Finally decided to get my thoughts together regarding our recently departed Jazz. A car i was very wary about going for due to the overwhelmingly negative opinion on the CVT transmission from virtually every part of the motoring press (not to mention quite a few forum members at the time). It was in fact the reason i joined this forum, to try and get some input from folk who had owned or used a CVT equipped car long term (rather than folk who's opinion was shaped purely by what they'd read in the motoring press, or by something they'd driven briefly a long time ago).

Just to get them out of the way, i'm going to start with the negatives, not that there is much.

Engine and transmission: There are pro's and con's here, i'll get to the pro's later, but the cons really depend on what type of journeys you do, where, and how often. Specifically, how much time you spend at the national speed limit. There is no getting away from the fact that the Jazz is not endowed with much in the way of torque and what little there is comes in way up at 5000rpm. The combination of this along with the 7 (artificial) ratio's of the stepped CVT means that spending time at 70+ mph is no fun at all unless you are on a level surface. The slightest incline will see the revs soaring as the CVT scrambles to get the engine into a spot where the torque can do its work and pull you up the hill. This is very much exaggerated if cruise control is being used (as i do, as much as i can) and can see the revs going right up as high as 5000 on steeper inclines!. Not very restful or soothing on a longer run, as i'd found out a few times since youngest offspring is now in Glasgow (we are in Northern Aberdeenshire).

Seating: The seats themselves, i found very comfortable, but i struggled to maintain comfort on the aforementioned longer journeys due to the actual position. I have mentioned my gripe here on other threads, and it is certainly not something which only affects the Jazz. I like to sit quite high in the cabin, but at the same time, i like the seat base to be sloped down from the front to the back. But on the Jazz, as is the case with most, when you crank up the seat height, the rear moves more than the front, so you end up feeling like you are being tipped forward out of the seat. Fortunately, most of my journeys were short, so it wasn't really an issue for me. If i was heading for Glasgow, i'd just put up with sitting lower than i wanted to in the car, in exchange for the better comfort after a few hours behind the wheel.

And that is pretty much it for the negatives, certainly IMO. Though i should probably mention the ride, which some seem to find very firm. Yes, maybe a little firm, but i didn't find it a problem at all (neither did my wife). Oh, one other thing, it doesn't come with a spare wheel, but there is space for a space-saver.

Positives,

Engine and transmission: So, CVT's, they are rubbish right, all revs and no action?, err, no!. This really was a relevation, especially with the expectations after reading the rubbish spouted by motoring magazines. Clearly a 102bhp automatic supermini is not going to be that fast under any circumstances, but in the context of what it is, i found the package hugely impressive. We came to the Jazz from a turbo diesel Hyundai i30 with a t/c auto. Compared to that, the Jazz's ability to use all of what it had effectively was in a completely different league. With the i30, using kickdown to overtake could easily result in ending up in a gear where no more power was available, as if the gearbox was configured for a higher revving petrol rather than a diesel. In the Jazz, kickdown immediately puts you exactly where you needed to be in order to complete the overtake in the minimum time and distance. Yes, that did mean lots of revs (briefly) but the transmission, unlike the i30, seemed perfectly matched to the engine characterisics. First time i tried overtaking an articulated truck i was a little nervous, thinking i might be left high and dry with much revs and little else, but no, the Jazz fired itself past with real vigour!. Just out of curiousity, and because of a disagreement with an ex forum member, i did some rudimentary timing of acceleration through the 'gears'. Came up with around 10 seconds from 30-70mph (which the forum member in question told me wasn't possible) and about 6 seconds from 50-70mph. Later on, i tried 0-60 and was pleasantly surprised that despite Honda quoting 12.3 seconds, it was actually more like 10.5. Not claiming this makes it a hot hatch, but as a 100bhp CVT supermini, pretty impressive i thought.

Handling: Hugely impressive, very eager to change direction and, so long as you are accepting of the need to rev, capable of maintaining very high speeds on twisty country roads.

Practicality: What most people know about the Jazz is the huge amount of space on offer from such a small footprint. 350 litre boot and more rear seat legroom than you will get in most cars from the Golf/Focus size bracket. Also, the brilliant 'magic' rear seats meaning you can either lift the rear seat bases up (cinema style) to leave a large space between front and rear seat backs, or drop the rear seatbacks down (completely flat) to leave a truly huge volume of space. Practical in other ways too, such as girth. One of the things which led me to the Jazz in the first place was the amount of interior space combined with a narrow overall width. The i30 we had before certainly wasn't a big car, but on our narrow street with cars parked on both sides of the road, it might as well have been American!. And with cars in all classes getting fatter and fatter (current Renault Clio is more than 10cm wider than the Jazz (and is also wider than a Golf)), its good to se that Honda have stuck with the overall dimensions of 'our' Jazz (and the previous gen) for the new one (the Yaris was another contender when we got the Jazz, but the iminent all new one is both lower and wider, boo!).

In summary, the Jazz is a great small car and a masterclass in packaging, but it does seem a bit confused as to who it has been designed for. It is very much seen as the sensible choice, favoured especially by older drivers. Yet its engine, especially mated to the CVT, seems aimed at the boy racer type (using the 'paddles' to shift manually for maximum attack!). A type of person who, ironically, would never in a million years drive a Jazz!. The older folk who do drive it, certainly those who still have some life in their veins, think it is slow because they are of a mindset that revving a car beyond 3500 rpm is going to result in it destroying itself. So they never using more than about 70% of what's there for the taking, little realising that not only does the Jazz thrive on revs, but as far Honda's go, it isn't actually that high revving at all (the mid 60's S800 was good for 10000rpm)!.

Fuel economy for the three years, overall, has been around 47mpg. Bear in mind this is predominantly around town. Out of town would result in about 55mpg, maybe a bit more if i wasn't in a hurry. BTW, this is going by the trip computer, i don't care enough about the exact figures to waste time working it out manually brim to brim long term!.

In all honesty, as much as i liked (most of the time!) the frenetic nature of the powertrain, a 1.0 turbo would have suited the nature of the car better for most folk (with either manual or auto). Not that its ever going to happen now the new Jazz is hybrid only, but that powertrain too, is almost certainly going to be an improvement for most Jazz drivers in most situations (with the possible exception of hooning along country roads).

Apologies for the length of this, got carried away!.