What do Yeti owners think of the diesel emissions debate?

[Huskoda]

There lies the fundamental problem in our thinking, when you mention engine (above), you mean the vehicle that has had all manner of devices and computer control added on to it to clean up what comes out of the engine.  These are fine for the time that the car is under warranty, when it gets to over 3 year old and is on its second or third owner, that's when the work arounds to replacing/fixing failing emissions equipment start and when it gets to the 7.5 year old average age of UK cars, they won't be worth spending the money on.

As a used car buyer, this is the worst of it for me. So much more crap to go wrong, which will be expensive and lead to otherwise sound cars being scrapped. Shorter car lives mean more sales though, but its terrible for the buyer and the environment.

[countryboy]

There lies the fundamental problem in our thinking, when you mention engine (above), you mean the vehicle that has had all manner of devices and computer control added on to it to clean up what comes out of the engine.  These are fine for the time that the car is under warranty, when it gets to over 3 year old and is on its second or third owner, that's when the work arounds to replacing/fixing failing emissions equipment start and when it gets to the 7.5 year old average age of UK cars, they won't be worth spending the money on.

 

Diesel will always be a horrible smelly fuel and that's before you burn it.  You only have to see the big soot stain on the concrete outside our MOT bay to see how dirty it burns, even the ones fitted with particulate filters smell toxic.  A cleaner burning fuel is the way to go, LPG or Hydrogen, even electricity produced in nuclear power stations would be a healthier option to power cars.

Yes, but even petrol cars now are saddled by computer control and expensive catalysts to get emissions down to current levels, more to go wrong on those too, you don't get much in the way of the "rotten eggs" smell from diesel cars that you get from petrol cars when they are cold and on choke or have failing, expensive catalysts.

 

You must be testing a lot of older generations of diesel so I would expect to see the soot stains outside the MOT bay. So why is it the emissions test for a diesel is to rev the nuts off it in neutral and see what smoke comes out of the back and that for a petrol is to let it tick over and properly analyse the gas contents? The smell coming out of the back may smell toxic but the smell that comes from filling up with petrol is caused by the benzene in the fuel which is a known carcinogenic compound.

 

I agree that a cleaner burning fuel is the way to go but LPG isn't it as that is a fossil fuel at the end of the day, hydrogen, if it can be transported and stored safely, would be the way forward in my opinion as the only emission is water which can then be re-split into hydrogen and oxygen for use again, though at what cost in energy usage to do so I'm not sure of.

 

Ian

[Ryeman]

I imagine that in the future, 230 nm torque from a 1.2 petrol engine may be feasible, however that will be using camshafts optimised to produce max torque and then needing to rev to 8000+ rpm in order to produce a reasonable power output which will make them a lot less useable in the real world compared to a good diesel. Petrol engines will never be able to produce useable output and efficiency like a diesel until they can be produced to use a compression ratio approaching 17 to 1 as opposed to the 10 to 1 that is the norm now and I doubt that will happen as the volatility of the fuel will stop such developments. If in the future more manufacturers adopt the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Adblue route to NOx control, then the NOx output from a diesel engine will be virtually zero and the arguments put forward by the Dispatches will be nullified over night.

Ian

Sorry, in the future?

Try last year.

It's a direct (stratified) injection turbocharged 1.2L that currently (and on sale at your local dealer) produces 230nm at 1750rpm (95% fm 1500) on PETROL, and for those who can't get past horsepower figures, produces 130 at revs I'm not particularly interested in.

it's a light weight diesel burning petrol if you like. 2014 European car of the year also.

[clv101]

The Yeti does a lot of things right, even brilliantly, but the 4x4 diesel's fuel consumption isn't one of them. The 110, 140 and 170 are bands G and F.

 

The 150 TDCI in the 4x4 Kuga is 135g band E and the 181 bhp diesel in the XC60 is just 117g band C!

[Ryeman]

The Yeti does a lot of things right, even brilliantly, but the 4x4 diesel's fuel consumption isn't one of them. The 110, 140 and 170 are bands G and F.

 

The 150 TDCI in the 4x4 Kuga is 135g band E and the 181 bhp diesel in the XC60 is just 117g band C!

