At least this is one 'problem' thats easy to fix. If I choose to get a Yeti I have factored in getting a Bluefin or ST3 remapping device (about £400) Although the Yeti isn't listed yet the Mk6 Golf 2.0 CR tdi is and I am sure this is the same engine so no doubt it will be available. Takes it to 171bhp 378nm on your drive in a few minutes.

Of course if Skoda used their heads and made a 170bhp SE I wouldn't have to. Ridiculous you have to buy a shed load of toys you don't want to get a peppy engine.

I agree with your comments regarding the 170bhp only available in Elegance trim.

Skoda are happy to offer the 1.2 tsi in either E trim or Elegance. Why not do the same with the 170bhp engine?

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 ?)

I drove a 140 Yeti today and I thought it seemed pretty punchy and got to 60 quite quickly, certainly quicker than my Roomster which is supposed to do it in 10.9s.

I wouldn't not buy the 140-TDI on pace, but I think I'd prefer the wider power delivery band of a petrol model tbh.

I drove a 140 Yeti today and I thought it seemed pretty punchy and got to 60 quite quickly, certainly quicker than my Roomster which is supposed to do it in 10.9s.

I wouldn't not buy the 140-TDI on pace, but I think I'd prefer the wider power delivery band of a petrol model tbh.

See the torque/hp curves here:

Škoda Yeti: Technická data, nová fotogalerie, kompletní ceník (+ plakáty) | AUTO.CZ

All the way down under the pictures.

The 125 kW Diesel beats the 1.8 TSI in both torque and HP all the way up to the max rpm of the diesel. Only above 4000 rpm does the petrol version shine. Now who wold want to toodle around over 4500 rpm? IMHO there is much more useable power in the diesels.

Best set of photos/drawings I've seen so far.

tom

Best set of photos/drawings I've seen so far.

tom

Yup; excellent. Seen them on a previous thread but well worth another look.

The 125 kW Diesel beats the 1.8 TSI in both torque and HP all the way up to the max rpm of the diesel. Only above 4000 rpm does the petrol version shine. Now who wold want to toodle around over 4500 rpm? IMHO there is much more useable power in the diesels.

This general issue is always something of an annoyance/frustration when looking at engine specs.

To answer the question there: I don't think many - if any - people will want to drive at >4500 consistently. But to do so occasionally when required is commonplace, mostly obviously when overtaking (which - I don't know - may be a major difference between English and Danish driving given just how crowded many English roads are. Every time I venture out for any distance at all around here I'll typically be wanting to overtake every 2-3 minutes just because of the sheer amount of slow moving trucks, agricultural traffic and cars doing 40mph on 60mph-limited roads). If that requires taking the engine revs up to 6000 or whatever its reasonable limit might be for short periods then why ever not - that's what it was designed and engineered to do.

But the point I was trying to get to was how difficult it is to try to estimate accelerative performance from engine specs alone, even within the same model range. I can rationalise engine power simply as the more powerful the engine the higher the top speed (it's not linear obviously because of aerodynamic drag etc, but it should be monotonic). But just how does torque affect acceleration except that the higher the available torque the better the acceleration. Presumably acceleration up to speeds at which aerodynamics becomes dominant (say 70mph) is some function of both engine power and torque. But just what sort of function - I really don't know.

OK, so makers quote 0-60mph/100kph figures but every measured Yeti figure I've seen so far seems significantly slower than Skoda reckon. Maybe no-one has a properly run-in Yeti yet? Can that really be true? But even if it is, does that really account for a 1-2sec difference in 0-60?

Further, most folk seem to agree that in-gear acceleration is a much more useful marker of real-life accelerative performance. Except that makers rarely quote such figures and one is left with reviews from the more reputable magazines like Autocar. But even here the data are dodgy (note that Autocar's headline 30-70 figure for the 140 Yeti was 11.1 sec, while another figure in the text was (IIRC) 10.7 sec. Which figure was the right one??).

And Autocar aren't likely to review more than one Yeti variant so in any event there are going to be no properly comparable 30-70 data.

So we seem to be left with the situation where there's just no way of establishing, for now at least, whether say the 170 diesel offer better Yeti acceleration than the 1.8 petrol.

I totally agreed that there is a big differene between the objective 0-100 numbers and the subjective real experience in daily driving. In gear aceleration is more important here than the maximum acceleration from a dead stop.

In my present Octy Combi 2.0 PD 140 hp, the acceleration from a stop is limited by traction on the front wheels, where the ESP takes over in both 1st, 2nd and the initial shift to 3rd. In the 120 km test drive with the Yeti 2.0 TDI 125 hp, the Haldex transferred poer to the rear axle and the ESP was not activated. The acceleration did not feel quite as snappy as the Octy, which could be explained by the higher weight and the fact the the car only had 200 km on the clock.

Again in the Octy (4 years and 120,000 km) 3rd is OK for entering and exiting all but the smalles roundabouts with enough rpm's left to exceed speedlimits without gearshift. At the oter end of the scale, 6th is fine for toodling along on the Autobahn in the left lane and follow the flow of traffic at 160-180 km/hr.

My reasoning ´for selecting the 2.0TDI 125kW for the Yeti was simply that I expect that the 150 kg extra weight and the higher wind resistance would give me similar performance to what I now enjoy very much.

Fuel consumption will be a little worse than the Octy, mostly at speed, where the lower cv and larger frontal area will have the most influence. On the other hand, the stated consumption of the 125kW over the other two Diesels is equal to the 81 kW and lower than the 103 kW - all in 4x4 versions. Since the rolling resistance and mechanical losse must of necessity be equal for all three, the lower fuel consumption for the "larger" engine can be explained by either lower specific fuel consumption for that engine or more likely by a lower engine rpm at the same speed.

I concluded that except for the purchase price, the 125 kW Diesel was the best selection for my purposes. It just is a super experience to be driving along at low rpm and only need to put your foot down to get going. My actual mileage in the Octy is between 16 and 17 km/l in both normal driving and at highway speeds. I expect around 15 km/l from the Yeti.

BTW the indication of 4WD power losse can be gleaned from the difference in fuel consumption for the 81 kW of 18.6 vs 16.4 km/l - but it seems excessive and may indicate that the 81 kW is really not enough for 4WD.