|
I'm sorry if this has been spoken of before - haven't seen it if it has. HJ has noted in his updated test reports for the forthcoming new Jazz, that the Co2 level on the I-shift 1.4 is not now 120g/km (band B) but 125g/km (band C for this year and band D for 09/10) and therefore the magic £35 a year figure has eluded us. It's on the Honda website but they haven't drawn any attention to the fact that it was initially proposed to be the lower figure and has been quietly amended to the higher figure. Anyone looking at the vast majority of previews will be under the misapprehension that the, lower, band B will apply to the I-shift and may well be surprised to learn of the amendment. I thought the reasoning behind doing away with CVT in favour of I-shift was all about (a) emissions and (b) economy. Well 50% of that has now gone... the emissions of the previous CVT don't now seem any worse than the new approach - which, if Civic owners are to be believed, hasn't found universal favour. In view of the 'premium' pricing of Jazz I suggest that a number of prospective buyers may be looking closer at, say, the new i20 Hyunda when it arrives... especially with it's 5 year warranty and despite the current concern about diesel reliability over petrol and comparison between diesel/petrol pricing, I would think that a prospective buyer will look at the Hyundai warranty and say I'll have the diesel for 5 years, free of worry, and sell it for....whatever... thereafter... and still be quids in. Having said that, we don't know for sure that the i20's figure will be 120 or below - but I would disappointed if it weren't. I guess a number of bods awaiting the new Jazz model may reconsider and take advantage of the offers on the old CVT model that, hopefully, will abound in coming weeks.
|
HJ was quite complimentary about the new I-SHIFT, but other reviewers pronounced it to be much inferior to the CVT.
I think that Honda may have discarded one of the Jazz's USPs, but maybe they are bargaining on the car's many other USPs being sufficient. Whatever the logic, anyone who wants a smooth-driving automatic is seeing their choice much curtailed these days.
|
|
My dear old Dad is a Jazz CVT driver. We have visited a couple of local Honda dealers recently where we have known the salesmen for some time. In both cases they were _very_ nervous about the new Jazz i-Shift. One of them said that they had been told that they had to take prospective customers out on a 30 minute 'course' to show them how to use the i-Shift system before being allowed out on their own!
|
|
Sounds like a mistake from Honda getting rid of the CRV.
|
Sounds like a mistake from Honda getting rid of the CRV.
I think you mean CVT? ;)
|
A more significant thing (to me) is that it's been announced that Jazz will be built in the UK at the Swindon plant in the next 6-9 mths. That's good news, I would find it very difficult to buy a Chinese built Jazz.
They may well revise the emissions in the future - look at what BMW can do when they have to beat certain milestones. Hpwever I guess that gets more difficult at the lower end.
|
|
|
>> Sounds like a mistake from Honda getting rid of the CRV. >> I think you mean CVT? ;)
Yep, CVT. Have CRV on the brain at the mo.
|
|
I did happen to see that HJ advised a couple in this weeks Saturday Telegraph to consider the new Jazz and cited the prospect of Band B (£35) and this is now clearly not the case. I hope the couple in question see the updated information if the lower VED was of particular interest to them in their choice of new car. I do think that someone (Honda?) has a duty to publicise the change if it was they who issued the incorrect figures in the first place.
|
So does this possibly mean that anyone considering buying a Jazz now should wait a few months in case Honda try and tweak the engine down to £35 VED CO2 levels?
Or is it a case, as others have commented, that the new Jazz is looking a tad pricey for what it is - moreso now that it does not achieve the £35 VED?
|
In all fairness to you, HJ, and to your credit, if you Google the matter in question it is primarily yourself who has referred to the revised figures....very few others have picked it up or if they are aware have not mentioned it.
Equally, in all fairness, I believe the new Picasso C3 in diesel form fails to get below the 120 figure......a vehicle which is not too dissimilar to the Jazz at 4.08m long (Jazz, 3.9m).
If Honda are to re-certify it then surely they have a duty to let us know. Given that it applies just to the I-shift it's not unreasonable - all the other models, both 1.2 & 1.4 manual, are now and always have been over 120 - so it's just one model.....the I-shift - but those considering that particular one are entitled to make their buying decision with all the facts to hand.
|
|
One would assume that Honda's marketing material plus their salespeople would have to point this out otherwise surely it would contravene the trade descriptions act?
|
|
It's not just the auto, the 1.2s manual version is also 125 Co2 and the MPG has decreased from 55 to 53. Bad news Honda as it's very expensive. A review (from a magazine I dare not link to) gives the new Jazz only 3 stars out of 5.
|
|
You're right about the worse mpg figures now quoted, carl_a, but re. the 1.2 manual, it was 125 in the earlier listings and remains at 125 and therefore doesn't change the quoted tax band - it's the I-shift that's had it's tax band changed.
