Would you consider electric Argy?. If you were to say a £14k budget, there is a lot of tempting cars with a (quoted) range of 200+ miles out there as young as 2024...........
I briefly considered the Mk 3 Jazz Sport which Honda marketed with upwards of 120 bhp, but to my mind that sporty styling looks wrong on such a car. So the other Jazz option is the slightly bigger standard Mk3, which has a couple of extra BHP and (I think) a longer wheelbase.
Yeah its a shame Honda decided to only the 1.5 (130bhp) engine to the Jazz in sport trim, but even if that wasn't the case, it still wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. With peak torque coming in at 4600rpm, it is very much a "traditional" Honda engine, i.e, needs a heavy right foot to get the best out of it!
We had a 3rd gen Jazz 1.3 with the CVT. Brilliant car in most respects and i didn't find its performance lacking (but then i was prepared to use the revs necessary to access what it could give!), not really a car for relaxed travel at the 70mph limit though. The peaky nature of the engine (peak torque was 5k rpm!) and the CVT's long legged ratios meant the least sign of a hill would send the revs flaring (dramatically so on a steeper hills) if you wanted to maintain the speed.
The car we had most recently was a Hyundai Bayon 1.0 turbo (120BHP) DCT. The engine on that was pretty much the polar opposite of the Jazz with plenty of torque at low revs (peak torque ran from 1500-4000rpm). It would lope along at 70mph pulling a relaxed 2500rpm. But i found the auto transmission hard to like, it was OK just trundling along, but if you wanted a shift on it never seemed to do what i wanted to and didn't seem to be well matched to the engine (out of all the automatic cars i've driven, the CVT on the Jazz was unquestionably the best match of engine and transmission, and doing what i wanted it to)
Edited by badbusdriver on 27/05/2025 at 18:41
|
But i found the auto transmission hard to like,..... it never seemed to do what i wanted to and didn't seem to be well matched to the engine (out of all the automatic cars i've driven, the CVT on the Jazz was unquestionably the best match of engine and transmission, and doing what i wanted it to)
Have you actually tried the Stellantis 1.2 puretech EAT6 powertrain? I find this intelligent TC box hard to fault in our Pug 2008, only occasionally overriding it to slip it into 6th when trundling along a level road at 50mph (it only changes up at around 55mph.) I've never tried a CVT but I've read that the whining revs unrelated to road speed when accelerating hard, reminiscent of a slipping clutch, is unpleasant.
|
But i found the auto transmission hard to like,..... it never seemed to do what i wanted to and didn't seem to be well matched to the engine (out of all the automatic cars i've driven, the CVT on the Jazz was unquestionably the best match of engine and transmission, and doing what i wanted it to)
Have you actually tried the Stellantis 1.2 puretech EAT6 powertrain? I find this intelligent TC box hard to fault in our Pug 2008, only occasionally overriding it to slip it into 6th when trundling along a level road at 50mph (it only changes up at around 55mph.)
No John, never tried one.
The last t/c auto i drove was a 6 speed unit in our Hyundai i30 turbo diesel. It was fine most of the time and way smoother than the DCT in the Bayon, but it seemed to also suffer from the same mismatch of shift programming(?) and engine as the DCT when pushing on. If you floor the accelerator to overtake at (say) 50 mph, you'd end up in the "wrong" gear, at rpm where the engines power had come and gone. So there would be little progress until the gearbox to change up and get into the meat of the plentiful torque on offer. One had to learn how much to push down on the accelerator to get the maximum (overtaking) acceleration because (counterintuitively) pushing it all the way down didn't. With the Jazz, it did!
I've never tried a CVT but I've read that the whining revs unrelated to road speed when accelerating hard, reminiscent of a slipping clutch, is unpleasant.
Yeah that is the perceived notion of CVT's. I was concerned about the general opinion on CVT's by the motoring press before we chose it, indeed that was the reason i joined this forum, to try and get opinion from owners. Probably is true of some (probably more so in the past), but certainly not with the Jazz. Not sure if this is simply because it is a more modern CVT, because it is (electronically) stepped to mimic having (seven) gears, or a combination. Not saying it didn't rev because it did, but that had nothing to do with it being a CVT. It revved because peak torque was at 5k rpm and peak power at 6k rpm.
My only other "experience" of a CVT was as a passenger in my Dad's Daf 55, memories of which are pretty vague, it being so long ago and my being 5-8 years old!
|
|
|
Would you consider electric Argy?. If you were to say a £14k budget, there is a lot of tempting cars with a (quoted) range of 200+ miles out there as young as 2024...........
I briefly considered the Mk 3 Jazz Sport which Honda marketed with upwards of 120 bhp, but to my mind that sporty styling looks wrong on such a car. So the other Jazz option is the slightly bigger standard Mk3, which has a couple of extra BHP and (I think) a longer wheelbase.
