For those looking at the petrol engines, 'why no 1.4Tsi' seems to be a perennial question.

Given how good the 1.2 is in the Yeti, a major step up in performance would surely come at the cost of an equally major step up in fuel consumption - not to 1.8 levels perhaps, but I'd guess a 1.4 driven hard vs a 1.8 driven gently would be a close call.

Is it just possible that the people at Skoda got it right and that a 1.4 Tsi would neither be quick enough for those that want real performance nor economical enough for those who want everyday practicality?

I agree with you.

The 1.2 is supposed to replace the old 1.6, and the 1.4 is supposed to replace the 1.8 and 2.0 engines (in it's various states of trim).

The diesels fill the range in top, since the rest of the market is dominated by diesels, so it would be hard to see how the other petrols would sell.

I can see why people want the 1.4tsi as there seems to be quite a jump betwen the 1.2 and 1.8. However the 1.4 isn't much more powerful than the 1.2 in either bhp or torque terms ie it sits only about a "third" of the way between the other 2 engines. As Babs suggests, the 140 diesel plugs the gap in bhp at least.

Some might have expected the 1.4 would have been the "entry" engine, but we all know the 1.2 is excellent.

I there is a gap, i would say it's the lack of more 2wd choices, which research shows is what the great majority of "cross-over" buyers want. In the case of the Yeti, 4wd represents £1700 of the price, while economy is affected. This is not to say the 4wd Yeti isn't good and just what some people want and need, just that more 2wd would probably expand its market share

I would have thought that a 2 wheel version of a crossover/softroader can no longer claim to be a crossover/softroader.

I can see why people want the 1.4tsi as there seems to be quite a jump betwen the 1.2 and 1.8. However the 1.4 isn't much more powerful than the 1.2 in either bhp or torque terms ie it sits only about a "third" of the way between the other 2 engines. As Babs suggests, the 140 diesel plugs the gap in bhp at least.

Some might have expected the 1.4 would have been the "entry" engine, but we all know the 1.2 is excellent.

I there is a gap, i would say it's the lack of more 2wd choices, which research shows is what the great majority of "cross-over" buyers want. In the case of the Yeti, 4wd represents £1700 of the price, while economy is affected. This is not to say the 4wd Yeti isn't good and just what some people want and need, just that more 2wd would probably expand its market share

I'd agree about the 2wd choices. On our company scheme the difference between a 110 CR SE 2wd and the 110 CR SE 4wd was £50 a month yet a 140 CR SE was only £10 more than the 110 CR SE 4wd. If there was a 140 CR 2wd I would have gone for that.

I still think the 1.4 TSi would be a good engine for the Yeti. it would give people who prefer petrol an option with a bit more power but still low tax. It would alos mean they could offer an a cheaper petrol engine with 4wd since the only petrol 4wd at the moment is the 1.8 TSi.

I would have thought that a 2 wheel version of a crossover/softroader can no longer claim to be a crossover/softroader.

To be honest we're talking about marketing niches whatever the terminology. One might speculate why if people want 2wd they don't buy a conventional hatch, but

cars such as Tiguan and Qashqai, which have many of the attractive characteristics of medium sized 4wd eg ride height have proven very popular in 2wd form. The availability of, and enthusiasm for, the 1.2tsi Yeti suggests the Yeti is part of that trend. Nothing wrong with being an honest 4x4, but likely to be a limited market

I can see why people want the 1.4tsi as there seems to be quite a jump betwen the 1.2 and 1.8. However the 1.4 isn't much more powerful than the 1.2 in either bhp or torque terms ie it sits only about a "third" of the way between the other 2 engines. As Babs suggests, the 140 diesel plugs the gap in bhp at least.

Some might have expected the 1.4 would have been the "entry" engine, but we all know the 1.2 is excellent.

The main problem I perceive with the 1.8TSi is its high emissions (189). Economy is so subjective, although the 1.8TSi doesn't overall tend to score well.

A Golf GTi with 210PS scores 170 and a 1.4TSi Golf (160PS) is 145. OK the Yeti will have some extra weight and (potentially) 4WD but not enough, I would have imagined, to push the emissions right up to 189.

What I actually want is a 160PS engine that actually feels like 160 (which I'm unconvinced the 1.8TSi actually does**) and emissions in the 150-160 band. I'd have guessed that the 1.4TSi (160) engine might have delivered this.

** Of course this is subjective too and it all depends on what you're used to driving. But whereas a Golf 160GT actually felt like an 8sec 0-60 car, my test drive in a 1.8TSi Yeti most certainly didn't.

I would have thought that a 2 wheel version of a crossover/softroader can no longer claim to be a crossover/softroader.

