I wonder if this will make any difference to the thing that puts me off hybrids with CVT: the frenetic revving that happens if you need some quick acceleration, such as when joining a motorway.

In the Jazz I switch to SPort mode and acclerate hard. 5,000rpm on a motorway sliproad souns great,,,:-)

Avant, that has nothing to do with it being a CVT, it is because of where the power band of the engine is. As hybrids have N/A petrol engines, having a 'launch gear' is going to make no difference to the engine speed peak torque is delivered.

madf, i don't actually bother with sport mode on out current shape jazz CVT, i have found that it does not make any difference to the burst of acceleration needed to pass another vehicle or join a motorway. As long as the throttle is fully depressed (passed the point near the bottom where there is a bit more resistance!), it will go right to the red line in the normal 'drive' mode. But i agree, it does sound suitably rorty!.

In the Jazz I switch to SPort mode and acclerate hard. 5,000rpm on a motorway sliproad souns great,,,:-)

What is actually happening is you plant your foot on the accelerator, the revs shoot up to 5000 and you don't really accelerate at all. But since the engine is making such a racket you think you are.

Exactly the reason I hate all CVT's.

So badbusdriver, you argue that a heavier, less powerful Honda Jazz fitted with an inefficient CVT is as fast or even faster than a lighter, more powerful Skoda Fabia with an efficient manual gearbox even though every magazine test I have read clearly disagrees. I have driven a Jazz many times in the past, it was an early one and a manual but that car was not as quick in the real world as our old 1.2 Micra which had less power and torque but was lighter.

I can see know why you are so deluded with your recent videos.

I'm not arguing at all, you do quite enough of that for everyone else. I'm simply stating the case and facts for the jazz CVT from someone who has now owned one for nearly a year now, as opposed to accepting the opinion of someone who hasn't.

You gave the figures for the fabia, i can't comment on that as i have neither driven or timed one from 30-70mph. But i have timed our jazz, so i know it can do it in 10 seconds (with a passenger). As it happens, i also know that it does 50-70mph in exactly the same time (6 seconds) as our previous car, a hyundai i30 turbo diesel auto (t/c) which had 280nm of torque @ 1500 rpm versus 123nm @ 5000 rpm of the jazz.

As for your extensive magazine reading on the jazz CVT, i find that very hard to believe. 1, because very few magazines road test small automatic cars of any kind. And 2, of those magazines, very very few of them bother to do the mid range acceleration timing anymore. I think Autocar does, but not sure of any others, and i am a serial car magazine buyer. So perhaps you could enlighten us with dates and titles for all these magazine tests of the jazz CVT you refer to?. I also surely can't be alone in wondering why you spend so much time reading magazine tests of cars you don't like?.

And i am not at all surprised at you describing me as 'deluded', after all my opinion differs from yours.

And another thing, just out of curiousity, which of my recent video's are you referring to?. I know my memory is not what it once was, but i don't recall ever posting a video on the forum, let alone recently.

I have in front of me a brochure for the new Jazz, I picked it up when we went to look at the HRV last month (walked away from that because of the woeful performance from a non-turbo engine).

The Honda figures are 0-60 12.1 seconds for the CVT version, Honda who make then say the manual is faster. Unfortunately they don't quote in gear figures.

Skoda's figures for the Fabia are 0-60 in 9.5.

But as we all know 0-60 times are irrelevant in the real world but its clear from the manufaturers figures which is the quicker car.

As for torque your Honda as you say has 123 Nm @ 5000 rpm (about 91 lbs in old money). The Fabia has 200 Nm @ 2000 -3500 rpm (about 148 lbs in old money). That is 62% more at much lower revs and a much wider powerr band.

There is no way on this planet that a lighter car with more power and a wider powerband is going to be slower es[ecially when the heavier car is saddled with a CVT which can only be described as the devils work.

For the record 50 - 70 in 6 seconds is about the same as a VAG 1.4 TSi in 4th gear and that is a car with 184 lbs of torque.

Sorry but I think you need a new watch.

If you know the 0-60 times in the real world is irrelevant, then why quote them?.

1, At no point did i say or imply the jazz was quicker than the fabia.

2, At no point did i say or imply that the jazz is a better car than the fabia.

3, At no point have i slagged off either you or your choice of car *

(*This is because i am an adult)

This may well surprise you, but i really don't care whether or not you do or don't believe the figures i quote for the jazz. I know how fast it is (for the record, my son did the timing on his smartphone), i know how well it steers, handles and brakes. I don't know what the fabia can do, nor do i claim to.

I don't place much, if any, faith in what the motoring press say about any car which doesn't meet what they consider an acceptable level of performance. Unless the car in question can get round the 'ring in whatever time, hit 60 in under 6 seconds, and be able to hang it's tail out at will, imo, they really are not very objective.

And, surprise surprise, my request that you tell us about all these road tests which describe how slow the jazz CVT gets from 30-70 have gone unanswered. Could it be that they are fictional?.

I'm also waiting to hear about my recent video's, which apparently prove me to be deluded?

Click on the link on the 1st post.

I don't think it relates to towing boats, but might be something that involves smashing bottles of champagne?

And, surprise surprise, my request that you tell us about all these road tests which describe how slow the jazz CVT gets from 30-70 have gone unanswered. Could it be that they are fictional?.

It was an Autocar test carried out when the CVT was reintroduced to replace the unloved box used in the first Mk2's. My god, that must have been bad. Even with the CVT box the test was not complimentary, the car came well down the list.

Just found a AutoExpress review for the latest Jazz. the manual does 30-70 through the gears in 10.4, there is no way a CVT will be as quick as that so I totally believe the Autocar test of the Mk2.

AutoExpress go on to say "We haven't been bowled over by the CVT auto gearbox - we’d avoid it unless you absolutely have to have an automatic, as it’s an unpleasant operator"

The Jazz is not a bad car, dad's was totally reliable for 5 years but he was pleased to see the back of it bacuse of the ride, noise and seats. The Note is a far better car in just about every respect but Nissans inept marketing people have simply ignored it and the public have followed their example. But as with the Jazz all the reports have said that the CVT version is truly dreadful.

Edited by skidpan on 20/03/2018 at 09:08

The important point is not which of the two can get to 62 quickest,but which one will give over a 100,000 miles reliably. My money is on the Honda.

Hmmmm I've not yet owned a car that's reached 100k with no issues. Engines are generally fine but things like suspension springs, wheel bearings, electrical gremlins have been irritating. Last car, an Octavia had a great engine but build quality was lacking in several areas, the one before that the same. Best car to date believe it or not a Renault megane!

Ah the mk 2 GTI, favourite car ever! I had the standard mk2 and never quite got round to the GTI, lovely car! Worth good money now in good condition.