comments.
One other thing. Is it me, or does the Mk3 have slightly less legroom in the driver's seat than the previous model? It feels to me that the seat should go back a couple of inches more. The rear seat space is definitely better.
-
I've read enough to know that the extra benefits like the 1-2 mpg better don't outweigh the many many negatives (for me) I'll keep a mk2 facelift EX for a while yet I think.
I think I'd have to drive one before making a judgement but the Mk2 Jazz was/is so good that a quantum leap to something better would be really hard to pull off. I just wonder if by trying to appeal to a younger market (in the UK anyway) but retain it's old customer base it has fallen between 2 stools. A pity that there is no hybrid but the 1.0 litre turbo charged engine could be a game changer?
-
As you have a previous model Jazz you are bound to make comparisons, just remember that the Mk3 is a complete redesign and should be compared to equivalent cars from other manufacturers as well as your current Jazz. My Mk3 is my first Honda, it suits my needs and I did not compare it to the older model Jazz. Don't fall for the "It hasn't got a turbo marketing waffle" my last car was a turbo diesel, the jazz has a 100 BHP engine, plenty adequate for the type of car and it has better performance than any previous jazz sold in the UK.
-
I was thinking that the turbo could provide more torque and power at the lower end of the revs range (and hence reduce the Jazz's need for revs when pulling away from the traffic lights) rather than just provide more power. However, that assumes that the turbo boost can work with the Atkinson cycle in order to maintain the current economy when cruising.
-
I have no problem with using an engine as it is intended and designed to be used. Why do some people seem to be terrified of using its rev range? You will not hurt it. If you want a low reving engine buy a diesel.
-
I have no problem with using an engine as it is intended and designed to be used. Why do some people seem to be terrified of using its rev range? You will not hurt it. If you want a low reving engine buy a diesel.
Fair comment but people are becoming accustomed to effortless acceleration both from turbo charged diesels and the new generation of turbo charged petrol engines. It's all to do with how a car feels. It's why people rave about the acceleration of electric cars - the Nissan Leaf has more or less identical performance to the Jazz - 0-60 in around 11 seconds - but delivers its torque almost immediately.
None of this bothers me as I am an old git and drive pretty conservatively these days so the Jazz suits me fine but people want effortless acceleration, they don't want to have to push the car.
Laziness I guess but that's what people want.
-
Laziness I guess but that's what people want.
Too true, there is a saying, which probably originates in the USA. You buy horsepower, but drive torque. This comes from the big low powered high torque V8 engines. A reason I used diesel for 30odd years when I was a high mileage driver. Fortunately I have not forgotten how to drive a low torque petrol car. And it is ideal for my current use. I usually run my cars for at least 100,000 miles and am looking for a simple reliable engine and car. The current trend of leasing a car like a mobile phone is not suitable for me.
-
I have no problem with using an engine as it is intended and designed to be used. Why do some people seem to be terrified of using its rev range? You will not hurt it. If you want a low reving engine buy a diesel.
Fair comment but people are becoming accustomed to effortless acceleration both from turbo charged diesels and the new generation of turbo charged petrol engines. It's all to do with how a car feels. It's why people rave about the acceleration of electric cars - the Nissan Leaf has more or less identical performance to the Jazz - 0-60 in around 11 seconds - but delivers its torque almost immediately.
None of this bothers me as I am an old git and drive pretty conservatively these days so the Jazz suits me fine but people want effortless acceleration, they don't want to have to push the car.
Laziness I guess but that's what people want.
People better get used to not driving Diesels as they won't be around for much longer, same with turbo petrol really as they have trouble with NOx as well. My brother is a lifelong Diesel man, but his next car will be a petrol, he hates the complication of modern diesels and also realises that if he gets a Diesel today, in 12 months time it will be worth peanuts (if he can sell it at all).
