4WD power losses

[Sanqhar]

Have any 0-60 (0-100kph) times been published for the same engine (say 110bhp) in 2wd and 4wd versions, thus giving some idea of the power losses with the Haldex system?

tom

[Sanqhar]

Just found it in the "Yeti Delivery Times" thread.

tom

[jlwah]

Have any 0-60 (0-100kph) times been published for the same engine (say 110bhp) in 2wd and 4wd versions, thus giving some idea of the power losses with the Haldex system?

tom

Current brochure quotes 0-62 mph of:

11.6 seconds for the 110 2WD

12.2 seconds for the 110 4WD

[Sanqhar]

The comparison makes interesting reading.

The 4WD is:

.6 secs slower 0-100 kph

105 kilos heavier (231lbs, over 2cwt in old money) and

3kph slower top speed.

tom

[jlwah]

I guess the 110 isn't sufficiently powerful to benefit from the extra traction of 4WD.

Edited 2 November, 2009 by DGW
No need to quote previous post.

[The Plumber]

Think in real world driving you will not notice much difference between the two other than the extra grip.

The Octavia 1.9 tdi 4x4 is not bad performance wise and I would expect the Yeti 110 4x4 to be similar.

[scunjee]

I have to agree....on paper the 1.9 4x4 is a slug....on the road after 3 yrs of owning one I can tell you it is far from it! What you lose in zip you gain in traction so achievable corner speeds (hypothetically of course hofficer!) leave the 2wd folk way behind without upsetting the chassis or screeching tyres.....and remember 0-60 is all fine and well but torque is king 40-65 in real world driving. Makes for a smooth, unhassled and very quick drive a to b.:eek: does this mean I should drop my order of the 170 now? :P

Edited 2 November, 2009 by DGW
No need to quote previous post.

[jlwah]

. . . . does this mean I should drop my order of the 170 now? :P

No, just have it chipped down to 110bhp

[finebone]

No, just have it chipped down to 110bhp

lol.

But can anyone tell me straight; does this mean that all the 2.0 CR diesels in the Yeti range are actually the same engine and therefore the 110hp (or 140hp) can be remapped to 170hp or more?

In which case, why would anyone buy the 170hp (or 140hp) versions of the Elegance 4 X 4 or the 140hp version of the SE 4 X 4 (both are available £1600/£800 cheaper as 110hp version)?

[Ads677]

I've wondered the same thing, but presumed that some other aspects of the drivetrain have to be beefed up (plus the brakes!). Is this correct?

[finebone]

lol.

But can anyone tell me straight; does this mean that all the 2.0 CR diesels in the Yeti range are actually the same engine and therefore the 110hp (or 140hp) can be remapped to 170hp or more?

In which case, why would anyone buy the 170hp (or 140hp) versions of the Elegance 4 X 4 or the 140hp version of the SE 4 X 4 (both are available £1600/£800 cheaper as 110hp version)?

OK. I have done a little research on the internet and note that in the Passat and Tiguan the 140PS engine can be remapped to increase the power from 138hp to 171hp and the 170PS engine from 167hp to 195hp (with torque increases of 58 and 59nm respectively).

They therefore cannot be the same engine unless some of the other components are different. I presume it is a similar story for the 110PS but have not found any figures yet.

But it still does not seem to make sense to buy a 140PS if you only want about 140hp or 170PS if you only want about 170hp (unless you do not like the idea of a remap) because it would be cheaper to buy a 110PS or 140PS respectively and remap them! Or have I missed something?

[jlwah]

OK. I have done a little research on the internet and note that in the Passat and Tiguan the 140PS engine can be remapped to increase the power from 138hp to 171hp and the 170PS engine from 167hp to 195hp (with torque increases of 58 and 59nm respectively).

They therefore cannot be the same engine unless some of the other components are different. I presume it is a similar story for the 110PS but have not found any figures yet.

But it still does not seem to make sense to buy a 140PS if you only want about 140hp or 170PS if you only want about 170hp (unless you do not like the idea of a remap) because it would be cheaper to buy a 110PS or 140PS respectively and remap them! Or have I missed something?

There is of course the small issue of the warranty.

[finebone]

And insurance......

Does anyone have AUTHORITIVE information on these??

Edited 2 November, 2009 by DGW
No need to quote previous post.

[finebone]

OK. I have done a little research on the internet and note that in the Passat and Tiguan the 140PS engine can be remapped to increase the power from 138hp to 171hp and the 170PS engine from 167hp to 195hp (with torque increases of 58 and 59nm respectively).

They therefore cannot be the same engine unless some of the other components are different. I presume it is a similar story for the 110PS but have not found any figures yet.

But it still does not seem to make sense to buy a 140PS if you only want about 140hp or 170PS if you only want about 170hp (unless you do not like the idea of a remap) because it would be cheaper to buy a 110PS or 140PS respectively and remap them! Or have I missed something?

Update; P-Torque claim + 30hp for the 140PS and 170PS but for the 110PS, +60hp !!

