Have you test driven any car recently? Share your experience with others. Write Your Car Review!

Best Small Car has
gotten better

Reviewed on 24 Nov 2008 8:03PM
Reviewed by: wilswong
Similar cars tried: Mazda 2
Toyota Yaris
Mitsubishi Colt Plus
Ford Festiva (my old 1.3l car)
Fuel consumption: 16.8 km/litre
Drive pattern: 20% city/town driving with 80% on highway. To maximise the Jazz fuel sipping potential, I have installed the Pivot 3 Drive and put it at Eco (economy) setting no. 3 where there is enough pick up to merge traffic on the expressway yet save enough petrol to last the tank longer than usual.
Duration of car driven: Not Sure

The Review

If you are out to get a small car in the face of recession where low petrol consumption is of paramount importance, then the new Honda Jazz would be a god-send. A total re-vamp from the trusty Honda Jazz GD, the new Honda Jazz GE is much bigger in terms of actual size and the new design also make it look more aggressive than its predecessors. No wonder this car is the new darling amongst modification fanatics as it has the potential to do more than what Honda has designed it to do. To be fair, what Honda has specified as factory settings is more than enough for the point A to point B drivers without breaking the bank to pay for petrol. But for those who are racers wannabes would be pleased to know there are a lot more space for improvement when it comes to performance. What's great is that there are after market products that can actually increase performance or save petrol in one product thus making the Jazz a better drive or a sipper at a touch of a button. The look of the new Jazz is handsome enough but the potential to beautify it with nice looking bodykits and spoilers is very high as well. Having the skyroof ups the 'cool' factor even more when car segments of this class do not have such features. Necessary for sunny Singapore? I dun mind if the extra light makes the cabin roomier. Who cares since mine is OPC! All in, the Jazz is really a great car but the value of the car would be highly debatable given the current economic situation. The Jazz is not cheap at all and one has to determine if the premium paid justifies the Honda brand and the product quality that it represents. But one cannot doubt that Jazz would not bring a smile to your face every time you drive it. Is that driving experience important? The only thing I can say is that the car makes it easier for me to enjoy my day!


- Tons of space for a small car. ULTR seats makes even more space as and when necessary.
- Automatic Gear, better than CVT for local driving condition
- Firm ride
- Skyroof allows more sunlight in
- 1.5l is a bit more torquey and power to weight ratio is good
- Good range of aftermarket products to enhance ride
- Good handling, car feels more assured when changed to wider tyres
- A lot of cup holders


- Passengers do ride higher than the driver, may not feel as comfortable if driver wants to do some race driving
- Skyroof means more sunlight. Therefore those not parking in MSCP covered carparks may have issues
- Stock rims and tyre is a bane. Not to mention the weight.
- Car allows use of cargo net BUT did not come with the car
- No arm rest. Option costs more.

Latest Response:

Member Offline
Responded on: 22 Feb 2010 2:28PM

true about insurance. but a Euro NCAP is still important because even if we are careful drivers, the nut behind us may be a moron. reliabilty is not an issue with VW's. they seem to go on forever, even the electronics because unlike Merc and BMW, they are safe and well tried technology. not so space-aged. for example, the DSG has been around for ages, it's only now that they are foolproof that VW uses it. as for maintenance cost, VW's core target has always been the average joe and no local agent trying to market it as a premium brand(which VW actually are not) it would be interesting if we are able to get hold of VW's servicing costs and compare it to Kah Motors. How about it VW? care to enlighten us. Maybe that should be their next marketing campaign..... asdzds

