I have just received the colour brochure and can't find any details of an automatic gearbox option except in the most basic petrol model.

Is this so please - and if so - do you know if there are any future plans to have the automatic box as an option on the other models?

Thanks.

Sally

Unless you absolutely need the torque of the TDi engines you shouldn't desregard the 1.2TSi engine it's remarkably good, I think it will be even better with the 7 speed DSG.

But yes, they will be making a DSG TDi Yeti in the future although I don't know the build dates.

But yes, they will be making a DSG TDi Yeti in the future although I don't know the build dates.

2.0 TDI CR 140bhp DSG 4x4 was listed as week 22 in 2010 on the chart posted previously.

Thanks for your replies.

2.0 TDI CR 140bhp DSG 4x4 was listed as week 22 in 2010 on the chart posted previously.

I would be intrested to see MPG figures for a 4x4 + DSG. I guess high 20's low 30's!

I would be intrested to see MPG figures for a 4x4 + DSG. I guess high 20's low 30's!

In theory shouldn't be too different (there's no torque converter ?).

IIRC in urban you'd get slightly more mpg ?

In theory shouldn't be too different (there's no torque converter ?).

IIRC in urban you'd get slightly more mpg ?

Only if it's a 7 speed DSG, which only a CR140 it won't be because of the torque, unless they figured out how to make DSG work with a torquey engine. Thinking about it, they made DSG work with the Veyron so getting it to function with 320Nm shouldn't be too difficult.

Only if it's a 7 speed DSG, which only a CR140 it won't be because of the torque, unless they figured out how to make DSG work with a torquey engine. Thinking about it, they made DSG work with the Veyron so getting it to function with 320Nm shouldn't be too difficult.

You can get a Golf 2.0tdi with DSG, so I think it should be ok. Might be an idea not to chip it though...

Every thing one needs to know about DSG My link

Every thing one needs to know about DSG My link

Great linky Anthony, thanks. It led me to

this Yeti link, Love the white roof.

Edited 16 January, 201016 yr by Ray_Green

Great linky Anthony, thanks. It lead me to

this Yeti link, Love the white roof.

Abit Like the Mini Coopers!

In theory shouldn't be too different (there's no torque converter ?).

IIRC in urban you'd get slightly more mpg ?

The wet clutch packs in the high torque versions waste some more energy in pumping ATF around. The 7 speed low torque is dry clutch to avoid this. There is probably a limit as to how far you can go with dry clutches.

A Veyron with DSG, that's a good idea. But it won't fit in my garage probably.

I'm still a bit mystified by the Skoda UK figures for fuel consumption and CO2 emmisions for the 1.2 DSG.

I would have thought with dry-plate clutches and only an extra 30kg in weight, that the DSG would have been closer to the manual in fuel consumption. Can anyone explain why, in particular, the urban MPG are over 20% worse on the DSG gearbox. And why, overall, the DSG suffers a 10% fuel consumption penalty. I'm starting to wonder whether ordering DSG was such a good idea after all, I'd expected better compared to a normal slush-box auto.

SKODA YETI

                        1.2 Manual        1.2 DSG         DSG Penalty
Urban                      37.2            29.4              +21%
Extra Urban                47.9            50.4              -5%
Combined                   44.1            39.8              +10%
CO2                        149             165               +11%

When compared to the figures for a 1.2 DSG Golf, the Yeti appears to really suffer with the DSG gearbox.

VW GOLF

                        1.2 Manual        1.2 DSG         DSG Penalty
Urban                      39.8            38.7              +3%
Extra Urban                57.6            57.6              0%
Combined                   49.6            48.7              +2%
CO2                        134             134               0%

And as a comparison, here's how my current car, with a normal torque-convertor, 4-speed automatic slush-box performs better than the DSG box :(

PEUGEOT 207CC

                        1.6 Manual        1.6 AUTO         AUTO Penalty
Urban                      32.1            28.2              +12%
Extra Urban                53.3            49.6              +7%
Combined                   43.5            39.2              +10%
CO2                        149             169               +13%

Edited 16 January, 201016 yr by tarbat

I'm still a bit mystified by the Skoda UK figures for fuel consumption and CO2 emmisions for the 1.2 DSG.

I would have thought with dry-plate clutches and only an extra 30kg in weight, that the DSG would have been closer to the manual in fuel consumption. Can anyone explain why, in particular, the urban MPG are over 20% worse on the DSG gearbox. And why, overall, the DSG suffers a 10% fuel consumption penalty. I'm starting to wonder whether ordering DSG was such a good idea after all, I'd expected better compared to a normal slush-box auto.

SKODA YETI

                        1.2 Manual        1.2 DSG         DSG Penalty
Urban                      37.2            29.4              +21%
Extra Urban                47.9            50.4              -5%
Combined                   44.1            39.8              +10%
CO2                        149             165               +11%

When compared to the figures for a 1.2 DSG Golf, the Yeti appears to really suffer with the DSG gearbox.