That's v interesting as I've never heard of branding diesels.

Is it real world, including drag coefficient (CD) X area or 'rolling road' data?

[clv101]

Yeti certainly loses some efficiency but gains practicality due to its shape.

The new Euro 6 engines do seem to have an edge on the old VAG Euro 5 versions though. I think from this Sept, new models can't be sold with Euro 5 engines, old models get another year 'til Sept 16.

[Ryeman]

Do you know how they measure the emissions?

A Volvo engine in a Yeti will produce more actual emissions than in a 60 series for obvious reasons.

It's a heavy brick compared to a svelte sedan.

[clv101]

Do you know how they measure the emissions?

A Volvo engine in a Yeti will produce more actual emissions than in a 60 series for obvious reasons.

It's a heavy brick compared to a svelte sedan.

I'm not convinced. I think that new engine in the XC60 is fundamentally more frugal than the current VAG engines.

 

Comparing the XC60 D4 181 with the Yeti Outdoor 170, the XC60 is taller (1713mm vs 1614), wider (1891m vs 1793), running on wider tyres (235 vs 225) and heavier (1702kg vs 1540)... yet it manages to return 117g/kg vs 149.

 

Difference in tax is £115/yr less. On 10,000 miles at £1.15 diesel, the difference in stated efficiency 49.6 vs 62.8 mpg adds up to £220 less. That's £1000 extra to fuel a Yeti over an XC60 for three years.

 

In my mind the Yeti's efficiency is its only achilles heal, it's not bad, but it's not great either which is a shame.

[Ryeman]

^^^^^ yes, but it's efficiency rating would be better I'd think but only a factor if it relatable to real world emissions.

Weight isn't such an issue once up to speed.

However, I'm assuming it's a typical 'lab test' on a rolling road.

As with the Pug, stratified distribution of fuel during each power stroke seems to be the key to much of the issues - emissions, torque and economy etc.

Yeti diesels, and now petrol, have plenty of scope for improvement.

[900000]

I'm not convinced. I think that new engine in the XC60 is fundamentally more frugal than the current VAG engines.

 

Comparing the XC60 D4 181 with the Yeti Outdoor 170, the XC60 is taller (1713mm vs 1614), wider (1891m vs 1793), running on wider tyres (235 vs 225) and heavier (1702kg vs 1540)... yet it manages to return 117g/kg vs 149.

 

Difference in tax is £115/yr less. On 10,000 miles at £1.15 diesel, the difference in stated efficiency 49.6 vs 62.8 mpg adds up to £220 less. That's £1000 extra to fuel a Yeti over an XC60 for three years.

 

In my mind the Yeti's efficiency is its only achilles heal, it's not bad, but it's not great either which is a shame.

 

Yup...  which is why I see no point upgrading my gas guzzler V8 Yeti to an FL one since they didn't update the engines and the Yeti range is now a very, very dirty range. The cost of a decent XC60 is also not a million miles of a top of the range L&K DSG either...

[Hairball]

Yup...  which is why I see no point upgrading my gas guzzler V8 Yeti to an FL one since they didn't update the engines and the Yeti range is now a very, very dirty range. The cost of a decent XC60 is also not a million miles of a top of the range L&K DSG either...

 

So true Johann. Just a little off topic quote from a recent previous work college who had an XC60 T6 that went like a scolded cat, "Comparing the handling of a Yet 170  to an XC60 is like comparing a go cart to a mattress", that was after a few playful roundabout sprints when I had my Yeti.

 

The Hairball report on topic:

 

The government, any government will up the tax on oil burners I think, they will help  'guide' us to Euro 6 motors by charging extra for previous versions. This does nothing to help the many Euro 5 and prior owners who may not be in a position to change the vehicle whilst trying to absorb the resultant reduced resale value of their current one. The more affluent who change cars more regularly will of course be less affected.

