A few more questions... bit more techy this time...

[Yeti_Man]

I promise this will be the last post of silly annoying questions... probably.

Im after finding out the size of the front disks on the Yeti 1.8TSI. One post in the yeti register said the owner had measured the front disks on his Yeti as 325mm!!!! Considering the standard Octy 2 VRS disks are 312mm and the S3 setup I replaced these with were only 20mm more at 345mm, I find 325mm hard to believe.

I think the post was from a member who had a 170TDI yeti so am after confirmation, specifically ont he 1.8TSI

Secondly Im after finding out what revs the 1.8TSi is pulling at either 70 or 80mph.

I know these are rather specific questions but judging on recent questions from me, you guys do know your stuff!

Thanks,

Lee

[JonA]

Brake sizes on the different Yeti are:

1,2 TSI and 110 CR TDI 2 wheel drive= 280x22 front, 255x10 rear

110 CR TDI 4x4= 280x22 front, 272x10 rear

1,8 TSI and 140 CR TDI 4x4= 288x25 front, 286x12 rear on pre week 45 cars and 272x10 on cars made after week 45 2009

170 CR TDI 4x4= 312x25 front and the same as 1,8 and 140 CR TDI on the rear with the same change in build week 45 2009.

:yes:

[Yeti_Man]

Brake sizes on the different Yeti are:

1,2 TSI and 110 CR TDI 2 wheel drive= 280x22 front, 255x10 rear

110 CR TDI 4x4= 280x22 front, 272x10 rear

1,8 TSI and 140 CR TDI 4x4= 288x25 front, 286x12 rear on pre week 45 cars and 272x10 on cars made after week 45 2009

170 CR TDI 4x4= 312x25 front and the same as 1,8 and 140 CR TDI on the rear with the same change in build week 45 2009.

:yes:

Thats not fair! Why doesnt the 1.8TSi have the bigger disks also! :( I guess a remap may also need a brake upgrade too then. :(

Thanks for the info.

[The Plumber]

Brake sizes on the different Yeti are:

1,2 TSI and 110 CR TDI 2 wheel drive= 280x22 front, 255x10 rear

110 CR TDI 4x4= 280x22 front, 272x10 rear

1,8 TSI and 140 CR TDI 4x4= 288x25 front, 286x12 rear on pre week 45 cars and 272x10 on cars made after week 45 2009

170 CR TDI 4x4= 312x25 front and the same as 1,8 and 140 CR TDI on the rear with the same change in build week 45 2009.

:yes:

Thanks for that info JonA,

benefit of working at a dealers, instant access to this kind of info.

Interesting they have reduced the rear brake disk size on the more powerful 4x4 built post WK45 to that of the 110, cost cutting? The brakes work great on mine (WK42), particularly after the Golf V which seemed to take forever to slow down (Edit also had small rear discs which appeared to be working overtime by the amount of brake dust).

Regard info on driving a 1.8TSI, I think seo would be the one to answer this one.

TP

Edited 5 January, 2010 by The Plumber

[seo]

Regard info on driving a 1.8TSI, I think seo would be the one to answer this one.

TP

Sorry, but its not legal to do that kind of speeds in Norway. I live in Bergen on the west coast and we have max 90km/h (56mph) roads here.

Its also to dangerous doing this kind of speeds (70/90mph) under current weather conditions (snow, ice). Have to wait for better conditions, then maybe....

Will try to note some revs on lower speeds but wont be until the weekend. No Yeti driving until then

seo

[Yeti_Man]

Sorry, but its not legal to do that kind of speeds in Norway. I live in Bergen on the west coast and we have max 90km/h (56mph) roads here.

Its also to dangerous doing this kind of speeds (70/90mph) under current weather conditions (snow, ice). Have to wait for better conditions, then maybe....

Will try to note some revs on lower speeds but wont be until the weekend. No Yeti driving until then

seo

Many thanks. I still cant believe that there is only one 1.8TSi on the owners register!!!

[Anthony 1]

The diesels are so good! Why buy a petrol. Long live the diesel. Not as good as BMW diesels though but still very good.

[PeteVRS]

Many thanks. I still cant believe that there is only one 1.8TSi on the owners register!!!

Me too. But as Anthony says, diesels are so good these days. Performance 0-60 isn't shabby anymore if you get the higher BHP one, loads more torque makes them better "real world" for overtaking and the likes, more economical, cheaper to tax, great remap potential.

It used to be the case there was such a difference in price you needed to do loads of miles to justify diesel, and then it was just for economy reasons and not for performance. But now with the extra tax and showroom tax, there's not a great deal of difference in UK costs between the 1.8 and the similar powered diesel when you take into account a few years of ownership. And aside from a slightly different drive, the diesel offers similar acceleration and much more torque.

