Just had a test drive in an Elegance 170CR 4x4. I'm considering the Yeti as a replacment for my Octavia TDi 140PD, but would probably get a 140CR rather than a 170. I expected the 170 to feel a lot more powerful than my 140 wich it did, at least it did when in a lower gear with the revs up. However at lower revs in a higher gear it didnt feel any where near as responsive or flexible as my Octavia :confused: The Octy will pull from 50mph in 6th gear and feel resonably responsive and actually accelerate. The first time I tried that in the Yeti I thought I'd pressed the wrong pedal, absolutely nothing happened! As far as I could tell engine revs at a given speed in top are simmilar in the two cars so not that. Of course the Yeti is heavier but I've driven the Octy with a full load often enougth to know what an extra 200kg does to the performance. I've not driven any other 170CR's of any type to compare, but was imagining an alround stronger engine than the 140PD. Any one know if this is normal or if the 140CR Yeti is any different?

I don't know the mechanical differences between the 140 and 170 versions, but certainly when tuning a diesel engine, the main difference IME is how far up the rev range the torque 'lump' extends. So what you noticed about the car feeling more powerful at high revs / low gears is probably correct. Certainly, when I took the tuning box off my car before getting it remapped, I didn't notice all that much of a difference until about 2.5-3k, where it felt like hitting a brick wall compared to how it ran when the box was on...

I'd have thought it was simply down to the fact that the 170 uses a bigger turbo so needs more time to spool up and reach its maximum torque/power levels?

Thanks for the replies. I guess I could do with a test drive in the 140 once the dealer gets one in.

This might not help, but my Octy VRS 170 felt like that when new in 6th accross country. Its done 40,000 now and much better to drive in the same circumstances and economy improved. Took circa 20,000 miles though (just like the Fabia VRS I had before!).

Just had a test drive in an Elegance 170CR 4x4. I'm considering the Yeti as a replacment for my Octavia TDi 140PD, but would probably get a 140CR rather than a 170. I expected the 170 to feel a lot more powerful than my 140 wich it did, at least it did when in a lower gear with the revs up. However at lower revs in a higher gear it didnt feel any where near as responsive or flexible as my Octavia :confused: The Octy will pull from 50mph in 6th gear and feel resonably responsive and actually accelerate. The first time I tried that in the Yeti I thought I'd pressed the wrong pedal, absolutely nothing happened! As far as I could tell engine revs at a given speed in top are simmilar in the two cars so not that. Of course the Yeti is heavier but I've driven the Octy with a full load often enougth to know what an extra 200kg does to the performance. I've not driven any other 170CR's of any type to compare, but was imagining an alround stronger engine than the 140PD. Any one know if this is normal or if the 140CR Yeti is any different?

I am afraid that, like me, you are just spoiled with the responsiveness of the 140 PD engine in the Octy. although the published curves for the 16 valve 2.0 140 hp PD engine and the new 8 valve 2.0 140 CR engines for the Octy are the same, I just do not believe the curves. I have driven the Octy with the 140HP Cr engine, and it feels completely different. The test drive Yeti had a 149 hp CR 16 valve engine and felt OK, but I still miss the PD response and ordered a 170 hp. It will be the first 170 HP to arrive in Denmark, so no chance to compare.

I am very curious as to what is really happening here:

For the Yeti, the gear ratios and axle ratios are the same. Both the 140 and 170 hp engines are 1968 cc, 16 valve CR units. Yet the fuel consumption of the 140 hp is HIGHER than the 170 HP. What gives? The parasitic losses in the two engines and the rolling and air resistance ought to be identical - so why the lower fuel consumption for the 170 HP engine???

It could be that the testing procedure has something to do with it - % acceleration etc, but I cannot find a logical explanation.

Somehow, I would like to find out the detailed diffeences between the three 2.0 Diesels offered.

To add one more curious fact: All three Yeti 2.0 engines are 16 valve, but the Octy CR engines are now 8 valve!!! Why? You can probably get the same HP from either by changing boost, but the combustion pattern in the 16 valve engines should be better, as the injector is in the centre of the combustion chamber.

On a final note, it is not really fair to compare a well run-in engine with the brand new < 1000 km engines on the demo vehicles. My Octy did not really settle down till after 10,000 km after which it does not consume much oil. the first 10,000 km it used 4 litres.

Edited 10 November, 200916 yr by Agerbundsen
Addition

gotto admit it took a good 15k miles running in on my current octy before the engine pulled "properly"

i beleive that the 170 has very slightly greater efficiency than the 140 and hence the slightly improved fuel consumption. Many tuning chips also give greater efficiency along with improved performance. Does anyone know the detailed differences between the 140 and the 170 and just how the greater power is achieved?