Edited by KB. on 13/10/2008 at 20:11
|
You're right about the worse mpg figures now quoted carl_a but re. the 1.2 manual it was 125 in the earlier listings and remains at 125 and therefore doesn't change the quoted tax band - it's the I-shift that's had it's tax band changed.
No I always carefully check my facts before typing (shame about my spelling), Honda stated the 1.2 was 120 Co2 and therefore it's had its tax band changed too.
Indeed if you read HJ's review thats what it says "*Originally estimated at 120g/km for 1.2, 124g/km for 1.4 and 120g/km for 1.4 I-SHIFT, but likely to be re-certificated by the end of 2008 to these original figures. "
|
|
I apologise profusely and stand corrected! I must, more accurately, check my facts before typing. Sorry. I would think that there is now a greater need for Honda to highlight the changes as it's not just the I-shift (as I first thought) affected. Final apologies again.
|
I often wonder about these CO2 figures and what cars actually do produce in real driving conditions and not on a test cycle? I like the look of the new Jazz and £90 instead of £35 a year is not that much in the grand scheme of running a car. One thing that irrtated me with the iniial reports is that the I shift was below 120 g/km but the manual was not. I personally would always go for the manual as I find these automated manuals very jerky and worry about the potential for trouble.
Another thing I find amusing with all this silly CO2 tax nonsense is that people will pay over a grand more for a car to get into the £35 bracket. Crazy unless you live in London and I still don't know whether cars in this bracket will be exempt. Boris seems to be just as vague and useless on this matter as Ken.
|
Another thing I find amusing with all this silly CO2 tax nonsense is that people will pay over a grand more for a car to get into the £35 bracket.
I have a strong suspicison that people hate paying tax so much, they're happier spending a few grand on a car than giving the government sixty-five/a couple of hundred quid. Just a hunch, and it may not even be a conscious thing. The mere fact that it's called a tax may mean that people will go to illogical ends to avoid paying it.
Similar to the effect oft quoted on here whereby people want to run more and more polluting cars because they hate the thought they're being told what to do.
The expression about cutting off noses and spiting faces leaps to mind.
Then there are those of us in the middle who just apply common sense and try to run the lowest cost vehicle which matches our needs and desires, and change it if it goes bang or if we're flush and just fancy something new.
Edited by Alanovich on 14/10/2008 at 11:47
|
I often wonder about these CO2 figures and what cars actually do produce in real driving conditions and not on a test cycle?
Cars' fuel consumption is calculated from the CO2 figure, and, as is frequently mentioned, the vast majority of cars can get nowhere near their stated MPG, therefore it follows that the real life CO2 emissions are higher.
One of the car mags actually did a test a year or two ago and found that cars where typically rated a couple of tax bands lower than they really where in real life.
|
Over on Youtube there is an interesting video review of the new Honda Jazz in the US which compares it, in a reviewing sense, to the Prius. If you look for it you need to type in 'Honda Fit' as that is what it is called in the US.
There are quite a few Honda Fit reviews on there - from the terrible, IMPO, to the good. The above review that I mentioned does comment on the i-shift system.
|
Has anyone actually physically sat in one of these yet?
My local dealer is down for the 18th being the day of launch but I am half-expecting that date to fall back as one of their salesmen told me the 28th was more likely a few weeks back.
|
|
Poor old Honda seem to be getting themselves in a bit of a muddle over this. They've included various "press opinions" of the new Jazz on their website and in one quote from Car Magazine they've chosen an extract where the review praises the 1.4 i-Shift for having the same CO2 emissions as the 1.2 - 120g/km.
|
|
|
|
Suggest you try one, it is brilliant.
Build quality is exemplary, it is very comfortable and rides well even on the 16 inch wheels of the EX. Space and use of space is a lesson to everyone, I can see this car stealing sales form the Civic class above quite easily.
SWMBO bought one today, one of the easiest sales our friend at Honda will ever make. Our local dealer has 9 left (8 after we left) of his 2008 quota.
|
very comfortable
Good news - the current one certainly isn't!
