Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums
Honda Jazz Forums => Honda Jazz Mk2 2008-2015 => Topic started by: guest1010 on August 03, 2012, 11:14:35 PM
-
After a weeks holiday with three adults and luggage I really felt the lack of power of the 1.4 ::). I know I could buy a different car but I like my Jazz (most of the time).
-
Everything to do with cars is a compromise. If you had a 1.6 engine, you probably would not get such good gas mileage.
Amazingly, neighbour's BMW 318i has a 1.9 litre engine and he gets 7.5 litres per 100km around town, but I suspect he seldom drives over 60km/hr
-
Depends what you mainly use the car for, If you do a lot of long runs you can get good MPG and a more relaxed drive with a larger engine and pretty good local MPG too, but the temptation is to use the extra power - and bang goes your fuel economy.
I think the Jazz is a good compromise between good everyday MPG and being a reasonable car for longer journeys. I have had five adults in the GD and it copes pretty well if you keep it between 2000 and 3,500 rpm. (peak torque is around 2,700). and lets face it, the gearbox is a joy to use, but surprisingly you don't really have to change gear that much to make pretty good progress. I almost bought another Civic to replace my 1.5 VTEC Civic, but having driven my wifes Jazz and seeing how good it was to drive and the fuel economy (with one eye on rising fuel prices) I bought a Jazz and have never regretted it.
-
I bought my jazz after trading it with a corolla t sport 190 bhp the corolla was good fun but at 25mpg not so good on the pocket.
I have to agree at a drop of just over 100 bhp do find it lacks power on hills but on the flat not a bad car and as stated if you want more power you pay the price.
I do not regret the change as the saving just on fuel since owning this car is about £50.00 a fortnight and the Tax is about £150.00 a year cheaper don't forget bigger engine more Tax aswell.
-
I was going to start a thread on this too.
The problem is more within the engine's Power and torque curve -
in simple terms - all the oomph is high up the rev band!
Mine (which is slowly improving so I assume there is a degree of running in still going on)
is dead in the water on the open road at 2000rpm - there is a slight improvement at 2500rpm
then it is almost OK at 3000rpm
I wish there was a mod, or tweak, to either boost the torque at lower revs or to shift the torque band
down lower - on mine (1.4) it peaks at 4800 - but is dropping off a lot at lower revs. Ie not much use
below 3000rpm - despite the smoothness of the Variable balve timing.
Don't missunderstand though - it is reasonable if you use the revs - but if you did this all the time
you would loose out on all that wonderfull economy.
My previous vehicle was a totally different beast and generally there is no point in comparing
but - it also had a reletively high Torque rpm peak (3750), but the torque was good right down to 1600rpm
below which is was not good.
On a recent break I managed to change my driving habits to change down a lot more - also on motorways
if using the A/C I would turn it off for a while on steep hills, as well as change down.
I nearly got stuck on some country roads when I had to stop on a very steep hill - it took me 3 attempts
at starting - and I am not an inexperienced driver - even after starting it was barely able to pull away as
the revs were too low even in first and it would otherwise mean terrible amounts of clutch slip.
So - we either try to adapt and put up with it - or find a way to increase that lower down pull.
I reckon a 1600 - or even a 1500 cc engine option wouldn't go amis, so long as it didn't also have all the torque high up in the rev band.
-
The torque curve published in the Autocar review of the 1.4ES Jazz GE (29.10.08) suggests torque of c. 80 lb ft @ 2000 rpm, rising to c. 87 @3000 rpm, a further slight increase to 4000 rpm, and then a sharper rise to the peak of 94 lb ft @ 4800 rpm. I certainly find it flexible from 2000, but clearly you need to change down a gear or two for maximum acceleration.
-
Friend runs a performance garage and he reckons any engine management computer can be tweaked to do what you want.