Member Offline
Responded on: 20 Feb 2010 1:15AM

On the onset, I agree Polo gives more value for money IF you do not factor in the maintenance cost, insurance costs and other associated costs. Generally continental cars in SG attracts higher insurance than Japanese brands due to its more expensive repair parts. Secondly, continental cars are more electronics heavy hence doing a simple maintenance service is not as straight forward as say a simple korean/japanese car. As for safety ratings, yes it is a good indicator but ultimately, the best safety rating one can have is one's driving habit. I do agree with one thing: direct sales to customers do cut out the profit element of the agents. I foresee if Honda and Toyota loses a lot of business due to their recalls, then they have to increase their sales by cutting out the agents. At this point in time, I feel Kah's market strategy for the Jazz is not really helping with their sales. Yes Honda is a premium brand and some put it above Toyota but when conti cars are in the mix, the allure of Jap cars will diminish. Still, german engineering is great but reliability is still firmly in the japanese hands despite what has happened. asdzds

Member Offline
Responded on: 19 Feb 2010 3:03PM

VW Polo more value for money. EURO NCAP crash tested. DSG. The works. Shows what direct factory sales can do compared to local agent marking up prices. asdzds

Member Offline
Responded on: 13 Apr 2009 12:35PM

Agreed. The price difference may cover the petrol difference if we drive within Singapore alone assuming that one drives with economy in mind. The cost of ownership will increase much more if we drive north or have job that requires extensive driving. That erode the savings much faster. Even if most people won't drive more than 5 years, there are still people who will drive beyond. That's when a good economical car will pay its way. OMV at 23K does sound senseless to most, but when one wants to get rebates, then the OMV would help somewhat. I find the excuse of torque and power being a bit too simplified. In some ways, if a car has more torque, usually it means more 'powerful' then again how much torque do one really need to drive in Singapore? And the sense 'power' is also not accurate. All boils down to expectations. Let's use my example. I use around 33 litre per pump and pump twice a month which is 66litres or $1.50 x 66 = $99. My average FC is 14km/l so the average distance I travel per month is 462 x 2 = 924 km. Using Impreza of 9km/l (from the discussion topic), I would have used 103 litres per month or $1.50x103= $154.50. Therefore the difference is $55.5 per month or $666 or $3330 for 5 years. The above calculation would be more if one travels NSHW or travel alot for work. For my example, I got my car as weekend car, that's why I only pump twice in a month. Assume those who drive normal car and pump 4 times will save $100 per month, 1200 per year or 6K in 5 years and so on so forth. Put that equation in with the OMV, the picture will be clearer as to which car gives better value over the long run of 5 years. And as minifan says, buying a car is not solely based on Petrol Consumption. The comfort level, the usefulness of the car being a transporter of goods and humans and other pertinent issues like maintenance/parts resale value all comes into play. asdzds

Member Offline
Responded on: 29 Dec 2008 12:11AM

Do you think most car owners now will use a car for 5 years or more just to compensate on the cost of petrol? I think you have to qet your calculations right over here. A fren who bought a impreza TS was complaining abt the issues on its FC figures coming only to abt 8.5 to 9km per litre and regretted dearly ever since he owned tt "drinker". And one more thing, are there many off roads which are filled with mud and soil in Spore tt you desperately need an 4WD car to roam abt? Do you need a 4WD to negotiate a road bend at high speeds steadily which guarantees tt no accidents will ever happen? Always think before commenting on other road users' reviews. asdzds

Member Offline
Responded on: 1 Dec 2008 8:54AM

OMV 23k for this small car is senesless , it is not worth that price .Subaru AWD is for stability and traction , the 1.5 boxer might be under power but it is the torque that counts , u have to rev this monster to perform ,weak engine? you have not really drive a car until you drive a sub. asdzds

Member Offline
Responded on: 29 Nov 2008 11:37PM

Because the OMV is $23K for the 1.5-litre Auto with Skyroof. Whereas the Subaru is 13k. And Subaru has AWD that sucks power, heavy body, ugly cabin, poor performance from a weak engine. asdzds

Member Offline
Responded on: 29 Nov 2008 11:12AM

This car is overpriced , a subaru hatch is 15k cheaper and it drive better and the price difference can cover your petrol difference for at least 5 years . so why honda ? asdzds