For me 2wd Yeti = family car; not bothered what the marketing folks want to call it.

Takes up the same amount of road space as a Golf but is a more practical vehicle (for me).

For those looking at the petrol engines, 'why no 1.4Tsi' seems to be a perennial question.

Given how good the 1.2 is in the Yeti, a major step up in performance would surely come at the cost of an equally major step up in fuel consumption - not to 1.8 levels perhaps, but I'd guess a 1.4 driven hard vs a 1.8 driven gently would be a close call.

Is it just possible that the people at Skoda got it right and that a 1.4 Tsi would neither be quick enough for those that want real performance nor economical enough for those who want everyday practicality?

People always want more and fail to see that Skoda is the lower power arm of VAG. (Fabia vrs vs. Ibiza Cupra, Octy vrs vs. GTI30 & Cupra, Superb 3.6 vs R36 etc)

The 1.2 Yeti looks a nice package. Having spent longer than I care to remember driving a normal 1.6 petrol, I'm sure it'll be more than man enough for the job. I like it myself but by the time my next car comes around, it may be too small.

People always want more and fail to see that Skoda is the lower power arm of VAG. (Fabia vrs vs. Ibiza Cupra, Octy vrs vs. GTI30 & Cupra, Superb 3.6 vs R36 etc)

The 1.2 Yeti looks a nice package. Having spent longer than I care to remember driving a normal 1.6 petrol, I'm sure it'll be more than man enough for the job. I like it myself but by the time my next car comes around, it may be too small.

The other thing to consider is avoiding direct competition with other VAG group products. With the exception of the superminis: Fabia/Polo/Ibiza (excluding the FR/Cupra versions), most Skodas don't have an exact VW equivalent eg Octavia though based on a Golf, is more of a family car, but is smaller than a Passat. The Yeti could be close to being a direct competitor for the Tiguan (disregarding "brand"), so perhaps there is a policy of keeping engine and 2/4wd drive options and combinations different

The main problem I perceive with the 1.8TSi is its high emissions (189). Economy is so subjective, although the 1.8TSi doesn't overall tend to score well.

A Golf GTi with 210PS scores 170 and a 1.4TSi Golf (160PS) is 145. OK the Yeti will have some extra weight and (potentially) 4WD but not enough, I would have imagined, to push the emissions right up to 189.

What I actually want is a 160PS engine that actually feels like 160 (which I'm unconvinced the 1.8TSi actually does**) and emissions in the 150-160 band. I'd have guessed that the 1.4TSi (160) engine might have delivered this.

** Of course this is subjective too and it all depends on what you're used to driving. But whereas a Golf 160GT actually felt like an 8sec 0-60 car, my test drive in a 1.8TSi Yeti most certainly didn't.

Easy answer: 2.0 CR 170 hp TDI

Looking at Tiguan which uses a 1.4TSI in 150 guise, then the 4x4 version has almost identical fuel consumption to the 1.8TSI in the Monster but with a slightly lower CO2 dropping it a tax band. The 2wd version which has a revamped BlueMotion engine again 150, delivers a combined figure of 42.2 mpg and has the same road tax as my TDI 140.

As Skoda use the 1.8TSI 4x4 throughout their range I cannot see this format changing. If they do consider a 1.4 I personally think this will be the 122 version currently in the Octavia II (2wd form only).

TP

There are rumours of a 125BHP version of the 1.2 TSI (the 1.4 will move upwards with the top one kicking out 200BHP)!

There is also due to be an 85ps version of the 1.2 TSI to replace the 1.4 80ps engine. This is due to be the entry level engine in the new Audi A1 when it is launched later this year. Don't think that this will feature in the Yeti though; one for the lighter cars......

Easy answer: 2.0 CR 170 hp TDI

Not an option if you prefer a petrol engine though. :S

I cant help but think the 1.8TSi is a bit of a stop gap. Im sure there will be a smaller capacity unit with a turbo coming along in the future that will offer better mpg and far better co2.

I spoke to someone just before christmas who had been on the product launch and they had the opportunity to take the 1.2 off road with three 'large' 6ft+ guys and he said the engine pulled amazingly well. To me its the amount and spread of torque that is more important than peak power figure - for a 1.2 capacity engine. the smallest Yeti petrol is probably all that most people would need in the real world imo.

Not an option if you prefer a petrol engine though. :S

I cant help but think the 1.8TSi is a bit of a stop gap. Im sure there will be a smaller capacity unit with a turbo coming along in the future that will offer better mpg and far better co2.

