Fuel economy on yeti vs Octy 2

[Canders]

Hello,

Having recently purchased an adventure spec snow monster for my other half, it apears that the fuel economy is not as good as my PD 1.9 FL estate. The fuel consumption figures given in maxi don't appear to show excessive consumption, she drives a lot more reservedly than I do. This could just be me, however, for peace of mind, has anyone else been in a position to compare vehicles? I realise that figures vary widely but I would have thought that the 2 ltr CR engine would be similar. The missus is presently looking at 580 miles per tank approx compared to 670 on the estate. Both have 55ltr capacity. One thing that did spring to mind is, has the Yeti had the recall work done? Its a 63 plate, and when I asked the dealer if the works been done, he didn't know! Anyone had the fix done and noticed any major changes? Does anyone know if there is any way of finding out if the work has been done, other than through the dealer?

I have VCDS but haven't scanned it yet, mainly to get a baseline before anything is changed (octy 2 is now a retrofit project for me!!!), but wondered if it's possible to glean anything from the scan.

 

Any info greatfully received.

[Expatman]

Certainly check any technical wrongs but the Yeti has the aerodynamics of a brick compared to an Octavia and therefore you cannot expect it to be as fuel efficient. The figures you quote seem to be in accord with reported figures for the 2 lt. CR engine.

[Canders]

Thanks for that. I did wonder if the shape would make a difference, just wasn't sure it would make such a large dent in the economy. Might have a look at a remap to see if that would improve things. I'll have to factor the cost of any remap vs fuel saved. It could be that it may not be worth it. 

[Carlodiesel]

Canders, shop around for re-map prices.

I was told by one re-mapper £400 then I got a quote for £250-300 by another.

All quotes also came with  a 20% better fuel economy. 

In the end didn't do it as under W still.

Now thinking of a change, so not on the horizon.

Most times we're getting high 50s. Steady runs @ CC set to 80 were getting 59mpg.

Last long run, if I remember 700 miles = 59.7mpg

More than happy with the car, just changing cos we can. Will be the 2lt SE Drive.

 

[logiclee]

For comparison.

 

We have a Yeti and an Octavia both with the 1.2TSi engine.

 

The Yeti around town and on a low speed run is about 6mpg behind the Octavia.

 

On a motorway at legal speeds that becomes about 10mpg difference. Push that to 80-85mph and I've seen as much as 15mpg difference on my commute.

 

That's what difference a bit more weight and the aerodynamics of a brick wall makes.

 

As a bit of reference we also used to have a Fabia 1.2TSi. The Fabia being lighter was more economical around town than the Octavia but the Octavia was still more economical for motorway work. The Octavia being low and having that extended hatchback has typical low saloon car areodynamics.

 

Lee

Edited 25 January, 2017 by logiclee

[kollikoukku]

My Yetis all fuel ups:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/skoda/yeti/2011/tos/332283

 

My previous golf

http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/golf/2007/tos/120843

 

Yeti needs +1 liter more diesel with almost same driving style, but it is dsg?

Edited 25 January, 2017 by kollikoukku

[Gizmo]

On 24/01/2017 at 15:33, Canders said:

Thanks for that. I did wonder if the shape would make a difference, just wasn't sure it would make such a large dent in the economy. Might have a look at a remap to see if that would improve things. I'll have to factor the cost of any remap vs fuel saved. It could be that it may not be worth it. 

 

You will never recoup the remap costs in fuel savings.

 

21 hours ago, Carlodiesel said:

Canders, shop around for re-map prices.

I was told by one re-mapper £400 then I got a quote for £250-300 by another.

All quotes also came with  a 20% better fuel economy. 

 

 

From experience you will gain an extra couple of MPG after a remap, but 20% more (so an extra 10 MPG) oh pleeeease!! 

 

They are certainly worth remapping (choose someone reputable, my recommendation is Shark Performance) as they drive much nicer, but don’t do it just to save money at the pump.

 

The Yeti economy is never going to be great due to its aerodynamics, speed however is the biggest killer in decent MPG in any car, especially one shaped like a brick.

[Canders]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 21:54, Carlodiesel said:

Canders, shop around for re-map prices.

I was told by one re-mapper £400 then I got a quote for £250-300 by another.

All quotes also came with  a 20% better fuel economy. 

In the end didn't do it as under W still.

Now thinking of a change, so not on the horizon.

