Trekker

The OP's idea of using a comfortable bottom part of the chair suitable for daily driving with the shoulder supported back for enthusiastic corning, is excellent, I say. No discomfort for long drives, yet no gripping onto the steering wheel to stop the upper body being flung to either left or right when hard cornering! The shoulder support part of the seat will not interfere with the normal seat belt - I know because in my younger days, I drove around with a similar seat using the normal belt. The side air bags need to be carefully null'd so that the airbag system is still functional, but this is acheivable, I believe. The average seat for the average car has to accommodate the average person who might not be slim enough to even fit in a Recaro seat. So, making the seat fit better to a sporty driving slim man as the OP may well be is actually very sensible. I say WELL DONE to OP for sharing his brainwave. Now fit the seat, sort the airbag system and report back on the problems, solutions and experience!

Regarding the weight reduction versus balance for the track day outing, I can tell you from experience that weight is everything. If you can take out 50kg then you will be able to brake later, corner faster, accelerate faster and sooner. If the balance changes, then you must develop your driving skill to balance the Yeti through the weight transitions. The Porsche 911 has always had a balance issue, but to be honest, that is part of the challenge of driving such a machine quickly around a track. Who would have thought that a Yeti could transport 5 people in comfort, all their luggage with not-too-bad MPG, can have all the rear seats out to make a van AND make for a track day machine! The Yeti is a wonderful little car.

I must admit, Mr Sunroof Patient here is losing his patience and if Skoda doesn't allow me to order the car they were allowing before, then I will choose another make and model from a company that does serve my requirements.

AutoCar also has it reviewed:- http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Skoda-Yeti-1.6TDI-CR105-Eleg-Greenline-II/255584/ But wouldn't it be useful if the test drivers for both AutoExpress and AutoCar actually report their findings for the main feature of the Greenline II model: MPG. Pathetic first drive reports.

You say you're a bit deaf meanwhile claiming I have a medical problem because my more sensitive ears don't tolerate the cabin noise that your hearing does. That's quite funny! Wow, what a thing to say somebody. How can somebody be 'deranged' because of their noise discomfort of most cars cabin noise at speed? And why on earth would this be considered a 'serious medical problem'? Newsflash for you: sensitive hearing means less damaged hearing which also means the constant cabin noise of most cars at high speed will cause that person more discomfort than others. I believe I have great hearing and simply wish to preserve my hearing throughout my life and above 70 odd mph, the delightful Yeti will trigger me to grab the ear plugs. This is something I will live with if I order the machine. Otherwise, I shall buy a secondhand diesel Mercedes which has double glazing. In any case, the original poster is considering noise as a possible issue so my advice for him/her to take the Yeti for a drive at motorway speeds of at least 80mph over some less than perfect examples of highway to get a realistic view of the noise levels is sound advice - so please do not post personal attacks as this lowers the standard of this very good forum.

No, I have not recorded a decibel reading - just going my hearing during two road tests of the Yeti at speeds of 70, 80 and 90mph. Whilst I love most aspects of the Yeti, I am under no illusions that for long drives around 80mph+, I would still have to wear ear plugs - which is a pain. I am quite sensitive when it comes to cabin noise and I suppose doubled glazed Mercedes/Phaeton/Range Rover would be the no-ear-plugs-at-95mph solution (autobahn by the way). Consider me a bit exceptional in this respect. The original poster mentioned a comparison with the Golf which has apparently great sound insulation, so I suggest he/she needs to drive at their realistic speeds on some poor surfaces. Funnily enough, according to AutoCar, the Yeti has a noise level of 68dB compared to the Golf's 69dB. I've not even considered the Golf as the boot is too small, so can't comment further.

I didn't mention a Mercedes 4x4 - I had an E Class estate in mind... less drag, quieter and more mpg above 85mph than the Yeti. I hope the original poster is getting a good idea of what to expect from all the posts!

I did say I liked the Yeti economy around 70mph, but that is slow for me. 85mph is a minimum really and as soon as the autobahn is underneath, much higher speeds and above the 70 odd mph, the Yeti economy is not wonderful because of the high levels of air drag. Keep the Yeti under 80mph and I'm sure the mpg is better, but at 80mph we conflict on the next bit... You are the first amoungst who to find noise levels too high? Noise and speed are related. At 70mph, yeah, sure, the beloved Yeti is quiet enough to potter along without earplugs and the driver will feel as fresh as a daisy at the end of a long drive, I'm sure. But above that speed for me, at least, and I need the earplugs. Perhaps the OP (original poster) has more sensitive ears? He was comparing the Yeti with the current VW Golf which has superior NVH (noise vibration harshness) supression. I do not contest the Yeti has some the best mix of features and value for money - a great one car solution. It's all about priorities and if the OP has sensitive ears and low noise levels as a priority, then I think he needs to go for a long drive at a realistic cruising speed over some typical tarmac! Choosing the next car is always tough as most of us keep the car for at least five years.... so it has to be so many things to the family.