[The Plumber]

The petrol by all accounts is a cracking motor but I think the extra £500 cost of buying a TDI CR 140 over a 1.8TSI will be recouped in less than two years of running cost by my reckoning; there's an £80 pound road tax saving alone (not taking in to account the showroom tax), cheaper insurance, better mpg and residuals when you decide it's time for a change.

With the Octavia Scout there's a £1800 saving between the 1.8TSI and the TDI PD 140 which makes much more sense, plus the petrol Scout is a CO2 band lower than in the Yeti.

TP

[Yeti_Man]

The diesels are so good! Why buy a petrol.

Because I simply dont want a car that is going into the dealers regularly for issues with the DPF and having to rag it regulalrly (thus negating the economy I'd expect with a diesel and DO already get from my non DPF equipped Ford diesel) just to get round a major design fault - imo of course. For the type of stop start driving I do on the daily commute Im not willing to give myself the added worries. A car should be able to be driven how the owner wishes and not be designed to perform optimally only in a pre set way. Ive had too many friends now that have got rid of a 170tdi VAG group car or even lived with it whilst continuously disliking it!

When you look at the peak figures, the diesels come out well. But having the torque available over a wider rev band is also important to me. The 1.8TSi also spools up and hits peak torque lower so for me at least, its the ideal engine. Very simply tuneable to 280lb/ft and 220+bhp also and most sit at 185bhp as standard anyway.

Lee

[Yeti_Man]

Me too. But as Anthony says, diesels are so good these days. Performance 0-60 isn't shabby anymore if you get the higher BHP one, loads more torque makes them better "real world" for overtaking and the likes, more economical, cheaper to tax, great remap potential.

It used to be the case there was such a difference in price you needed to do loads of miles to justify diesel, and then it was just for economy reasons and not for performance. But now with the extra tax and showroom tax, there's not a great deal of difference in UK costs between the 1.8 and the similar powered diesel when you take into account a few years of ownership. And aside from a slightly different drive, the diesel offers similar acceleration and much more torque.

Hmmm, I'd agree, diesels are good nowadays, or certainly a lot better than they were just 5-10 years ago. Again, on the load more torque comment, I'd rather have a little less peak torque but have it for an additional 2,500 rpm for example. Saves the gearchange when overtaking that big lorry. Whichever car I bought would be getting a remap. I've done this on every car I've owned and when you consider the remapped 1.8TSi against a remapped 170 (and the issues this can bring), personally, Im happier with the quieter, smoother and generally more refined petrol. I dont however buy a car based on economy figures and making the purchase difference back on mileage etc, I simply buy what I think will give me the most pleasure as day to day transport.

Thanks for the comments,

Lee

[Anthony 1]

Regardless of mpg I would still buy the 170CR because I prefer the power characteristics and delivery. I beleive that across these difficult roads here in Wales would be the far quicker car when pressing on over any distance. Each to his own, variety is the spice of life, so they tell me.

[Yeti_Man]

Regardless of mpg I would still buy the 170CR because I prefer the power characteristics and delivery. I beleive that across these difficult roads here in Wales would be the far quicker car when pressing on over any distance. Each to his own, variety is the spice of life, so they tell me.

One question; have you driven a 1.8TSi engined car? Think low end diesel shove but with sustained momentum. Its a truly brilliant engine and gives me everything I like compared to my remapped diesel but with much better response, refinement and revability.

But yes, I totally agree; if we all liked the same things - life would get very boring very quickly.

[seo]

Hi FocusZtec

Manged to get a quick drive my 1.8TSi and did some rev measures for you.

100km/h=62mph

80km/h= 50mph

5th gear, 100km/h= ca 2700rpm

5th gear, 80km/h= ca 2200rpm

6th gear, 100km/h= ca 2200rpm

6th gear, 80km/h= ca 1800rpm

Hope this is helpful.

I simply buy what I think will give me the most pleasure as day to day transport.

Couldnt agree more..

seo

Edited 6 January, 2010 by seo

[prodata]

One question; have you driven a 1.8TSi engined car?

Yes - a Yeti - and I was unimpressed. Significantly less performance than I'd been hoping for. If I can eventually get a decent Yeti price sorted out (frustrating at present that there aren't better deals available at dealers - 6-7% discount seems to tbe the best readily on offer - and yes I know that DTD had around 12% discount last time I looked) then it will be the CR170 for me I think. I was originally all set for the 1.8TSi on the basis of driving characteristics but the limited performance and high emissions have caused a rethink. (Plus learning that the diesel seems to be able to rev OK to 5000).