Most times we're getting high 50s. Steady runs @ CC set to 80 were getting 59mpg.

Last long run, if I remember 700 miles = 59.7mpg

More than happy with the car, just changing cos we can. Will be the 2lt SE Drive.

 

A remap is definately on the books but 20% better? Considering the brick like aerodynamics, I would be surprised. The more responsive characteristic would be more important, eg should It be necessary to get out of the way etc.

[Canders]

6 hours ago, logiclee said:

For comparison.

 

We have a Yeti and an Octavia both with the 1.2TSi engine.

 

The Yeti around town and on a low speed run is about 6mpg behind the Octavia.

 

On a motorway at legal speeds that becomes about 10mpg difference. Push that to 80-85mph and I've seen as much as 15mpg difference on my commute.

 

That's what difference a bit more weight and the aerodynamics of a brick wall makes.

 

As a bit of reference we also used to have a Fabia 1.2TSi. The Fabia being lighter was more economical around town than the Octavia but the Octavia was still more economical for motorway work. The Octavia being low and having that extended hatchback has typical low saloon car areodynamics.

 

Lee

Lee, thanks for the comparison. As swmbo holds a blue badge, the extra height and the ease with which she can exit and enter the car made it a no brainer for a second car from that point, but I am surprised by the differece in mpg figures! She's very happy with it, which means I can have my Octy back! 

[Canders]

4 hours ago, Gizmo68 said:

 

You will never recoup the remap costs in fuel savings.

 

 

From experience you will gain an extra couple of MPG after a remap, but 20% more (so an extra 10 MPG) oh pleeeease!! 

 

They are certainly worth remapping (choose someone reputable, my recommendation is Shark Performance) as they drive much nicer, but don’t do it just to save money at the pump.

 

The Yeti economy is never going to be great due to its aerodynamics, speed however is the biggest killer in decent MPG in any car, especially one shaped like a brick.

Gizmo, having read up on the end results of remapping by numerous posts on the forums, i'm under no illusion that the costs would not be recouped, but the extra "umph" would certainly be welcome. Any increase in mpg would really be a bonus. I've been checking out Shark as am going to do the octy so it could be an expensive year to do both!! but something I really want to do. Thanks for the info.

[logiclee]

7 hours ago, Canders said:

Lee, thanks for the comparison. As swmbo holds a blue badge, the extra height and the ease with which she can exit and enter the car made it a no brainer for a second car from that point, but I am surprised by the differece in mpg figures! She's very happy with it, which means I can have my Octy back! 

 

That's also the reason we bought the Yeti. The Octavia is my commuting car but occasionally I do take the Yeti so can make a fair comparison between the two.

 

Lee

[KBPhoto]

I had a 2.0 litre PD Octave pre-FL (so not quite the same as yours) and switched to a 2.0 litre 170 Yeti and found the mpg to be lower on the Yeti.

 

On a long steady motorway run (about 65 mph with CC on) I could get easily get 65+ mpg in the Octavia and usually achieves 55-60 mpg in the Yeti doing the same in similar weather conditions.

 

They were both on the same tyres but switching to different tyres on the Yeti dropped this by about 5 mpg so I'm now looking at about 50-55 mpg in the Yeti.

 

I have VCDS and have calibrated both vehicles to be pretty accurate on the display.

 

HTH

[bigjohn]

Obviously the Yeti has the aerodynamics of a brick, however in any cars I've always found the pd engines have better "real life" economy.

 

The pumpe duse diesel injection systems had to be phased out as the mechanically cam operated (electrically fired) didn't work well with Diesel Particulate Filters. A few PD engined cars have DPFs but many have problems

 

Edited 27 January, 2017 by bigjohn

[Rooted]

Re recouping cost.

Man Maths.

12,000 miles a year @ 40 mpg uses 300 gallon.

12,000 miles a year @ 42 mpg uses 285 gallon.  only 15 gallon, but x 4 equals 60 gallons say £330. (eg a Keeper for 4 years or more.)

So maybe you can justify spending if the car actually feels that it runs better and it quite possibly does so, 

and it might save on consumables like spark plugs, but then you might spend on better than OEM and get 43 mpg.

Maybe even a better Air Filter or change the OEM one more often.

