The main issue seems to me to be the fact that a 1.5 engine will deliver better low down torque and 0-60 time at the expense of greater fuel consumption. In other words it delivers a sportier drive but at higher expense. The 1.5 is the standard Jazz/Fit engine in the far east and Australia and the US as far as I am aware, although I think the 1.3 is available in Australia. Fuel consumption seems to be less of an issue for buyers there. Diesels and a Hybrid version are available in India and the Far East I think. Presumably Honda feel that given the small numbers of Jazz sold in Europe and given Toyota's massive lead on Hybrid and the limited fuel benefit of hybrid over the 1.3 petrol, they cannot justify importing the hybrid version. And, Hybrids have never delivered the official fuel consumption figures which seemed to be promised.
The buyers of the Civic who can't afford the higher powered 1.5 turbo petrol will happily buy the 1.0 turbo despite the poor fuel economy (compared to official figures) of turbo petrol cars (see Honest John's Real Miles Per Gallon website). After all these small turbos seem to be in every other small family car of similar size (did I say small ?
). However it is generally cost and reliability conscious types who buy the Jazz, and as the 1.5 engine is already tried and tested elsewhere and a low risk for Honda to put into the Jazz imported into Europe for the few that will buy them. It lacks the downsized 'I'm a sexy little beast' image of a testosterone fuelled power bomb 1.0 turbo of course, but addresses the criticism of relative sleuth that has been levelled at the 1.3 (which is designed for low speed economy rather than low speed performance, rather like hybrid
). It all comes down to image and how quickly you really want to get away from the lights. The new car will widen choice and improve the car's image amongst younger drivers in the UK and give the motoring journos something to get mildly interested in. Just my thoughts.......