He runs a standard Honda Civic 2000, a 2004 model and he increased the kW output of the engine from 128 to 158 at 4200 rpm with mods to the valve timing. Of course the fuel consumption went for a Burton. He says the torque curve for the Honda 1400cc engine is too high at 4800 rpm and says he could get it down to about 4000 rpm. In 5th this is still 130km/hr which is above the national speed limit of 120km/hr but is the speed most people travel at
-
How about the installation of a Honda 1.6 engine in the Jazz with the following specification.
!!8 BHP. 221 lb/ft of Torque at 2000RPM. 75 MPG(as installed in the Civic) and a 95g/Km CO2 figure giving a free access to the London Congestion Area.Reputed to be the lightest !.6 engine of its type(Diesel) in production world wide at 170 Kgs.Now that would give an excellent take -off rate with a future Jazz. And it will be manufactured in Swindon.
-
This will probably put the cat amongst the pigeons, but it seem to me that all the owners who are complaining about the performance of the 1.4 engine, have manual gearboxes.
There is no problem with this engine when coupled to an auto CVT gearbox.
When max power is required, simply put your foot down and the box changes down to a ratio, which puts the engine into the 4000+rpm power band and it just stays there until the desired speed is reached.
We are probably all, me included, used to being light footed on the pedal and perhaps don't realise that there is a lot more 'umph' available, than we normally use.
-
This would definitely work, and would also increase the fuel consumption substantially. The iTec engine opens all the valves at higher revs to increase power, which means that more fuel is burnt.
I don't know about you, but 90% of my drivng is in traffic. Now and then there is a place where you can get up to the maximum speed allowed on an inner city freeway (100km/hr) for a few mins but most of the time it is short bursts between traffic lights. Cape Town is built around some high mountains and going up hill you feel the lack of power, but it does not last long, maybe 3-4 mins and you are on the level again
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o505/capecomputerclub/New_Church_Street_IMG_0257-746414.jpg)
-
Sorry folks for the digit problem in my previous message.The BHP figure should be 118BHP.
-
well mine seems to be getting a little better as the weeks go by, longer journeys seem to help
but I read you have to drive it a little differently to what I have previously been used to doing.
It would seem we are better off NOT going super light all the time on the throttle!
The advise I have had is to quickly squeeze the throttle and take it up to just under 3000rpm
then change - whearas I am used to tickling the throttle and coxing it up less high
The economy has not suffered doing this - still getting nearly 40mpg around town
-
My Jazz has an I-shift. This has 6 gears and a sharp kick-down changes down two gears.
according to Honda's own figures this model gives better milage than the manual or the
other belt-driven auto's. If you keep the tyres at the best pressure it drives very smartly
and has never given any trouble in the city or on very long, fully loaded, motorway journeys.
-
How about the installation of a Honda 1.6 engine in the Jazz with the following specification.
!!8 BHP. 221 lb/ft of Torque at 2000RPM. 75 MPG(as installed in the Civic) and a 95g/Km CO2 figure giving a free access to the London Congestion Area.Reputed to be the lightest !.6 engine of its type(Diesel) in production world wide at 170 Kgs.Now that would give an excellent take -off rate with a future Jazz. And it will be manufactured in Swindon.
i prefer a cam chain to a cam belt, a lot less hassle when the car gets older and the 2004 1.6 se civic was my last car
-
A deisel would be good - but the additional service costs should be weighed in the balance.
Also Deisel is not so good if you do a lot of short journeys
-
i prefer a cam chain to a cam belt, a lot less hassle when the car gets older and the 2004 1.6 se civic was my last car
Tell that to people who have a VW with a 1.2 or 1.4 TSI engine (105 to 180 bhp)...
VW is switching back to belts because they had huge issues with the timing chains on these engines...
There is no simple answer on what is better, a belt or a chain.
Verstuurd van mijn Xoom met Tapatalk
-
Actually the only reall issue I have had with the 1.4 is the lack of torque particularly below 2000rpm
I have adapted the way I drive it and can pretty much nip around quite briskly.