[JonA]

BSR claims the same results for both the 140 and the 170 hp TDI in a 2009 Passat: 191 hp and 431 nm of torque!! Could be interesting if they made software for the Yeti with the same numbers

The new PPC 3 - BSR Product news

[Sanqhar]

When I drove a 140 the power seemed to come in at a rush at one point.

I have ordered a 2wd 110 and certainly won't do anything whilst it is under warranty. I may however consider chipping it up to 135/140 later.

The only way you are going to know how the power comes in is after you've bought the chip.

Would the insurance however just move it from the 4E for the 110 to the 6E of the 140 or would they regard 2wd and 140bhp a bigger risk?

Aside from cost what appealed to me about the 110 was the 5 speed gearbox. I'm too old to have to think about what gear I am in.

tom

[Agerbundsen]

And insurance......

Does anyone have AUTHORITIVE information on these??

The 110 and 140 hp engines are both 2 valves per cylinder, the 170 hp is 4 valves per cylinder.

The 140 hp in my current Ocatvia has 4 valves and Pumpedüse injection and no particle filter. This is much more lively than the 140 hp with only 2 valves per cylinder.

[JonA]

The 110 and 140 hp engines are both 2 valves per cylinder, the 170 hp is 4 valves per cylinder.

The 140 hp in my current Ocatvia has 4 valves and Pumpedüse injection and no particle filter. This is much more lively than the 140 hp with only 2 valves per cylinder.

All Yeti diesel engines are 16 valve twin cam 2 liter Common Rail with DPF..

[Agerbundsen]

All Yeti diesel engines are 16 valve twin cam 2 liter Common Rail with DPF..

I stand corrected:mad:

[finebone]

All Yeti diesel engines are 16 valve twin cam 2 liter Common Rail with DPF..

Thanks. But why do they have such different horsepowers?

And has anyone who has chipped a similar engine have anything to say about warranty and insurance??

[bahnstormer vrs]

I have to agree....on paper the 1.9 4x4 is a slug....on the road after 3 yrs of owning one I can tell you it is far from it! What you lose in zip you gain in traction so achievable corner speeds (hypothetically of course hofficer!) leave the 2wd folk way behind without upsetting the chassis or screeching tyres.....and remember 0-60 is all fine and well but torque is king 40-65 in real world driving. Makes for a smooth, unhassled and very quick drive a to b.:eek: does this mean I should drop my order of the 170 now? :P

No! Now let's think of another car with the CR170 engine - ah, yes; Octavia vRS Comparison is;

Yeti CR170 with 4x4; 1535kg 0-62mph 8.4 sec V-max 125 mph vs. Octavia vRS CR170 1485 hatch or 1500kg Estate 0-62 mph 8.4 sec V-max 140 mph

Dead heat on the 0-62 than although the Octy wins on V-max for obvious (aerodynamic) reason; but then anything over 125 mph is wasted here in UK.

An important factor though will be that Yeti with its 4x4 will be quicker for most drivers in the 'real world' particularly in the wet due to its better traction.

Overall to get the 0-62 time equal for the Yeti and Octavia, Skoda must have worked on the gear and/or final drive ratios to mask the inherent power 'loss' of the 4wd system due to extra weight as there won't be much day to day as, IIRC, the Haldex system operates in 2WD (front) unless 4WD is required.

[jlwah]

. . . . but then anything over 125 mph is wasted here in UK.

:eek:

Anything over 100mph and you get banned (assuming you get caught, of course )

[yeti hunter]

Overall to get the 0-62 time equal for the Yeti and Octavia, Skoda must have worked on the gear and/or final drive ratios to mask the inherent power 'loss' of the 4wd system due to extra weight as there won't be much day to day as, IIRC, the Haldex system operates in 2WD (front) unless 4WD is required.

Or they are just exaggerating! No review to date has got a Yeti to go as quick as the Skoda claimed speeds. This is unusual, Autoexpress beat the manufacturers time comfortably for my car.

But I would be delighted to see otherwise.

[JonA]

I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to the Yeti performance wise.. I'm not sure if I see the point of making up fantasy numbers in the performance pages of the brochures to sell cars. The Yeti is not a sports car..

In most of the Yeti tests I have read, the cars has had the 140 hp TDI engine. I would guess the average 0-62 mph times in the tests to be around or a bit more than 12 seconds. That is 2-3 seconds slower than the claimed number of 9,9 seconds. All the tested cars have been almost new with not even 1000 km's on the clock. I'm sure the Yetis on test would have performed better if the cars had been properly run in before the test was conducted, but I think 9,9 seconds will be tough to beat.

I am not expecting to get a red light racer, but a good allround car with OK performance and the ability to overtake the odd slow driver now and then. I doubt if I'll ever conduct a 0-62 test, but 12,5 seconds from 0-62 does sound VERY slow.. We will have to wait and see

[Gilesmengland]

I test drove a 140hp diesel 4x4 at the weekend, and it certainly didn't feel 10 secs to 60 quick. Didn't feel particularly fast out on the open road either - not as quick as my old 140hp touran (although that came in one large slug, so perhaps felt quicker ?)