The Jazz 1.5 is a really great car. Economical, spacious and versatile. The amount of space inside is really phenomenal given its petite footprint on the road. The equipment on-board is sufficient, especially when HID comes standard on this top of the line model. The ride is slightly less busy than its predecessor, but nevertheless still jolts around on minor imperfections on the road. The 5-speed automatic is quite rare in this class of cars, but it could have been more responsive, especially the +/- on the steering wheel which lagged a little after initiating a change in gear. And on paper the car produces 120bhp, but the acceleration is not exciting at all. Those looking for more urgent acceleration better look at the manual version or go for the Fit RS with its close ratio gearbox.
However, I did not buy this car because for all it is worth, this car represents poor value for money. The price of the top of the range Jazz was more than the least expensive Civic the last time i went to take a look at it. And for the same amount of money, one is able to buy better alternatives from the Europeans and Koreans. Blame it on the very strong Japanese Yen. I was shocked when I was told that the OMV for the range topping model was $23K. Things are slightly better now after Kah Motors reduced their prices across the board.
In comparison with the Suzuki Swift Sport, the Suzuki would appeal to those who put driving enjoyment above cabin space and versatility. The Swift is so much more fun to drive and feels a lot more energetic. You can really feel the 125 horses pulling the little car, and they are really there. However, the Swift is so short of legroom at the rear.
All in all, if the Jazz is priced $10K lower than what it commands now, I am sure you would be seeing a lot more Jazzs on the roads. Everyone wants a Jazz, but the Fits offered by PIs represent better value probably because they have a less comprehensive standard equipment.
Spacious and versatile interior
Lightweight steering great for city and parking
Sound insulation could be better
Plastic used could be better and more scratch-resistant
Are there really 120 horses?
exactly. i am comparing the jazz and the polo in terms of value for money. in the polo you get a lot of kit compared to Kah Motor's naked jazz. plus if you are upgrading from a korean make, i'll rather go continental than jap. take 2 steps forward and not just half a step. oh and continental does not include Fiat which is extremely cheap in europe and ridiculously expensive here. asdzds
Ya VW Polo is really value for money. Looks more sophisticated than the Jazz too. Depends on what an individual really wants though. If he really needs a flexible interior to carry bulky items, and enjoy the novelty of a skyroof and enjoys modding with aftermarket accessories, then he will go for the Jazz. But if he enjoys European engineering and sophistication, and is looking for a premium supermini, then the Polo is the choice. People who has driven a european car seldom will go back to a Jap make. I used to wonder, but now i know why. asdzds
Jason, I dont think Polo is this Cramp. My sis in law bought this car. Me and my wife can sit in comfortably, not what you claimed that it cannot sit 2 children. Hack, even VW bettle can sit me and my wife comfortably. Having own previous model of Jazz before, the back sit is almost equal in space to Jazz. asdzds
Jason, have you sitted in the Polo before? I have seen the sit at the rear seat, its anything but cramp. enough to sit 2 oversize adults with ample legs space. Dont be decive by its wheel base, the german engineer done a very good job in giving ample space to the leg rooms for their cars. asdzds
Jazz is all rounder for the hatch just like corolla for the sedan
Swift sport is the best for the hatch but a bit cramp at the back
Polo is the worst , don even want to test, the back seat cannot even sit children let alone adults..should extend the wheelbase IMO asdzds
I drive a Jazz 1.5 (I think you should know by now) so my response is not really to defend the car.
After driving it for a year and know some issues I would want to clarify somethings.
- About the 120 ponies. It will only kick in at 6500 rpms and while we are testing the car, be it at Alexander/:eng Kee and Ubi, both locations are not really helpful in unleashing the car's potential. More dangerously so when at Alexander, there's a bridge that TP like to set themselves up for speed offences (tip yeah!!)
So what happened was I went over to Pasir Gudang with most things stock (except for the rim+tires), I really push the car to the limit, even with a very aggressive setting on the throttle controller set at Max sports mode. I tell you the excitement from the engine really shows its true potential.
This car is in a way, hampered by the conservative throttle controller settings as it wants to ensure it keeps its FC king label intact. That's why the acceleration is less than satisfaction if one keep the controller as stock. I won't go into UNICHIP.
I was also shock when the OMV is 23K for the top of the line. But it is not entirely based on the exchange rate. Those extra 'OMVs' goes towards
- additional 2 disc brakes at the back
- some chasis strengthening via anti roll bar at the bottom of the car
- a sportier suspension than the Fit hence the gap between the wheel and the body is significantly smaller than the gap on the Fit as the Fit is mated with a suspension biased towards comfort. That explains why the ride is a bit rougher but not as bad is GD
- HID lights
- Climate Controller
- Stock radio/CD/MP3 Player rumoured to be from the top jap brands + FOUR speakers
- Tonneau/Boot cover
- Better NVH (Actually the sound insulation is a lot more than most cars in its class)
- Emergency tire
As for the Swift. I agree totally with you about the drive. I test drive the 1.2l. Pick up was horrific and so was the space (i am fairly big sized). And if we want to talk about the Sport, then I would have to let on that the Sports need RON98 to run because the engine has a higher compression ratio and 98 is needed to prevent premature ignition.
If we factor the cost of petrol, the Swift Sport is not that great actually and it is not exactly a good petrol sipper. So if we translate it to total cost of ownership, it may turn out to be on par or slight more than the Jazz. If we include OMV and the amount of rebates we can get back, the Jazz would have the edge over the swift sport.
As you have correctly observed, there would be more Jazz if the price is lowered and Kah has lowered it to a 'saner' level. And we have VW to thank because the manufacturer is dealing direct with customers and the result was the $63000 POLO that is a direct competitor to the Jazz.
But the Polo is smaller and the maintenance cost is not going to be cheap as it requires more electronic system checks at the workshop and there are not many places that specicialises in FULL conti cars maintenance (Star Black comes to mind).
My 2 cents asdzds
Similar cars tried:
Mitsubishi Colt Plus
Ford Festiva (my old 1.3l car)
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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
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