-
Just been driving a 2016 family hatchback (by a major world car maker) 1.4 turbo petrol automatic for a week. The acceleration was instant and I can understand why people (including car magazine journalists) become addicted to these turbo engines. However for me there are several downsides. This kind of performance could be described as 'fun,fun,fun' but is totally inappropriate for local road driving conditions if not downright dangerous in terms of speed and relationship with safety minded speed limits (pedestrian and cyclist safety included). Having said that the car did have a speed limiter which was essential to use to keep the speed down (this is surely a crazy necessity). The second downside was economy. 37 MPG average (according to the car's computer) compared to my MK3 Jazz CVT of 52 MPG. People DO NOT seem to relate their speed of travel to MPG and do not reduce their speed even when the price of fuel goes up. Speed is time and time seems to be in short supply these days everyone being in hurry to get from A to B and being stuck in traffic congestion a lot of the time aggravates this. So use of the accelerator (or rather not having to use the accelerator much because a turbo does it for you) is a way for them to hit back at time and have a little fun, as well as competing with the other drivers also stuck or held back in the traffic congestion. Once they get on the motorway they tend to migrate to the fast lane where the driving conditions are just a speeded up version of the congestion they experience on local roads. This can happen easily with turbo engines. It's dog eats dog. I would prefer to keep out of it.
-
The second downside was economy. 37 MPG average (according to the car's computer) compared to my MK3 Jazz CVT of 52 MPG. People DO NOT seem to relate their speed of travel to MPG and do not reduce their speed even when the price of fuel goes up.
You don't get something for nothing, more power needs more fuel. The petrol engine suffers from something a diesel does not - pumping losses, this means the petrol engine is most of the time sucking against a closed or partly closed throttle (more so at lower revs) which takes power to do it, the diesel does not have a throttle, if you want it to go faster you squirt more fuel in. By downsizing a petrol engine and 'running it harder' (throttle open more for a given speed) by fitting a turbo makers reduced the pumping losses and so increased efficiency (also less friction), but as the turbo engine runs hotter, also NOx increased, so we will probably be going back to larger non-turbo engines to reduce NOx (and in most cases better mpg ironically).
-
Many many years ago, I worked with a chap, who drove a Lotus 7, I believe now called a Caterham 7. Said car had a Ford engine with a Turbo? more probably a supercharger. He was in traffic in Bayswater, higher side of Hyde Park and decided to beat the traffic to the next lights. Oh dear, very expensive as he must have pushed the revs too high and was left sitting in heavy traffic having deposited what was originally an engine all along the road.
Yes, I know things have moved on but there will always be someone trying to push the envelope.
-
Good day, as the demise of diesel seems to be on the agenda, where does that leave the caravan owner for instance? Relatively small (2.2 litre) diesels can happily pull medium sized caravans. Camper vans have vastly superior mpg using diesel.
I don't drive either but a Jazz isn't the answer. Are we back to 3 litre V8 petrols or a boom in static caravans.
Just a thought!
happy Monday ;D
-
Does anyone out there regret buying the Mk3?
I have no regrets about changing from an early MK 2 manual to a MK 3 CVT, though I'm not suggesting it's a vast improvement. I have no problem with the engine - you soon get used to using the right foot appropriately. The EU has adopted Real World emissions testing and expects to bring it into force in September 2017. Small petrol turbos may have difficulties passing this, so if Honda doesn't get type approval for a turbo Jazz before then, it may never happen. I'm getting real world consumption of 51 mpg, an improvement of about 10% over the Mk 2.m
-
Good day, as the demise of diesel seems to be on the agenda, where does that leave the caravan owner for instance? Relatively small (2.2 litre) diesels can happily pull medium sized caravans. Camper vans have vastly superior mpg using diesel.
I don't drive either but a Jazz isn't the answer. Are we back to 3 litre V8 petrols or a boom in static caravans.
Just a thought!
happy Monday ;D
I read a piece the other day about a family that bought a Diesel motorhome and found out later that because they lived within London congestion charge zone it would cost them £100 a day to keep it by their house, and £500 fine for not paying. There seems to be a few electric delivery vans appearing in London, and some experts believe there is more chance of EV of the future being used for commercial purposes and EV cars not so popular, this is because of more structured routes for deliveries and better planned charging opportunities.
-
Good day, as the demise of diesel seems to be on the agenda, where does that leave the caravan owner for instance? Relatively small (2.2 litre) diesels can happily pull medium sized caravans. Camper vans have vastly superior mpg using diesel.
I don't drive either but a Jazz isn't the answer. Are we back to 3 litre V8 petrols or a boom in static caravans.
Just a thought!
happy Monday ;D
Maybe caravans have changed a lot in the last twenty years but my family pulled various four-birth models around large swathes of the UK and even into France and Germany with cars that had between 1.8 and 2.0 litre petrol engines.