I spoke to someone just before christmas who had been on the product launch and they had the opportunity to take the 1.2 off road with three 'large' 6ft+ guys and he said the engine pulled amazingly well. To me its the amount and spread of torque that is more important than peak power figure - for a 1.2 capacity engine. the smallest Yeti petrol is probably all that most people would need in the real world imo.

Very true about only needing the 1.2 TSI. Since "polite" daily use is not likely to consume any more than 50% of it's power, durability is not likely to be an issue. You could argue that a factory or aftermarket remap, giving some more Oomph at the upper end would satisfy the enthusiast and still not be detrimental to durability - if not tested al the time.

If you prefer the petrol, then that is what you like and it is a reasonable attitude. If we all wanted the same or just bought what we really needed, life would be very boring, eh?

By now, you will have realized that I am converted to Diesel - both for it's style of performance and also that I can take some satisfaction in the lower specific fuel consumption and fuel cost savings - more pronounced here than in the UK.

Not an option if you prefer a petrol engine though. :S

I was under the impression that the CR TDIs and TSI petrols were actually pretty similar to drive?

How can they be, one has a much higher revolution ceiling, the other has a half more torque again!

Dunno. It's what all the petrol VRS owners say.

Well they might like to think that I could not possibly say! Just look at the engine torque and bhp figures and note also at what revolutions things occur at. Also note the fuel consumption figures. Obviously a graph or power curve would tell more. Petrol motors have come a long way though.

How can they be, one has a much higher revolution ceiling...

I'm interested in this comparison too but as I've commented previously, it really depends on how much of the nominal upper rev range of the petrol engine you use in practice. On my current Accord 2.4 which is redlined at something like 7000, in practice I rarely go above 5000 even when accelerating hard. (Well Ok maybe 5500 on occasion but I wouldn't feel a limitation to 5000 to be too much of a penalty because I use it only rarely.)

If a diesel engine is limited to say 4000 then I agree there's still a big diesel/petrol difference in driving characteristics. But if the diesel allows you - when run in of course - to rev to approaching 5000 and is still producing decent power at that rpm then in practical terms I'm not too sure that there's much in it. The Yeti's CR170 (which is what I'm planning to buy) isn't red-lined till 5000, though I've yet to hear whether or not the oomph is dying off markedly above say 4500.

Dunno. It's what all the petrol VRS owners say.

Surely the VRS owners are comparing the 2 litre TSi lump and 2 litre 170 tdi unit?! :S

Ive read two reviews now where the journalist/driver state that the 1.8tsi was the best engine tested (most of the mags/reviews only got to try the 140tdi) and gave the feeling of the diesels low down but were smoother and implied they were simply more 'fun'. These were my feelings too.

The 1.8tsi actually puts out 180bhp+ and 200lb/ft torque as standard also based on the independant dyno testing ive seen also, not too far away from standard VRS TSI petrol figures.

I'm interested in this comparison too but as I've commented previously, it really depends on how much of the nominal upper rev range of the petrol engine you use in practice.

If a diesel engine is limited to say 4000 then I agree there's still a big diesel/petrol difference in driving characteristics. But if the diesel allows you - when run in of course - to rev to approaching 5000 and is still producing decent power at that rpm then in practical terms I'm not too sure that there's much in it. The Yeti's CR170 (which is what I'm planning to buy) isn't red-lined till 5000, though I've yet to hear whether or not the oomph is dying off markedly above say 4500.

Surely an indicator of differences in this would be the 170CR's ability to hold peak torque for 1000rpm and the 1.8TSi to hold it for 3,000rpm all the way to 5000rpm from as low as 2,000rpm When it does die off at 5,000rpm the power (bhp) is still cleanly climbing.

Lee

For those looking at the petrol engines, 'why no 1.4Tsi' seems to be a perennial question.

Given how good the 1.2 is in the Yeti, a major step up in performance would surely come at the cost of an equally major step up in fuel consumption - not to 1.8 levels perhaps, but I'd guess a 1.4 driven hard vs a 1.8 driven gently would be a close call.

Is it just possible that the people at Skoda got it right and that a 1.4 Tsi would neither be quick enough for those that want real performance nor economical enough for those who want everyday practicality?

On another skoda forum are talking about the Yeti 1.4 tsi to be available soon in Holland and later everywhere else, source is the dutch mag autoweek.

I understood that the 1.4 tsi Yeti was not on the cards.

Edited 29 January, 201016 yr by mcgiver

Surely the VRS owners are comparing the 2 litre TSi lump and 2 litre 170 tdi unit?! :S

Well, yes, but then other people have said that the 1.8TSI is pretty close in performance to the 2.0TSI.

It's just what a lot of people seem to have been saying about the TSIs - plenty of torque low down, like a turbo-diesel.