Noise is subjective, but from somebody who wears ear plugs for long journeys in a Nissan Micra, the motorway and autobahn cruising speed noise is a bit of an issue for me. My test drives of the Yeti at various speeds concluded the following: 60-70mph no ear plugs required but painfully slow. Above 70mph and the ear plugs have to be worn and economy drops quickly. The areodynamics of the Yeti are not good for high speed economy or noise levels and I must admit that those issues along with the lack of a sunroof has me questioning myself on targeting the Yeti as the next car. A second hand wonderful Range Rover TDV8 at 85mph will probably do little more than 20mpg and just be inside the noise level comfort zone. A second hand Mercedes diesel will cruise at 85mph and deliver around 35mpg and be quiet. The Yeti is a great one-car-solution to most people. I love the van-like capabilities, the 70mph economy, the reliability, the reclining and removable rear seats, but I think the depreciation cost could pay for a more comfortable car... I suppose it's all a question of whether you want to try and avoid wearing hearing aid machinery later on in life and can bare driving like a snail or not care at all, enjoying the Yeti lifestyle and living for the moment. Or wear some ear plugs! Or choose a quieter more effecient car. Even the new Golf is supposed to be quiet at 90mph - but I have yet to test it and it has less space in the boot than a Yeti...

Did the original poster understand the pros and cons of getting the remap of his diesel 110bhp engine? I see pros: more enjoyable drive, possibly more mpg, low insurance hike, cons: warranty fail, cost of remap. I understand the increased torque (low rev range engine power) could lead to increased mpg if driven softly, but doesn't the remap just configure the engine management parameters to use an increased amount of turbo boost? It seems like a paradoxical situation where mpg can not be increased as the amount of fuel used at lower revs is increased anyway... ....can somebody give a theory as to why mpg might be improving despite the increase in fuel usage at lower revs?

I see your point, though I doubt the cost is really $1100 as there is profit involved. Okay - an optional extra then for 500 pounds would be reasonable.

http://www.hpamotorsports.com/haldex.htm The link above does have support for Haldex 4 as detailed in the lower half of the web page. Yep, the price of $1100 is a lot and I'd certainly want to try it out before being able to justify such a sum. Questions/tests like: how much more economical is the Eco mode than the default automatic mode of part time 4WD? How much less understeer is there when accelerating through corners in Race mode (permanent 4WD)...? The cost of the Haldex controller is the main reason why I would like to see it standard on the 4WD Yeti

I had in mind what HPA provide:- http://www.hpamotorsports.com/haldex.htm The Haldex controller can be configured to run in permanent 4WD mode or the default automatic mode or an even more economical mode. Have a look and see what you think. I thought something like the HPA controller could be provided as standard as Dacia do with a simpler controller on their Duster car. The speed of switching between 2WD and 4WD is fine for driving in a straight line - it was only in extreme situations like the wet bend that suddenly tightened that would have benefited the permanent 4WD mode. I used to do some track days and still appreciate sporty machines and also imagined the permanent 4WD might provide a more consistent response. But I need to test drive a car with the Haldex controller to be sure. It all boils down to that wonderful potential factor that the Yeti has on top of its already strong features. I'm not saying I would definitely change my future Yeti, simply exchanging thoughts and views about what the Yeti has with the hope that Skoda might respond to make happier owners in their later models/versions!

Your question regarding my experience and driver training is a bit suspicious in that it suggests that my previous posted point is not worthy unless I were some masterful driver. Perhaps you don't mean to discredit. Perhaps you just intend to gain a better picture of Trekker and if so, that's fine with me. The very first car I drove was a Land Rover S3 when I was aged 11. I was raised on a farm and I pretty much taught myself how to drive well off road with that Landy. Whilst that counts for something, I don't imagine it matches your level of training or experience. As for the Yeti 4WD system: yes, I have driven it, but not sufficiently off-road to gain a clear picture of its performance. I imagine your point of asking about my Haldex 4 experience is related to the fast response times to losing grip - but surely it doesn't negate my point that permanent 4WD would be less likely to lose grip than part-time 4WD in the first place. The fast computer sensing loss of grip and then sending power to the rear wheels might not be much be too late if the car is already sliding on that wet bend that suddenly tightened more than anticipated. And that is my whole point about thinking permanent 4WD would prove safer than the part-time 4WD system. I have to say I have not heard of this problem you say regarding permanent 4WD leading to sometimes a 'transmission wind-up' and nor have I ever experienced it in my permanent 4WD Toyota Celica GT4 or in all my years growing up with my Landy whenever it was in 4WD mode. But as you perhaps have more experience with 4WD than me, it is wise for me to accept it as fact. I must conclude though, that it is probably a small risk. Asking for a feature where the driver can choose to switch the Yeti in permanent 4WD for various times is not too much really when you consider the cheaper Dacia Duster has this feature as standard on its 4WD versions. Everybody has different driving preferences, styles and requirements and I think we need to respect other peoples decisions to choose a particular model. I find it quite interesting to learn how many people have chosen 4WD and why. I do think we're a lucky bunch of people having discovered the capabilities and potential of the Yeti.

To say adding a feature to the Yeti that allowed the driver to select 2WD or 4WD manually would be the worst thing Skoda could do for 99% of owners because you believe the 99% would not know if they needed 4WD is a bit much and somewhat insulting. Of course the driver is going to know when they need a bit of 4WD and when they don't. If I am driving on a boring dry motorway, then I would have 2WD selected for economy. If the road conditions look a bit slippery or I feel a bit frisky, then I would select permanent 4WD. I, like more than 1% I suspect, don't need a computer to tell me what I need. I want consistent confidence inspiring responses from my machine. For added safety, the permanent 4WD would prevent some grip that would have the computer automatically sensing, reacting and juggling power to various wheels searching for. The difference between prevention of loss of grip and attempting to find it again once lost might equate to making round a wet corner or sitting sideways in a ditch. Did you have any examples of when permanent four wheel drive is dangerous? I honestly can't think of any, but welcome your thoughts on this as I am currently of the belief that permanent four wheel drive is safer...