For instance here is a picture of everyone except me (https://goo.gl/photos/Dmf1b1wBPX7WF7JTA) (in much, much younger days) and a caravan happily pulled by a 1.8l Nissan Bluebird.
-
Good day, as the demise of diesel seems to be on the agenda, where does that leave the caravan owner for instance?
I think it's more a matter of steering people away from diesels by tightening up on the emissions rules, regulations and measurements. These are most likely to impact on the small engines. However, this will take some years to substantially reduce the number of diesel vehicles on the roads unless the government either has a scrappage scheme (which the manufacturers would love) or changes the annual tax to include an air quality level on diesel engined vehicles.
-
Just been driving a 2016 family hatchback (by a major world car maker) 1.4 turbo petrol automatic for a week. The acceleration was instant and I can understand why people (including car magazine journalists) become addicted to these turbo engines. However for me there are several downsides. This kind of performance could be described as 'fun,fun,fun' but is totally inappropriate for local road driving conditions if not downright dangerous in terms of speed and relationship with safety minded speed limits (pedestrian and cyclist safety included).
That's a really good point. One of the faster Teslas does 0-60 in 2.6 seconds and I read a review which said that this level of acceleration is absolutely dangerous in the wrong hands. An over enthusiastic right foot and suddenly you are doing 60 without knowing it.
-
That's a really good point. One of the faster Teslas does 0-60 in 2.6 seconds and I read a review which said that this level of acceleration is absolutely dangerous in the wrong hands. An over enthusiastic right foot and suddenly you are doing 60 without knowing it.
I don't know how many times the Tesla will do 0-60 in that time before battery is flat, they call it 'ludicrous' mode LOL.
We all know what effect hard acceleration has on fuel consumption in a 'normal' car, can't see that Tesla would be any different, the Tesla battery range is calculated at a steady 55mph, anything over that speed drops the range. In a test I saw recently doing UK motorway speeds dropped the range from 300 to just over 200 miles.
-
It's all very well doing 0 to 60 in 2.6 seconds, but by the time you have realised you are doing 60 and stopped planting your foot on the floor you are going a lot faster.
-
I read a piece the other day about a family that bought a Diesel motorhome and found out later that because they lived within London congestion charge zone it would cost them £100 a day to keep it by their house, and £500 fine for not paying.
My London home is 200m outside the CC zone so I'm quite conscious of the rules. Residents within the CCZ get a 90% discount +£10 annual fee on one car per resident (DVLA + Electoral register), so you have to put one vehicle in each family members name. Day parking on your drive/garage/NCP is not charged, kerbside is chargeable* (£10.50 - 90% = £1.05 pd) in addition to any resident permit charges.
Living near the border grants no discount.
--
TG
* If it doesn't move it's unlikely to be recorded by a camera, so your AutoPay account won't be debited.
-
...he hates the complication of modern diesels and also realises that if he gets a Diesel today, in 12 months time it will be worth peanuts (if he can sell it at all).
There's an alternate view that people who want/prefer diesels will be pushed more to the second hand market due to the increasing cost and tax implications on new vehicles, and this may artificially inflate the value of recent reliable diesels. Whichever way, it will be interesting to see what happens.
-
If this happens it will cause a rethink for many.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2106284/petrol-diesel-prices-rise-at-the-fastest-rate-in-the-last-eight-years/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2106284/petrol-diesel-prices-rise-at-the-fastest-rate-in-the-last-eight-years/)
-
...he hates the complication of modern diesels and also realises that if he gets a Diesel today, in 12 months time it will be worth peanuts (if he can sell it at all).
There's an alternate view that people who want/prefer diesels will be pushed more to the second hand market due to the increasing cost and tax implications on new vehicles, and this may artificially inflate the value of recent reliable diesels. Whichever way, it will be interesting to see what happens.
The only thing that will drop in value more than a Diesel is a pure EV
-
...he hates the complication of modern diesels and also realises that if he gets a Diesel today, in 12 months time it will be worth peanuts (if he can sell it at all).
There's an alternate view that people who want/prefer diesels will be pushed more to the second hand market due to the increasing cost and tax implications on new vehicles, and this may artificially inflate the value of recent reliable diesels. Whichever way, it will be interesting to see what happens.
The only thing that will drop in value more than a Diesel is a pure EV
Or the pound post Brexit?