The main reason why manufacturers choose 4 valve heads over 2 valve heads are for improved emissions. Of course multi valve heads achieve greater breathing, centralised spark, even burn better scavenging giving performance gains but emission controls are the highest motivating force these days.

Just had a test drive in an Elegance 170CR 4x4.

Are you UK based?

I'm intriged if you are as the original info was for the CR170s to begin build for the UK in Wk45 (last week) so I was wondering how one appeared the following week!

Hopefully I'll hear tomorrow where, what, when and how my CR170 is up to if anything - the new Skoda vehicle order and tracking tracking system should come on line then - hopefully!

To add one more curious fact: All three Yeti 2.0 engines are 16 valve, but the Octy CR engines are now 8 valve!!! Why?

Only the 170BHP engine in the Octavia is common-rail (and the 1.6 105BHP), 140 TDI-CR Octavia is coming first half of next year.

Only the 170BHP engine in the Octavia is common-rail (and the 1.6 105BHP), 140 TDI-CR Octavia is coming first half of next year.

Here in Denmark, all current Octy Diesel engines are Cr and 8 valve. No 170 except for the VR, but it is also CR

Here in Denmark, all current Octy Diesel engines are Cr and 8 valve. No 170 except for the VR, but it is also CR

Do you have different emissions regs in Denmark? I don't think the 140-CR is available in the Octavia anywhere else yet!

Here in Denmark, all current Octy Diesel engines are Cr and 8 valve. No 170 except for the VR, but it is also CR

The brochures downloadable from www.skoda.dk says that only the 1,6 105hp is a 16V common rail engine, maybe you have been given wrong information?

Edited 10 November, 200916 yr by JonA
edited :)

The brochures downloadable from www.skoda.dk says that only the 1,6 105hp is a 16V common rail engine, maybe you have been given wrong information?

It gets curiouser and curiouser :confused: The literature - both print and electronic - in Germany, Denmark, Norway and UK clearly show that all the diesel engines offered in the Yeti are 2.0 (1968 cc) with 16 valves and CR.

In Norway, the fuel consumption figures are lower for the 140 hp and the 110 and 170 are a little higher and equal (0.61 l/10 km).

In Denmark, the figures are the same, but expressed in km/l.

In the Skoda Czech brochure, the figures are reversed, with 6.0 l/100 km for the 110 and 170 ond 6.1 for the 140.

The drive train - gear ratios, axle ratios ae the same for the 140 and 170, but different for the110 hp, which has a 5 speed gearbox and different axle ratio.

The logic for the 110 hp fails me. The basic engine design is the same, and they may save a little cost by using the old 5-speed gear, but that the fuel consumption is as high as the 170 hp removes the benefit fromthe "smaller" engine other than the price to the end user.

The only conclusion I can reach is that there is a bit of the good soldier Svejk in the marketing people in Czech and that the spell checkers for the various versions of the published data didn't check facts.

Are you UK based?

I'm intriged if you are as the original info was for the CR170s to begin build for the UK in Wk45 (last week) so I was wondering how one appeared the following week!

Hopefully I'll hear tomorrow where, what, when and how my CR170 is up to if anything - the new Skoda vehicle order and tracking tracking system should come on line then - hopefully!

Yes I am in the UK. All I can tell you is that the car was an Elegance 4x4 and had a TDi badge with a red i on the back. The salesperson said it was a 170, and the performance (at higher revs a least !!) compared to my 140 octy, felt suitably strong. All very strange.

I am afraid that, like me, you are just spoiled with the responsiveness of the 140 PD engine in the Octy. although the published curves for the 16 valve 2.0 140 hp PD engine and the new 8 valve 2.0 140 CR engines for the Octy are the same, I just do not believe the curves. I have driven the Octy with the 140HP Cr engine, and it feels completely different. The test drive Yeti had a 149 hp CR 16 valve engine and felt OK, but I still miss the PD response and ordered a 170 hp. It will be the first 170 HP to arrive in Denmark, so no chance to compare.

On a final note, it is not really fair to compare a well run-in engine with the brand new < 1000 km engines on the demo vehicles. My Octy did not really settle down till after 10,000 km after which it does not consume much oil. the first 10,000 km it used 4 litres.

Lots of interesting info here. Hope the CR engines are not in general less responsive than the PD as all skoda will certainly be changing to them at some stage! Dont recall hearing anything in test reports on other VAG cars with the CR's, but of course they weren't specifacally comparing them with the PD. The only comments I can recall in reviews were about the CR being quiter and more refined, but I cant say there was any noticeble difference in that respect from my test drive.

Good point about the engine not being run in. The test car had only done 1300 miles so wasn't expecting it to be at its best yet. However the difference in flexibility was VERY marked.