Yes a bigger engine wiuld be great - but I am now weighing against that the realluy nice economy
and I am always 'pinging' over the 30mph around town as it is...
-
i prefer a cam chain to a cam belt, a lot less hassle when the car gets older and the 2004 1.6 se civic was my last car
Tell that to people who have a VW with a 1.2 or 1.4 TSI engine (105 to 180 bhp)...
VW is switching back to belts because they had huge issues with the timing chains on these engines...
There is no simple answer on what is better, a belt or a chain.
Verstuurd van mijn Xoom met Tapatalk
VW quality is total ********** (ive had polo and a golf from brand new so i know how bad they have become), they still use plastic impellers in the water pump not metal that wont crack and nylon window clips, and as for chains i can change out the water pump if i have to without touching the cam side as it runs off the fan belt, i don't need to change it for age after 5 or so years like a belt and i have seen a car that the water pump failed and ripped the cambelt through the cover and trash the valves
so for me when i got my 2004 1.6 civic and now 2011 1.2 jazz i don't have to keep going back to the dealer with problems just for a service once per year
my civic had a belt and i had it changed with the water pump at 60k and the water pump was like brand new when i inspected it but i much prefer chain and wouldn't go back to belts
-
I have a Yaris diesel or rather my wife has. The service costs are the same as a petrol Yaris.
As it's EU3 compliant, no problems around town - in nearly 7 years' ownership.
-
When I heard this week of the new 1.6 diesel in the Civic I thought what a great engine for the Jazz! But choice of engine really is horses for courses. I had a Fiat 1.6 Dynamic Eco Diesel 105bhp for 30k miles, which on long runs gave 60+ mpg, but after a change in jobs I found myself doing more town driving and short journeys and economy dropped to around 48mpg. My 1.4 ES gives the same overall consumption! So why did I change? My turbo blew at 43k miles as a result of the bearings suffering from heat sink, as a result of all the short start stops and the turbo probably never really got the chance to properly cool. Another issue I had with the small capacity diesel was a scary lack of torque when starting off, it was a bit hit and miss when pulling out from a side road. I ended up having the engine remapped to increase turbo response. I read one of the Honda 1.6 diesel reviews stating the same torque "hole" at low revs. So the new 1.6 diesel would probably be a superb engine in the Jazz but only for a specific range of drivers, higher mileage, longer journeys etc. Coupled with an ultimately higher purchase price, servicing costs and the all the complicated stuff like dual mass flywheels, diesel particulate filters etc, a 1.6 diesel would be a brilliant car but not all things to all people.
-
It was a FIAT. What do you epect? A decent design and reiaibility?
Joke.
I have run a Yaris diesel for 6 years on stop/start journeys averaging 56mph. Still going strong.
But then it's not designed and built in Italy.
-
One mans meat is another mans poison, after all, millions of Italians cant ALL be wrong. No manufacturer is immune to negative publicity and Fiat genuinely have taken a new direction. I regularly drive a Fiat 500 Abarth and it is an excellent car The design of the Fiat was superb, far better and more stylish than Focus Golf Astra etc, id had a new shape Civic that went through 3 clutches by 60k miles! and my Accord Sport GT started to slip at 70k miles. In 25 years of driving they were the only cars that ever gave me clutch problems, so early, but then the Honda 2.2 diesel has a dodgy reputation for its Dual Mass Flywheels. The Fiat was better put together than the Civic, by a mile, quieter, more comfortable. But I wouldn't chance another Fiat, however id no qualms going to a Honda petrol. The Fiat was a genuinely capable car, however my, like most peoples, preconceptions made me change it. Odds are it would've ran for many years without issue, but I wasn't prepared to take a chance any more. I gave it 1 and it let me down. Based on my previous Honda experience, I shouldn't have bought another, BUT I trust the brand and know my Jazz wont let me down, I couldn't trust the Fiat for another minute. That's what happens when you buy with your heart more than your head.
