What Car? Honda Jazz review

[RichardA]

Full review from What Car?:

For

There isn’t another small car with as much interior space as the Jazz, and its practical cabin feels solidly put together. The amount of standard safety equipment it gets is also impressive.

Against

The 1.3-litre petrol engine isn’t particularly punchy or refined, and the Jazz is uninspiring to drive. It’s more expensive than its best rivals, too.

Verdict: 3/5

http://www.whatcar.com/car-reviews/honda/jazz-hatchback/summary/26267-5

[John Ratsey]

A few comments on that review based on my experience (SE CVT) to date:

Performance: The car deserves more than 2 stars. The CVT version can sometimes be a little hesitant to accelerate but a little pull on the left paddle quickly conveys the message to increase the revs but most of the time the CVT does a very good job of balancing performance (ie more revs) and economy (less revs). I've only been to around 4,000 rpm on a couple of occasions when needing to accelerate to join moving traffic and that was achieved with a heavy push on the accelerator. The car has a relatively small engine without the benefit of a turbocharger so the revs are a pre-requisite for performance.

Ride and Handling:The ride is quite firm but I don't want a soft ride which can cause motion sickness. I've found the steering to be precise. I haven't noticed the body roll but I'm not inclined to chuck the car around corners.

Refinement: The engine noise starts becoming noticeable at around 3,000 rpm but, unlike the reviewer, I've not found a need to use that rev range for substantial periods except for a few long hills. The overall sound insulation seems to be no better than my previous Jazz (hybrid HS) and the noise from concrete road surfaces is still intrusive. However, I think that the wind noise is reduced and having the front windows open an inch or two for some natural ventilation results in less noise than on the HS.

[Downsizer]

Re the What Car comments on the CVT, I note that the Mk III engine is not quite as torquey as the 1.4 Mk II.  Peak torque is quoted as 90 ft lbs at 5000 rpm, whereas the Mk II was 94 ft lbs at 4800.  The Mk II produced 85% peak torque from 2000 rpm upwards (ref Autocar test of 28/10/2008) - I have not yet seen a comparable torque curve for the Mk III.  This small reduction in torque is presumably the price paid for greater economy, and as John Ratsey says, for normal motoring you rarely need maximum torque!  I expect the range between 2000 rpm and 3000 rpm will suit most people most of the time, and make for a relaxing drive.