-
Here's Clarkson's review:
https://www.driving.co.uk/car-reviews/clarkson/clarkson-review-2016-honda-jazz/ (https://www.driving.co.uk/car-reviews/clarkson/clarkson-review-2016-honda-jazz/)
I see he added a comparison with the Ford Fiesta Ecoboost, lets see how close the Fiesta Ecoboost can get to its claimed 65mpg. I bet the Jazz would achieve better real-world figures.
-
I see he added a comparison with the Ford Fiesta Ecoboost, lets see how close the Fiesta Ecoboost can get to its claimed 65mpg. I bet the Jazz would achieve better real-world figures.
Speculation which is borne out by the facts at Honest John's realmpg http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/honda/jazz-2014 (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/honda/jazz-2014) and http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/fiesta-2013/10t-ecoboost (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/fiesta-2013/10t-ecoboost). For me the surprise is that CVT Jazz has worse mpg than the manual.
-
For me the surprise is that CVT Jazz has worse mpg than the manual.
Yes, although I wonder if maybe more down to how the CVT versions are generally used. Perhaps they are mostly used by people doddering around town? That's not really true in my case but then I averaged 55mpg last summer I think and am currently managing 50mpg. I do have a some stop start travel in their but only about 2 miles of a 12 mile commute.
-
I finally had a test drive in an EX today. It felt a little sluggish from a standing start compared to my Hybrid, but fine once it got into its stride. Very impressed with the turning circle though. Even better than the hybrid, much to my wife's delight. We didn't get much time to try the infotainment system, but will have another test run next week in the car we are interested in buying with only 1100 miles on the clock since it was registered in 2015
Is there anything we should ask about, such as any software updates?
Thanks
-
Very impressed with the turning circle though. Even better than the hybrid, much to my wife's delight.
Brochure for Hybrid is 10.22m kerb to kerb, and 10.8m for Mk3.
Wouldn't be the the first time the brochure has been wrong.
-
Brochure for Hybrid is 10.22m kerb to kerb, and 10.8m for Mk3.
Wouldn't be the the first time the brochure has been wrong.
The brochure is right: The Mk 3 Jazz turning circle is measured over the body, which is a worse case than kerb-to-kerb due to the body overhang.
The hybrid's electric motor helps the smooth starts more than it contributes to the fuel economy. You will have to get used to the Mk 3 needing to rev the engine above 3,000 rpm to get substantial power and decent acceleration (and then discover you are already over the speed limit).
1,100 miles in over a year is low to the extent if potentially bad if the engine has never been properly warmed up. Have a look at the mpg data in the trip computer (provided it hasn't been reset) as this could be a proxy for the usage pattern (very low (40 or less) mpg would indicate loads of short trips).
There is definitely an update or two for the infotainment system.
-
Thanks for your reply. I have since discovered this has been a Motability vehicle, so it would seem to have done very short trips which is a bit worrying. May have to rethink this.
-
Thanks for your reply. I have since discovered this has been a Motability vehicle, so it would seem to have done very short trips which is a bit worrying. May have to rethink this.
Good idea, you are still charged a premium for low mileage vehicles which is not warranted - arguably they deteriorate more than a car that does average or above mileage. My wife had a bargain (from a Honda dealership) on a 2012 1.4 Si that had done 36K in 18 months, its price reflected the mileage but it stood on the forecourt for weeks, we got it for less than sticker price and it has been absolutely faultless (except for bad rust on rear discs which I changed last year, which cannot really be blamed on anything except Honda fitting bad discs). Do not be afraid of high mileage, be wary of low mileage.
-
Thanks for your reply. I have since discovered this has been a Motability vehicle, so it would seem to have done very short trips which is a bit worrying. May have to rethink this.
I would see this a cause for concern rather than a reason to walk away and can be used as a basis to haggle the price down and/or get the dealer to provide an extended warranty. One year of low mileage won't be as bad as three years.
A few years ago my daughter bought a very low mileage Mini (3? years old) which made various strange noises and went back for investigations and the water pump (and maybe other things) were replaced under the 1 year dealer warranty. However, the residual uncertainty about reliability meant she bought an extended warrranty for a further year at her expense. However, I haven't heard of any further problems and maybe the problems she had were more to do with it being a Mini than being very low mileage.