Yeah its a shame Honda decided to only the 1.5 (130bhp) engine to the Jazz in sport trim, but even if that wasn't the case, it still wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. With peak torque coming in at 4600rpm, it is very much a "traditional" Honda engine, i.e, needs a heavy right foot to get the best out of it!
We had a 3rd gen Jazz 1.3 with the CVT. Brilliant car in most respects and i didn't find its performance lacking (but then i was prepared to use the revs necessary to access what it could give!), not really a car for relaxed travel at the 70mph limit though. The peaky nature of the engine (peak torque was 5k rpm!) and the CVT's long legged ratios meant the least sign of a hill would send the revs flaring (dramatically so on a steeper hills) if you wanted to maintain the speed.
The car we had most recently was a Hyundai Bayon 1.0 turbo (120BHP) DCT. The engine on that was pretty much the polar opposite of the Jazz with plenty of torque at low revs (peak torque ran from 1500-4000rpm). It would lope along at 70mph pulling a relaxed 2500rpm. But i found the auto transmission hard to like, it was OK just trundling along, but if you wanted a shift on it never seemed to do what i wanted to and didn't seem to be well matched to the engine (out of all the automatic cars i've driven, the CVT on the Jazz was unquestionably the best match of engine and transmission, and doing what i wanted it to)
I don't think I could afford electric, BBD, and I'm not sure that I would go for that option even if I could. Perhaps a hybrid though, yes.
i remember you mentioning your CVT Jazz a few years back and wondering at the time whether yes, I should have gone auto. I did drive a Jazz auto before buying our current car but it seemed sluggish, although that could be due to problems caused by lack of maintenance. Or maybe it was my reluctance to "flog" a car that didn't belong to me, which probably makes me a rather unusual "test driver" of cars.
That Jazz Sport would probably have ticked most of our boxes except one the crucial one of ride quality. I used to laugh when my missus complained about bumps in the road that I couldn't feel, but I ain't laughing now because I'm feeling them too.
|
|
|
.....trusted 2013 Honda Jazz. Its now 7 years since she arrived,.... she is getting a bit long in the tooth.
It's a machine. As construction workers and farmers know, hours of use, of which mileage is a rough guide, is more important than age. Assuming average annual mileage of c. 8000 and careful maintenance and corrosion prevention, a modern car should last at least 20yrs. As usual, the recommendations so far are the usual mainly Asian suspects. When we needed a replacement for our 19yr old Focus (which lasted another two years with our son) in 2019 we chose a last-of -the-line Mk1 Peugeot 2008 130 with EAT6 - a reliable user-friendly Aisin autobox. We would either choose the same again or consider a BYD EV and use our solar panels to charge it when the FIT contract runs out.
Many thanks. The Jazz is now 12 years old and soon to become the oldest car we've ever owned, equalling my very first which was a 1976 Ford Escort that I purchased in 1987 and sold two years later. Mechanically it has been looked after but no corrosion protection has ever been applied, and that's where I think the problems will occur, when they do. I feel as if its time for an upgrade in performance and ride quality, and there's not much I can do maintenance wise to enhance either of those factors.
|
The advert that BBD linked to the other day was for a model with over 170bhp, which is perhaps a bit much for me after 7 years in a Jazz.
Up to you of course, but I'd suggest not discounting this engine in the CX30 purely for this reason. The 178bhp of the might seem a reasonably high power output, but you need to bear in mind that it is naturally aspirated, i.e, no turbo. Most other cars of this type and age will be, and while many will have less than 178bhp, most will have more torque at lower revs and so will feel faster more of the time. The torque figure in the 130bhp 1.2 turbo fitted to the Peugeot 3008 (along with many other Stellantis nee PSA cars) is 230nm @ 1750rpm, the 178bhp Skyactiv X engine fitted to that CX30 makes 224nm @ 3000 rpm. So it isn't going to feel that fast unless you are really extending it (that peak bhp figure arrives at 6k rpm!)
I don't think I could afford electric, BBD
I don't understand this comment?. You said earlier that your budget was "not much more than £13k", so I was using £14k as maximum budget. Because of the heavy initial depreciation, nearly new electric cars can be a spectacular bargain. I'm using a tablet and haven't sussed out how to link an advert, but right now on Autotrader there is a 2024 Vauxhall Mokka e 50kWh with 14.5k miles for £13.5k. Unless you are dead set against EV's, they are well worth a look (and they will all be auto!)
|
The advert that BBD linked to the other day was for a model with over 170bhp, which is perhaps a bit much for me after 7 years in a Jazz.