Edited 27 January, 2017 by Offski

[Canders]

4 hours ago, KBPhoto said:

I had a 2.0 litre PD Octave pre-FL (so not quite the same as yours) and switched to a 2.0 litre 170 Yeti and found the mpg to be lower on the Yeti.

 

On a long steady motorway run (about 65 mph with CC on) I could get easily get 65+ mpg in the Octavia and usually achieves 55-60 mpg in the Yeti doing the same in similar weather conditions.

 

They were both on the same tyres but switching to different tyres on the Yeti dropped this by about 5 mpg so I'm now looking at about 50-55 mpg in the Yeti.

 

I have VCDS and have calibrated both vehicles to be pretty accurate on the display.

 

HTH

KBPhoto, interesting. How do you calibrate using VCDS?. This would be good to carryout just for my own information and as a reference point should anything change or possibly go wrong.

3 hours ago, bigjohn said:

Obviously the Yeti has the aerodynamics of a brick, however in any cars I've always found the pd engines have better "real life" economy.

 

The pumpe duse diesel injection systems had to be phased out as the mechanically cam operated (electrically fired) didn't work well with Diesel Particulate Filters. A few PD engined cars have DPFs but many have problems

 

bigjohn, thankfully I don't have a dpf. What I don't understand is that if the pd returned better real world economy, why change it? Was it just to accomodate emissions regs?

[bigjohn]

4 minutes ago, Canders said:

 

bigjohn, thankfully I don't have a dpf. What I don't understand is that if the pd returned better real world economy, why change it? Was it just to accomodate emissions regs?

 

It was indeed to keep up with the euro emissions regs. An active DPF regen usually involves an extra injection of diesel during the exhaust stroke, unfortunately on the PD engine the mechanical cam operation makes this difficult

Edited 27 January, 2017 by bigjohn

[bigjohn]

Another consideration - don't just compare how many miles you get out of a tank as useable capacity can vary between cars even with very similar tank sizes.

 

With my 1.4 Superb II the most I've managed to put in the tank is about 51litres but it has theoretically a 60 litre tank. (Probably if I held my nerve at nearly zero miles I#d get more in!)

 

With my previous 1.9 Superb I the most I managed to put in the tank was about 65 litres but it had theoretically a 63 litre tank!!

 

Edited 27 January, 2017 by bigjohn

[Canders]

I'm with you on getting too low in the tank. I did run dry on an old diesel car many years ago and suffered a breakdown on the wolds, as far from civilisation as was possible when returning to Beverley after visiting friends in Scarborough. Needless to say, but as soon as reserve light comes on, if not before, it's time to fuel up!

[bigjohn]

1 minute ago, Canders said:

I'm with you on getting too low in the tank. I did run dry on an old diesel car many years ago and suffered a breakdown on the wolds, as far from civilisation as was possible when returning to Beverley after visiting friends in Scarborough. Needless to say, but as soon as reserve light comes on, if not before, it's time to fuel up!

 

That's my neck of the woods

[Canders]

3 hours ago, Offski said:

Re recouping cost.

Man Maths.

12,000 miles a year @ 40 mpg uses 300 gallon.

12,000 miles a year @ 42 mpg uses 285 gallon.  only 15 gallon, but x 4 equals 60 gallons say £330. (eg a Keeper for 4 years or more.)

So maybe you can justify spending if the car actually feels that it runs better and it quite possibly does so, 

and it might save on consumables like spark plugs, but then you might spend on better than OEM and get 43 mpg.

Maybe even a better Air Filter or change the OEM one more often.

Man math, good stuff! As I intend keeping both vehicles, I'm not one to chop and change, a remap can be justified. I can now quote your figures to swmbo as evidence!!!!!!!

[Canders]

1 minute ago, bigjohn said:

 

That's my neck of the woods

Beverley, or the wolds?

[bigjohn]

1 minute ago, Canders said:

Beverley, or the wolds?

 

Beverley

[Canders]

3 minutes ago, bigjohn said:

 

Beverley

I do miss it, but it's too far away from any Naval base so had to move down south.

[Andyrep]

Crikey I can't get over 45mpg in my 140 4x4 DSG lol

 

usually less especially if I drive it like I stole it  

 

[Canders]

4 minutes ago, Andyrep said:

Crikey I can't get over 45mpg in my 140 4x4 DSG lol

 

usually less especially if I drive it like I stole it  

 

Hopefully swmbo will not be driving like she stole it!!! I might, ocasionally though:)