[shrub]

It is also worth remembering that the price difference between petrol and diesel will grow once again as soon as the economy picks up. Not that long ago it was up to 20p per litre more for diesel.

[Anthony 1]

One question; have you driven a 1.8TSi engined car? Think low end diesel shove but with sustained momentum. Its a truly brilliant engine and gives me everything I like compared to my remapped diesel but with much better response, refinement and revability.

But yes, I totally agree; if we all liked the same things - life would get very boring very quickly.

No, why might I want to! The 1.8 has significantly less torque than the 170CR though it does produce a similar bhp.

I own a car with a similar output, similar spread of low torque 231 bhp, 284 Nm 209 lb-ft, 6.6 s, 146 mph,

Yes, it looks a little quick on paper but you have to thrash it to make it move with of course the inevitable penalty. Another car with similar bhp but even lower torque has similar figues on paper but is even more of a pain to drive requiring even more attention to the red line

227 bhp, 211 Nm, 156 lb-ft, 6.2 s, 146 mph RX8 high fuel consumption needing constant gear changes

Neither of the above cars is particularly pleasurable over long distances on unfamiliar roads. I like driving quickly but often even a slower car on paper can be faster across country on poor unrehearsed blind roads. Both might do OK on a short circuit possibly but that is not real conditions. cars that are short of torque are harder work.

I think that it is more normal I beleive to display torque availability as a % of the available rev range at least in trucks at any rate. Diesels normally do not have an extended rev range. part of this is because of the slow rate of combustion at lower compression ratios. Diesel has more energy than petrol. Diesels generally have higher gearing, something that higher levels or torque allow.

Their is nothing wrong per say with liking petrol but their are many against arguments as well as for just as with diesel but I see diesel as being superior in many respect.

[Yeti_Man]

No, why might I want to! .

Because you stated that "I would still buy the 170CR because I prefer the power characteristics and delivery. I beleive that across these difficult roads here in Wales would be the far quicker car when pressing on over any distance."

Simply put, I dont understand how someone can be so certain of the comparisons outcome, given the fact they hadnt tried one of the two cars they were comparing too.

Im not sure I was making a case for the petrol being faster, just suiting my driving style and commute far better.

Anyway, getting back on topic;

SEO - many thanks for the answers on the gearing - thats good news and probably slightly better than I expected.

Lee

[Anthony 1]

I have driven many many cars over 30 ++ years with all sorts of engines and outputs, bikes cars 4x4, trucks, tractors and so on. I know what the output of the 1.8 is, I can imagine what it would be like. I have not driven a 17OCR either but I have a fairly good idea, I have driven the 140. I would not like the rotary engine of the RX8 as smooth as it is either, smoother in fact than any other engine commonly available. It has less torque and torque is important, well at least to me. Their may well be a case that the 1.0 is smoother or quieter, I would hardly be surprised but the Yeti diesels are very quite, quiet enough for me and smooth enough for me. Granted, VAG Diesels are not in the BMW class, unfortunately but their the next best thing, in this type of vehicle particularly. I pointed out that I have a vehicle with a petrol engine with similar or even greater output than the 1.8 to show that I know what it would be like, in fact it is very much quiker than the 1.8 Yeti but useless for me because it is such a pain having low torque, needing constant attention to the box. I do not need to actually drive the 1.8, I know it will be unsatisfying and unrewarding for me it has less torque. I have not driven the 1.2 i know that would not make me happy either for that matter. Were not talking about an engine that would blow the 170 into the gutter or be superior in some important way were talking about 2 engines with similar on paper performance so far as top speed and acceleration 0-60, I do not have all the other performance figures , but the 1.8 has less torque and lower gearing and higher revs to get its performance. It also uses far more fuel in the process if the 1.8 was massively better than the 170CR I would have a look, it is not. If the Yeti only came with the 1.8, I just would not buy a Yeti. If I could afford it I would be looking at the BMW X1 and X3 but they are way more expensive and are not discounted either other than by a few hundred pounds.

[Yeti_Man]