Up to you of course, but I'd suggest not discounting this engine in the CX30 purely for this reason. The 178bhp of the might seem a reasonably high power output, but you need to bear in mind that it is naturally aspirated, i.e, no turbo. Most other cars of this type and age will be, and while many will have less than 178bhp, most will have more torque at lower revs and so will feel faster more of the time. The torque figure in the 130bhp 1.2 turbo fitted to the Peugeot 3008 (along with many other Stellantis nee PSA cars) is 230nm @ 1750rpm, the 178bhp Skyactiv X engine fitted to that CX30 makes 224nm @ 3000 rpm. So it isn't going to feel that fast unless you are really extending it (that peak bhp figure arrives at 6k rpm!)
I don't think I could afford electric, BBD
I don't understand this comment?. You said earlier that your budget was "not much more than £13k", so I was using £14k as maximum budget. Because of the heavy initial depreciation, nearly new electric cars can be a spectacular bargain. I'm using a tablet and haven't sussed out how to link an advert, but right now on Autotrader there is a 2024 Vauxhall Mokka e 50kWh with 14.5k miles for £13.5k. Unless you are dead set against EV's, they are well worth a look (and they will all be auto!)
Regarding the CX30 with 170bhp, there will of course be other costs to consider: higher road tax which is likely to carry on increasing unless the obsession with Net Zero goes away, a higher insurance premium along with what I'd imagine would be significantly higher fuel consumption. Its a tempting thought because I've always wanted a car with more power ( my brother has a Mazda 6 diesel which he's had "mapped" to give it just over 200bhp) but given that the majority of the car's journeys will be half a mile each way to the local shop, I think that most of that power would be wasted.
On your second point, I've only just become aware of the lower cost of EVs, partly through a piece in the Telegraph that I read the other day and also through your comment above. They haven't been on my radar but you're right: outside personal prejudice, it would be daft not to consider an EV if those costs compare favourably with petrol or hybrid. In all honesty I have a bit of a downer on electric cars because there's a soullessness about that lack of an engine sound and its replacement with an anonymous "swish" like the progress of a giant pram, but that attitude may change. Thanks for all your advice.
Edited by argybargy on 30/05/2025 at 09:04
|
I don't understand this comment?. You said earlier that your budget was "not much more than £13k", so I was using £14k as maximum budget. Because of the heavy initial depreciation, nearly new electric cars can be a spectacular bargain. I'm using a tablet and haven't sussed out how to link an advert, but right now on Autotrader there is a 2024 Vauxhall Mokka e 50kWh with 14.5k miles for £13.5k. Unless you are dead set against EV's, they are well worth a look (and they will all be auto!)
Regarding the CX30 with 170bhp, there will of course be other costs to consider: higher road tax which is likely to carry on increasing unless the obsession with Net Zero goes away, a higher insurance premium along with what I'd imagine would be significantly higher fuel consumption. Its a tempting thought because I've always wanted a car with more power ( my brother has a Mazda 6 diesel which he's had "mapped" to give it just over 200bhp) but given that the majority of the car's journeys will be half a mile each way to the local shop, I think that most of that power would be wasted.
Re tax, both 120 and 178bhp CX30's sit in the same bracket of road tax (though the more powerful version has a higher CO2 figure of 133g rather than 116g).
Re insurance, the lower powered car sits in group 13E, the higher powered version sits in 18E. That is out of 50 I believe, so I can't see there being a big difference. And bear in mind, your Jazz sits in group 16E.
Re fuel consumption, while official quote figures can be quite different from real life, the higher powered car is actually the more efficient of the two (albeit not by much). Quoted average figures are 47.9mpg VS 45.6mpg
|
One man's soullessness is another man's refinement, so I wouldn't discount EVs purely on that basis.
Just on CVTs, I have only ever driven two. The first was in a Fiesta MK2 and made the most appalling 'hoover' noise without actually making progress. The second was the Subaru one in the Impreza and XV, and it was every bit as good as the DSG in my Skoda Karoq or the TC in my Vitara. I think it's another case of having to put prejudice aside and just try it out.
|
I think it's another case of having to put prejudice aside and just try it out.
Very much agree, a thorough test drive of every car in consideration to see if you like it. We all have driving styles, differing driving position/ seat requirements, ride quality/handling needs, buttons/ touch screen balance etc. And as for boot space..........
Myself I've taken well to the CVTe transmission in the Swace(aka Toyota hybrid) which encourages a more relaxed driving style and I like a more refined ride (high, NOT low, profile tyres) plus all basic functions are on buttons/knobs etc and it's not too bingy/bongy (modern safety gubbins) compared to some cars I tried out.
My heaven but possibly hell for some...
I found the Mazda cx30 2.0 underwhelming at lower revs but picked up a bit at higher revs - and the modern safety gubbins didn't like me, nothing but bings/bongs and warnings.
These days my hell but possibly heaven for others.
Edited by Big John on 01/06/2025 at 09:51
|
|
|
|