 

There does seem to be an anti diesel movement from a while back. Diesel used to be cheaper than petrol then lots of people moved to the black pump and it went up. Then they ordered DPFs to be fitted that knackered it for many who only did shorter journeys who now risk DPF problems if the thing does not reach optimum operating temperature and stay there during a regen. (I didn't have a problem in 5 years of DPF ownership but my commutes were at ~22 miles)

 

Some years once the coffin is readied for the black pump and everyone has shelled out a fortune to move to the less economical green pump there will be another crisis that means the green pump like the black pump before it was after all the spawn of evil. So we all have to get new walking shoes that are made from extracts obtained from petrol and diesel and cause really nasty things in the mating ritual of the Dapple headed Bottle worm....... so a heavy tax is placed on walking shoes.....

 

That is all.

Edited 30 January, 2015 by Hairball

[Ryeman]

Anyway after 1010km I managed to jam in 50.5L which in my old language = 56.49mpg.

60 on better roads should be no problem and it prefers to stay in the 1800 - 2100 rev range.

For the tech heads

I think they have managed to avoid pre-ignition with the stratified charge ie up to 3 mini injections around TDC per power stroke......that's 1st and 0s for you!

Edited 30 January, 2015 by Ryeman

[Ryeman]

Yup...  which is why I see no point upgrading my gas guzzler V8 Yeti to an FL one since they didn't update the engines and the Yeti range is now a very, very dirty range. The cost of a decent XC60 is also not a million miles of a top of the range L&K DSG either...

I guess the hand-me-down engines are VAG's way of controlling Skoda's sales success.

[Hairball]

I guess the hand-me-down engines are VAG's way of controlling Skoda's sales success.

Agreed, but this has two sides to it.

 

OK as far as the current Yeti is concerned they will use the well proven power plants of yesterdays Audi, VW. But they are proven with the majority of the bugs fixed (or squashed).

 

With the introduction of the VAG MQB platform (think Audi A3, VW Golf, Passat, Seat Leon and the Ovtavia III) this is the first time that Skoda have had the chance to use the current modular rolling chassis and electronics associated with it that will allow Skoda to use the later but not latast power plants as you pointed out. An example would be the ACT (Active cylinder control where the 4 cyl drops to a 2 cyl operation under low loads) this is available in some but not all Seat, VW and Audi but is not available yet to my knowledge for Skoda. This may not be a bad thing as the other makes can perform the real world testing of these engines before Skoda gets the sorted items. If I recall Skoda also currently does not get the 1.2 TSI 110 lump but uses the current (but brilliant) 105 unit and the uprated 110 (from 105) 1.6 CR diesel is available on limited Skodas including the Octy III Greenline. So lets let VW/AUDI/SEAT fix the main issues first before we have to make regular visits to the dealers for fixing. Paying a tad more tax or whatever for now may be worth more than having the inconvenience of car into the dealers for a fix and then a fix to the fix....

 

It is with the more sorted, maybe hand me down assets from the VAG parts bin that has helped Skoda and not hinder it in my humble view,

 

Apologies for going off topic (again) Off to the corner now

 

Anyway who ever you vote for the government always gets in   :zzz:

Edited 30 January, 2015 by Hairball

[Ryeman]

^^^^ yep!

Cutting edge tech is a two-edged sword.

[countryboy]

Sorry, in the future?

Try last year.

It's a direct (stratified) injection turbocharged 1.2L that currently (and on sale at your local dealer) produces 230nm at 1750rpm (95% fm 1500) on PETROL, and for those who can't get past horsepower figures, produces 130 at revs I'm not particularly interested in.

it's a light weight diesel burning petrol if you like. 2014 European car of the year also.

I grant you that, having looked at Peugeots figures but it is hardly a light weight diesel burning petrol, especially if you look at the diesels with a comparable power output which have loads more torque, it helps to have only 3 cylinders as that means, for a given capacity, that the surface area of each piston is larger and the throw of the crankshaft will be larger so will have a greater force imparted on them to produce a higher torsional stress on the crankshaft so higher torque output. Will it be feasible? Only time will tell when long term reliability issues come to the fore.

[Ryeman]

1.2 L turbocharged - 230nm @ 1750 and 130bhp@5500 petrol

V

2.0 L turbocharged - 320nm @ 1750 and 140bhp@ (?) diesel

You need to compare capacities .