I have driven many many cars over 30 ++ years with all sorts of engines and outputs, bikes cars 4x4, trucks, tractors and so on. I know what the output of the 1.8 is, I can imagine what it would be like. I have not driven a 17OCR either but I have a fairly good idea, I have driven the 140. I would not like the rotary engine of the RX8 as smooth as it is either, smoother in fact than any other engine commonly available. It has less torque and torque is important, well at least to me. Their may well be a case that the 1.0 is smoother or quieter, I would hardly be surprised but the Yeti diesels are very quite, quiet enough for me and smooth enough for me. Granted, VAG Diesels are not in the BMW class, unfortunately but their the next best thing, in this type of vehicle particularly. I pointed out that I have a vehicle with a petrol engine with similar or even greater output than the 1.8 to show that I know what it would be like, in fact it is very much quiker than the 1.8 Yeti but useless for me because it is such a pain having low torque, needing constant attention to the box. I do not need to actually drive the 1.8, I know it will be unsatisfying and unrewarding for me it has less torque. I have not driven the 1.2 i know that would not make me happy either for that matter. Were not talking about an engine that would blow the 170 into the gutter or be superior in some important way were talking about 2 engines with similar on paper performance so far as top speed and acceleration 0-60, I do not have all the other performance figures , but the 1.8 has less torque and lower gearing and higher revs to get its performance. It also uses far more fuel in the process if the 1.8 was massively better than the 170CR I would have a look, it is not. If the Yeti only came with the 1.8, I just would not buy a Yeti. If I could afford it I would be looking at the BMW X1 and X3 but they are way more expensive and are not discounted either other than by a few hundred pounds.

WOW - you could have simply said 'no' ive not driven either of them.

I wont bore you with the cars that Ive driven and its not just BMW DIESELS that knock the VAG units into the weeds.

Again, I think you are missing the point of my post so I will leave it there. You can make all the point in the world forward for buying the diesel over the petrol on the grounds of performance yadda yadda yadda but if its not an option for me due to the DPF issues then its not an option for me. Simple as that really.

Lee

Edited 6 January, 2010 by FocusZtec

[Anthony 1]

DPF, that seems to be a talking point on the forum, I wonder if their is a real issue or just something that has come up like Tesco fuels. Their has been plenty of conversation about that over the last year on lots of forum

[Helgestahill]

3800 km with Octavia RS TDI 170 DPF - No DPF-problem

[JonA]

My previous car, a Fabia II sport 1,9 TDI engine letters BLS was equipped with a DPF, and I drove it around 40000km's before I sold it. I never had a DPF related problem... And I'm lazy. Could easily have walked to work, but usually take the car even if it's a very short walk, so lot's of short drives and still no problems as long as you take it for a longer drive now and then

My Yeti now has a milage of 4100km's and i have noticed it regenerating twice (high idle speed, cooling fans starting up, of-beat engine note, very warm exhaust) but not a problem. I think the part about DPF's being a service item that has to be changed after a given number om kilometers remains to be seen.... They said that about catalyzers and lambda probes when they were introduced as well.

Don't worry about DPF when you buy a new car is my advice :yes:

[Yeti_Man]

My previous car, a Fabia II sport 1,9 TDI engine letters BLS was equipped with a DPF, and I drove it around 40000km's before I sold it. I never had a DPF related problem... And I'm lazy. Could easily have walked to work, but usually take the car even if it's a very short walk, so lot's of short drives and still no problems as long as you take it for a longer drive now and then

My Yeti now has a milage of 4100km's and i have noticed it regenerating twice (high idle speed, cooling fans starting up, of-beat engine note, very warm exhaust) but not a problem. I think the part about DPF's being a service item that has to be changed after a given number om kilometers remains to be seen.... They said that about catalyzers and lambda probes when they were introduced as well.

Don't worry about DPF when you buy a new car is my advice :yes:

Very interesting and whilst Im not doubting what you say in anyway whatsoever, I just know from friends experiences that DPF's do cause issues when driven (like I would have to do) in stop start traffic on a daily basis. I certainly wouldnt say no to the benefits of the higher mpg and cheaper tax etc - especially given the fact that Im pretty certain the car will be heading to Europe for a 3,000m trek shortly after its arrival with me BUT on a daily basis, a do ten miles each way; six of which are in traffic at 30mph max.

Tellingly, my local dealer discounted the DPF equipped car immediately when I said it would be used mainly in town and said I should go for a petrol option to avoid DPF problems.

Thanks for the post though, its certainly food for thought.

Lee

[harrylime]

Many thanks. I still cant believe that there is only one 1.8TSi on the owners register!!!

How do I add my name to the 1.8 tsi register? I collected my new Octavia Scout 1.8 TSI yesterday, having driven a diesel Octy on test drive. I reasoned that the improved refinement (wonderful engine), good performance and flexibility, initial £1600 saving and absence of DPF, DMF, worries made the petrol the better choice for me. I've only driven it in appalling conditions so far, but I'm happy up to now. I believe that when the DPF etc issues become more widely known, the residuals may swing the other way. I would not like to keep a DPF car beyond the warranty perios, as a total failure would probably wipe out the savings made in driving the (much) noisier diesel. I believe that modern diesel engines are being ruined in the quest for lower emissions after a period of quantum improvements. I base this view on a lot of research that most people don't bother with, hence the current popularity of diesel cars. Time will tell.