Yes I am in the UK. All I can tell you is that the car was an Elegance 4x4 and had a TDi badge with a red i on the back. The salesperson said it was a 170, and the performance (at higher revs a least !!) compared to my 140 octy, felt suitably strong. All very strange.

Have just phoned the dealer and spoken to the senior salesperson. He has confirmed that the car was indeed a CR170. He also voiced the opinion that, hving driven both, the 140 and 170 are simmilar in terms of low end/mid range performance, and that the main difference was top end on the 170. He didnt really coment when I sugested the car was less flexible than the 140 octy.

I have read a few comments from people on here that the power delivery on the CRs is less violent than the smoother PDs, guess the end result is the same though even if you don't get that kick in the back feeling!

Have just phoned the dealer and spoken to the senior salesperson. He has confirmed that the car was indeed a CR170. He also voiced the opinion that, hving driven both, the 140 and 170 are simmilar in terms of low end/mid range performance, and that the main difference was top end on the 170. He didnt really coment when I sugested the car was less flexible than the 140 octy.

May I ask which dealer it was that has the CR170 (PM me if you like), I'm curious as to how they got one so quickly!

Apparently the new vehicle tracking system won't be on line until 23 Nov 09 so no confirmed build dates until then. Mine is now slated as a Wk48 build (was Wk45, then Wk43...) so perhaps have it as a Chrismas present, perhaps not.... :(

It gets curiouser and curiouser :confused: The literature - both print and electronic - in Germany, Denmark, Norway and UK clearly show that all the diesel engines offered in the Yeti are 2.0 (1968 cc) with 16 valves and CR.

In Norway, the fuel consumption figures are lower for the 140 hp and the 110 and 170 are a little higher and equal (0.61 l/10 km).

In Denmark, the figures are the same, but expressed in km/l.

In the Skoda Czech brochure, the figures are reversed, with 6.0 l/100 km for the 110 and 170 ond 6.1 for the 140.

The drive train - gear ratios, axle ratios ae the same for the 140 and 170, but different for the110 hp, which has a 5 speed gearbox and different axle ratio.

The logic for the 110 hp fails me. The basic engine design is the same, and they may save a little cost by using the old 5-speed gear, but that the fuel consumption is as high as the 170 hp removes the benefit fromthe "smaller" engine other than the price to the end user.

The only conclusion I can reach is that there is a bit of the good soldier Svejk in the marketing people in Czech and that the spell checkers for the various versions of the published data didn't check facts.

The 110hp 4X4 has a six speed gearbox (at least in the UK).

The 110hp 4X4 has a six speed gearbox (at least in the UK).

According to the October brochure the 4X4 also has more torque than the 2WD 110 (280Nm vs 250Nm).

Mine is now slated as a Wk48 build (was Wk45, then Wk43...) so perhaps have it as a Chrismas present, perhaps not.... :(

Aero....my sympathies.....jeez i thought I was on me own with my delivery moving right not left on the timeline.... it really sucks doesn't it. :rotz:

Whilst there are lots of wee clubs and sub-clubs being formed, should folk first join WAFMY (Waiting, again! for my Yeti) prior to being promoted to full SMOC status?

another point (completely off topic) .... I've not seen 1 Snow-Monster in this corner of Sweaty-sockland yeti!

Yes I am in the UK. All I can tell you is that the car was an Elegance 4x4 and had a TDi badge with a red i on the back. The salesperson said it was a 170, and the performance (at higher revs a least !!) compared to my 140 octy, felt suitably strong. All very strange.

The red 'I' normal indicates a 140 with a red 'DI' for a 170 all silver for the 110. My Dad's Superb 170 has the red 'DI'

With regard to the X being red in the 4x4, think that's always been the case. Certainly that way for my Octy I 4X4 Turbo.

May I ask which dealer it was that has the CR170 (PM me if you like), I'm curious as to how they got one so quickly!

Apparently the new vehicle tracking system won't be on line until 23 Nov 09 so no confirmed build dates until then. Mine is now slated as a Wk48 build (was Wk45, then Wk43...) so perhaps have it as a Chrismas present, perhaps not.... :(

Cant see that I'm giving anything away with this, its Mitchell's at Cheshire Oaks nr Chester.

So the plot thickens... Doing my Inspector Clouseau bit then, if the Yeti follows the same badge system as the Superb then the one masquerading at Chester as a CR170 is actually a CR140 - that would explain why it performs similar to a 140

It would also account for why there is already a 1300 mile UK CR170 despite them supposedly starting build last week.

Curiouser and curiouser!

As for the performance differences with approximately 10% more torque and 20% more power and the same gear box I would expect some difference in acceleration and top end but how noticeable it is in the real world is open for debate.