VW GOLF

                        1.2 Manual        1.2 DSG         DSG Penalty
Urban                      39.8            38.7              +3%
Extra Urban                57.6            57.6              0%
Combined                   49.6            48.7              +2%
CO2                        134             134               0%

And as a comparison, here's how my current car, with a normal torque-convertor, 4-speed automatic slush-box performs better than the DSG box :(

PEUGEOT 207CC

                        1.6 Manual        1.6 AUTO         AUTO Penalty
Urban                      32.1            28.2              +12%
Extra Urban                53.3            49.6              +7%
Combined                   43.5            39.2              +10%
CO2                        149             169               +13%

Hi

there was a thread on a similar topic a little while ago. Personaly I suspect the figure quoted for urban economy is a mistake given the relatively liitle difference a DSG makes to the Golf 1.2tsi and combined with the 1.4tsi in other cars

I have my doubts / concerns about the mpg figures for the 1.2 TSI used by Skoda UK in their brochure. The foreign brochures all show higher co2 and increased fuel consumption of (from memory) about 41mpg combined and 155 g/km co2. Maybe it is a bit of a fiddle to get the smallest engine into the lower road tax bracket. In the owners manual I think that the fuel consumption / co2 figure is shown as greater for heavier Yetis and so perhaps we have less spec on our E and S model cars than abroad. But, then, that can't be right because the fuel / co2 figures are the same for the SE and Elegance models. Who knows eh? As long as I can average 40 mpg from mine I'll be happy enough.

I have my doubts / concerns about the mpg figures for the 1.2 TSI used by Skoda UK in their brochure. The foreign brochures all show higher co2 and increased fuel consumption of (from memory) about 41mpg combined and 155 g/km co2. Maybe it is a bit of a fiddle to get the smallest engine into the lower road tax bracket. In the owners manual I think that the fuel consumption / co2 figure is shown as greater for heavier Yetis and so perhaps we have less spec on our E and S model cars than abroad. But, then, that can't be right because the fuel / co2 figures are the same for the SE and Elegance models. Who knows eh? As long as I can average 40 mpg from mine I'll be happy enough.

My DSG Octy 1.9 gave me 44 mpg around town. That engine and gearbox made an outstanding combo.

I was working for VW when the DSG gearbox was launched and one of the main selling features was that DSG was both quicker and more economical than the equivalent manual. God knows what has happened since because it seems to be going the other way. Having said that, the dry clutch DSG in the new Polo is more economical than the manual.

I was working for VW when the DSG gearbox was launched and one of the main selling features was that DSG was both quicker and more economical than the equivalent manual. God knows what has happened since because it seems to be going the other way. Having said that, the dry clutch DSG in the new Polo is more economical than the manual.

I remember when it came out and the figures were competitive when compared with manual but one wonders did they tamper with the engines, increasing performance to gain positive publicity. The DSG does not seem quite so good now! The extra weight alone would be some penalty.

So, is it just that Skoda UK have got the MPG and CO2 numbers wrong, or is there some problem with the suitability of the 1.2 DSG in the Yeti platform?

I've got a 1.2 DSG on order, and when ordered, the MPG and CO2 numbers weren't available. I'm now concerned if I'm only going to get less than 30mpg, as one of the main reasons for getting the 1.2 DSG Yeti was economy.

Are there any other sources for MPG and CO2 numbers for the Yeti 1.2 DSG?

Edited 16 January, 201016 yr by tarbat

From Memory, the DSG type of box when first introduce, was only very marginally better than manual in any case. The figures do not suggest that it is better now for any car, I think. That is why I wonder if things were manipulated when it first came onto the scene. It is still a big improvement over more normal auto boxes in this respect.

It is still a big improvement over more normal auto boxes in this respect.

Not really. In the Yeti, the DSG shows a 21% increase in MPG over the manual gearbox on the urbal cycle. My current "normal" 4-speed auto only suffers a 12% increase in MPG over the manual. And the combined MPG shows a 10% increase, which is the same as my 4-speed manual.

Surely Skoda UK must know the numbers before publishing them? Why would they publish wrong numbers which clearly show the DSG gearbox hits MPG a lot more than a "normal" automatic.

The TDI CR140 Yeti gets the 6-speed DSG 'box; same as in the Octavia but

..... what I want to know is; will Skoda put the DSG 'box in the TDI CR170 Yeti? They have this in the Octavia vRS so why not Yeti?

On the 'economy/performance' front a DSG equipped car is barely any different than its manual equivalent in either economy or performance and in some circumstances is better!

Edited 17 January, 201016 yr by bahnstormer vrs

On the 'economy/performance' front a DSG equipped car is barely any different than its manual equivalent in either economy or performance and in some circumstances is better!

Someone needs to tell Skoda Uk this, so they can publish fuel consumption figures that don't show 20% worse fuel consumption for the DSG then.

And why is the CO2 figure for the Yeti DSG one-band higher than the manual, whereas in the VW Golf the DSG has exactly the same CO2 figure as the manual?

Are there any "facts" around to support whether or not the DSG in a Yeti is fuel efficient?

The review at newcarnet ( http://www.newcarnet.co.uk/new_Skoda_Yeti.html?serialno=68162 ) states much better fuel consumption numbers:

Urban cycle = 35.3 mpg

Extra-urban = 53.3 mpg

Combined = 44.8 mpg

Edited 17 January, 201016 yr by tarbat

James at Allams has just published the performance and economy figures for the new Octavia 1.2TSI and 1.2TSI DSG on the Octavia II forum.

My link

See post 23 for comparison.

TP