Ratz

I do not know the rules outside Italy, but here we have a official document accompanying the car (not the user manual) with some data about power, noise, mass and so on and listing the permissible tires (the man of the workshop where I went to order the tires wanted to see this document).

I agree: the ideal size would be 205/60/16 which is even more comfortable. It is a stupid thing it is not permitted!

The certificate accompanying my car states that 205/55 r16 is allowable. Maybe every country has different rules about tire size.

I put 205/55 r16 for winter in place of 225/50 r17. Now at indicated 140 km/h the real speed (checked through gps) is -legally- 130 km/h. Maybe this is a easy way to change the gear ratio... In addition the car is 10 mm lower.

Needless to say, the betterment in mpg due to wheels' smaller circumference is false as it is related to the figure shown by the on-board computer (it does not know that wheels were changed...)

Yes, but the percentage does not change even for the circumference. So 4% of apparently more distance than real...

Right. The difference is 4% (if the calculation are right). First column is the dia in mm. 656,8 225 50 17 631,9 205 55 16 The smart thing is that you see immediately the difference just looking at the car (not a good appearance, I have to say...) Bye.

For me, the same. My winter wheels are 5% smaller, so real distance you make is 5% less, then the APPARENT fuel consumption is 5% less. Of course if you consider less drag due to reduced contact surface, and less mass and +0,2 bar pressure, the fuel waste can REALLY be less. With winter I suddenly passed from -indicated- 15 km/l to 15.8 km/l. Bye, Ratz

Just yesterday I had Pirelli Sottozero 205/55/R16 mounted in place of the summer 225/50/17. It is early to give an opinion, but the steering is lighter and the noise less. What it is sure is that being the wheels 1 inch less in height the car lowered 1/2 inch and the gearing was slightly changed (the same speed that in summer tires I had at 4000 rpm is now at 4200...), Regards, Ratz

When, 7 years ago, I was going to decide for a 307 I was in doubt if to go for a 2.0 or a 1.6 (petrol). I went for the 1.6 for economy: then I was happy about the choice. In very rare situations I had to go over 4000 rpm (the max torque was at that speed), the 2.0 would have been oversized for me, as the 1.6 was never used at its limit. One could say: "if I have to overcome very quickly the more power I have the more sure I am". This is indeed true, but the gain in time is sensible only if the power is very very higher: differences in 10-15% in power/torque are quite not noticeable (so the difference between e.g. a 1.2 and 1.4 cannot be abyssal, in my opinion). If the gain in a 0.1 sec. while ovecoming is not vital, there is no need to discard the 1.2. Personally, I am more than happy with the 1.2, because I note it is not necessary to stress it for usual situations. On motorways over 110 km/h it is not fast in accelerating (but we have very often this speed limit); I think that may happen that an overcoming could be postponed (most of the time this is not dramatic, but depends on the driver's philosophy). This for me is unfrequent, but what I am sure is that at every motor axle rotation the fuel has to fill only 1.2 liters (particularly, when still and at idle, when turbo does not work...). Summing up, IMO: if you have a bigger motor you can exploit it sometimes, but most of the times it is useless (of course, for users not desidering always to reach the redline). Bye, R.

I had the Alpin A3 in T index for my previous Peu 307. They were very good in snow, confortable, not noisy and without vibrations. I remember the grip on wet was not so good, but the lack of grip was quite gradual so you could -hopefully- recover. Summing up I was happy with them and I tried to order Alpin A4 in september and they said it was too early. Ordered in mid october, and now they say Alpin A4 are not available at the moment, so I will have to choose between Pirelli and Goodyear. I also ordered 16 inch alloy wheels (Enzo W, 7 arms) to match with 205/55R16 91H. Now I have Conti 225/50R17. The price for wheels+A4 tires is 1000 Euro. Bye, Ratz

I would not say 35 mpg is a bad result, considering that the official figure in mixed mode is 6.6 l/100 km (if I am not wrong 35 mpg=6.75 l/100 km, so only slightly worse than official). I got 7 l/100 km in overall 6000 km. Bye, Ratz

These days with colder weater (10 °C), I note that after, say, 2 seconds after starting the engine the revolutions soon drop to 700 RPM. In previous warmer days it stayed for at least 20 seconds at 1200-1400 RPM before setting at 700. This behaviour seems to me the opposite it should be! Did Anyone experience the same? Bye. Ratz

My today experience: liquid 2 millimeters below the minimum. While opening the cap I heard some pressurised air exit. This looked strange as the engine was cold. The liquid grew (I suppose due to the relief of the pressure) and set at 3 mm above the minimum, so I closed the cap without any addition. Closing the cap I noted a "click" and the upper slot positioned in the "road direction", BUT PREVIOUSLY, unscrewing the cap -I am sure- no click and the slot was transversal! So I suppose a wrong initial cap closing... Bye. Ratz

In a mixed usage I measured 14 km/l in 2000 km. But I was very rarely over 4000 rpm. Bye

12 km/l

I was traditionally against SUVs for their ecologic impact and being -mostly- status symbol cars. Yeti made me change idea as, in my opinion, it has not the above "properties" (and really I do not consider it a SUV...). The fact Yetis are not so frequent on the roads, for me is an added value (a bit of snobism, I admit). Bye, Ratz

I just had a 1.2 TSI... Ok, do not mind, I hope the consumption will be lower!

Member name: Ratz Engine: 1.2 TSI Model: Adventure - Blue aqua Location: Savona, Italy

My Yeti 1.2 blue aqua arrived on 22 may 2010. I hope I will have it in two or three days... Bye from Savona, Italy