TheOtherGuy

I would but management are singularly opposed to the idea despite protestations to the contrary.

Using the information above it calculates out at about 140mm linear per wheel for every engine rpm or 112m per min at a tick over of 800 rpm which is actually higher than our torque monster crd cherokee and that is way over geared in high range but compensates by having both low range and low rev torque in abundance. Thanks for the offer of a play, will bear in mind if we decide to pursue the idea.

Ok so I have been reading about the emissions recall fix thing and to be honest it along with the calculations of the gearing have put me off. If the torque is as suggested more in the upper rev band coupled with a racing gearbox it is not a good combination for our use. The search continues, thanks for your help.

Thanks that is telling me I might have to look elsewhere.

Is this a universal feature of the 4x4 ones as it sounds very useful? Or is it just on certain variants?

It will be for livestock in the dales so lots of hills and no zooming about being a heroic driving god, hence in the past using land rovers and jeeps but honestly whilst they can tow more weight in one go if they are getting at best low 20 mpg loaded up it is almost more economical to go twice with less weight at 3 times the mpg in a more comfortable and sensible yeti, if you know what i mean, that and its a much nicer thing to use the rest of the time its not working so hard . The thing is we also have a Jimny for the serious farming which is a lot lower geared and is physically capable of doing what we need because of its low range box but it is limited by law in what it can do on the road and the additional 700kg a yeti is rated for is quite significant. What would be disappointing would be to get a yeti and find that with all its power all it did was dig holes in the drive or stall turning onto the road, having had a discovery td5 that was prone to doing the same in high range it is not something we should be aiming for repeating. Yes these are very specific requirements and they place some serious limits on our options but the cost of altering our infrastructure to ease the pain would be eye watering.

So with the application of maths that means it is a racing box, hmm, interesting. That is for the 170?

Hi I'm sure this gets asked all the time but i can't find a straight answer. We are looking at adding to our skoda stable with a 4x4 yeti that will primarily be used as a tow car. Because our drive is quite steep and loose gravel we have in the past always sought out a low box transmission but nowadays that basically means something either huge and heavy or old and numb either of which are not going to be good on fuel. Hence why a yeti, thing is before we rush off and swap for one it might be prudent to get an idea of where the ratios are, in other words is first gear fairly low and good for low speed manoeuvres and giving a good lump of torque for getting a trailer moving or is it more for emergency starts in the traffic lights grand prix? It seems that there's a lot of potential options in the vag gearbox family with there being so many final drive and main set combinations available, so if someone could point out the most likely ones that would be great. Many thanks for your help in advance.

The Jimny is 7.5 inch under the diffs which is fine but because of the different ways the two suspension systems work it is a minimum dimension on the Jimny whereas the roomster is a maximum measurement. Thing is with a 195 70 15 it's a full 25 mm more under the car which can only help in these specific circumstances tho it might not be good for every other occasion.

Unfortunately due to dry stone walls that is not an option, more the pity.

Hi all. Second post so be prepared. I am possibly going to be inheriting a roomster from a family member as my daily. It has a lot of promise as a replacement for my Jimny in terms of interior volume for taking hay to sheep or transportation of other bulky farm items. However it is never going to compete with the Jimny for ground clearance and traction. I accept that it is an utterly different type of vehicle and I am not getting rid of the Jimny so it will still be doing all the high mobility work. What I would like though is to at least get near some of the parcels of land with the roomster, and this is the rub, the access to the main bit of land is via a green lane which while having access I am not at liberty to maintain, councils get upset with non specification repairs. So that means that I would have to lift the roomster so I don't gut it like a fish getting to where I want to be. That's the background. So to lift it I could look into taller springs say off a yeti but that's a lot of time and effort. Next and my preferred option is taller tyres. I know that will affect the gearing blah blah blah, but it is a relatively simple and easy way to gain half an inch or more of ground clearance. So has anyone else looked at this even from trying to get say 18s on one or something, I would be keeping the 15s just upping the sidewall profile to say a 70 from a 55. Any suggestions beyond don't bother and stick with the Jimny?

Hi there I'm new here. I don't yet have a roomster as such but if and when I do it will be a '10 with the 1.9 in mid silver, se I think. It all depends on the fall out of rearranged family vehicle usage.