-
The more I get used to it and also the more mine loosens up the less bothered I am about the small engine
the weak point is just at pull away - tricky to get that just right! If you allow the engine speed to dip
on pullaway it dies for a moment and seems gutless - if you over compensate it revs too much.
Smoothest is keeping it no lower than 1200rpm untill its pulling away nicely - then take it up just above
2500rpm before changing to 2nd - there is a fairly big gap between 1st and 2nd...
With practice I find I am fairly brisk driving like this, without too much clutch slip - it's a fine line at pullaway.
Also - I notice the engine doesn't sound bad for a little one - more gruff than I expected. For it's size it is not
at all bad on the whole!
-
I regularly drive a Fiat 500 Abarth and it is an excellent car
Not made in Italy. Poland.
QED.
-
I regularly drive a Fiat 500 Abarth and it is an excellent car
Not made in Italy. Poland.
QED.
And what? Geography determines the quality of the build of a car! Honda Civic, built in UK- bag of bolts, Honda Accord built in Japan, solid as a rock. I would prefer to think that the quality of the design team and the amount of r+d would contribute more significantly to the overall quality of a car than the locus of its build. However my intention in contributing to the thread was not to start a discussion on the merits or demerits of either Italian, UK or AN Others design or build performances, rather than to share with the other members my own experiences. So my comments on a small capacity diesel are valid as are the experiences I have gained in 120k miles of Hondas and 30k miles in Fiat.
As for my Jazz, its better put together than my Civic, but not as good as my Accord and that's good enough for me.
Pre conceptions are usually misconceptions
-
SOB i own a fiat
1300 cc turbo diesel qubo auto 2011, now you got me worried SOB :'( i hope it don't blow up on me] :'(
-
SOB i own a fiat
1300 cc turbo diesel qubo auto 2011, now you got me worried SOB :'( i hope it don't blow up on me] :'(
Before you turn off the engine let it run for 1 more minute to cool the turbo down.
At cold start don`t rev the engine immediately, wait for 20 sec to let the oil to reach every point in the engine and turbo and after you are good to go.
-
thanks dv i take that on board. :)
-
I think I was just unlucky with mine. On the Fiat forum, only one other owner had experienced early turbo issues. The turbo on my car was a Garrett one which are probably the best known turbo manufacturer with a great reputation. Sometimes we forget we drive machines, and they break down. That's why a jumbo jet is several hundred million pounds, and don't break down.
-
Lots of turbo breakdown is caused by poor lubrication of the turbo bearings mostly because of one or more of the following:
Engine oil too often past its due change.
Too many revs too soon after a cold start.
Engine switch-off too soon after high-ish revs. For example, after running on a motorway at 80+mph in top gear. Or after a steep hill with high revs in a lower gear.
The ANSWER after this sort of running is to let the engine run at low revs/light load, or let it idle, for just a minute or two before engine switch-off so the turbo cools enough for the oil not to carbonise (abrasive!) in the superhot turbo bearings.
Neglect to let it cool after being superhot just a few times and the turbo may appear to be OK for quite some time/miles - perhaps for many journeys - but it will fail much sooner than it otherwise would.
-
In short - the more techie the machine - the more techie the driver needs to be it would seem!
It does help to have a certain level of understanding when driving and not just do it by numbers.
A lot of wear and tear can come about where people don't understand what makes the vehicle tick.
It is true that not all engones suit all people and diesels are more suted to longer distance driving
Partly due to the slower warm up which is in turn due to the higher efficiency of the engine - less losses,
slower to warm up etc
Not over revving any engine from cold is a must - do not use full throttle until warmed up.
Loads of other things which i am not going to mention right now...
I quite like the 1.4 engine now it's bedding in nicely - but yes a little more power is nice - but no I don't
actually need it and 11.5 ish 0-60mph is sufficient - back in the 70's that would have been considered pretty nippy!!