16 inch wheels of the EX.
One of things I like about ours is the cheap 14" tyres and the lack of alloys for wifey to kerb!
SWMBO bought one today
Any sort of deals to be had?
|
Always a deal to be done! Got the Premium Pack thrown in plus a few bits and bobs plus a sensible trade in on the leggy Civic diesel so no complaints.
Don't go expecting mammoth discounts though, at least not yet.
|
|
Keep us posted please Buster.
|
|
Suggestion to the mods. Do you think it's worth combining the two current Jazz threads given that the Jazz is just breaking cover and may well be of interest to a number of people. Just a thought?
|
|
The tax level matters not, the reduction in the 1.2 MPG will cost more than the extra road fund licence for many users. Why do people focus on the £35 tax it is unimportant factor regarding the overall cost of running a car.
|
|
I accept that it matters not to you, carl, but as Alanovitch pointed out it people don't like paying more tax than they have to and there is, for some, a 'warm feeling' as they queue up to pay their £35 road tax that the bloke in front is probably paying more than you. And there's no denying that manufacturers think it matters as they are doing their best to offer as low a band as possible - with the possible exception of Honda at the moment :-) But, yes, you're right, it hardly matters financially but we're not always logical in our actions if it makes us feel better and maybe we feel better if we can 'say' our car is helping to save the planet.
|
|
|
The tax level matters not the reduction in the 1.2 MPG will cost more
Hmmm. The car's real world MPG won't change. Getting cars to hit a certain CO2 rating is almost an engineering con trick, that's why many cars don't hit their official MPG figures.
|
> Hmmm. The car's real world MPG won't change. Getting cars to hit a certain CO2rating is almost an engineering con trick that's why many cars don't hit their official MPG figures.
Of course the real world MPG will change. The figures are not perfect but they are a good estimation IMHO. CO2 and MPG are highly related and so a reduction in one will reduce the other.
As for tax, those that don't understand it and can't spot 'Stealth' taxes don't understand how much they are paying. £35 tax is a good marketing trick and it encourages people to buy smaller cars (which is a good thing), but the difference between a 130g CO2 and a 120 is not worth considering when to tax for those buying a new car.
|
I think the diff in VED between £35 and £120 actually means a lot to a great many people in this country. Admittedly, if people are so short of cash then they probably will not be rushing out and buying a brand new Jazz but... in a few years time on the secondhand market that difference in VED will make a whole world of difference to an awful lot of people in our country.
In fact, I think it matters to even new buyers of the Jazz as I imagine there are many families, pensioners, long-term sick and such who have a fixed budget to live on and they allocate money week by week for the bills - car, house, power, food, etc.
With the coming recession money is going to get an awful lot tighter. I remember the 1980s and it was miserable if you were out of work. I fear those days are returning.
|
>> Of course the real world MPG will change.
>>
No it won't - unless they make some changes to the car (not just ECU tweaking).
CO2 and MPG are highly related and so a reduction in one will reduce the other.
They're not highly related - they're exactly related. MPG isn't measured at all - it's calculated from the CO2 figure.
So, obviously, if the CO2 figure improves then the laboratory MPG will improve. But the real world MPG probably won't. These tests are all about how clever the manufacturer is in designing for the test.
|
>>But the real world MPG probably won't.
Is there any evidence, anywhere to support this theory?
|
Is there any evidence anywhere to support this theory?
How would one measure real world economy to any evidential standard?
|
There's an article here about the tests that most people already understand:
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/environment/2748922/F...l
|
So, there will be a few hundred early sold Jazz I-shifts on 125g/km then a later main production run on 120 or less once its modded and re-approved?
Nightmare for owners, the s/h trade and probably the DVLA as well.
|
|
What would be involved in the recertification from Honda's part - is it something physical they have to do to the engine and / or exhaust an / or i-shift box or is it as simple as a software upgrade? Anyone know?
|
|
My concern would be that they do something - perhaps ECU changes or even changing gear / final drive ratios - that enable the car to meet the under 120g/km spec but at the expense of the driveability.
|
Just ordered a 1.4 ES I-shift and got metallic paint (pearl) plus premium pack thrown in - no part exchange. My usual Honda dealer would only include metallic paint, did not return call requesting test drive - the one we ordered from let us have a 24 hour test drive.
The test drive let us get used to the I-shift; See my comments in the relevant HJ thread/forum.
SQ
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 12/04/2009 at 01:08
|
|
|
|
|
