Hi all, i,ve just joined this forum as a prospective buyer and have a few questions which I will post in separate threads as they occur to me. Any help will be most gratefully received.

My first query concerns the higher spec Yeti's having what I consider to be unusually low profile tyres for this type of vehicle (i.e. 50 aspect ratio) I know that the S model has 60 aspect tyres, but I want a sunroof and preferably leather interior. My current Subaru Forester has 60 aspect tyres even though it is a 2.0 litre turbo and the non-turbo Forester has 70 aspect tyres!

I have had the usual relatively short road test and was not able to come to any definite conclusion as to whether I would find the ride too firm. My initial impression over poor urban roads was that the ride was a bit "jiggly" for want of a better word. As this issue could be a "deal breaker" for me I wondered what owners find in everday use in different conditions and if they can describe it as better or worse than other cars in their experience.

Also, as I have not driven a lower spec model with 60 aspect tyres can anyone who has tried both the 50 and 60 aspect tyred models provide any insight into the difference in ride/?

All help gratefully received.

Regards, GeorgeG

Hi George

The ride is probably a very subjective thing. Personally, I find the ride on all roads very comfortable and much better than my previous car (a Fabia vRS but that had 45s on it). My normal use roads are everything from cross country B-roads to A roads and motorways.

I would suggest taking a YETI out for a longer test drive on lots of different roads, especially as you say it is important to you.

I am with Aerofrub on this, test driving is important particularly on roads that are familiar to YOU - not the salesman, thats the only way you can have a reliable comparison .

Compared to my Mk 1 vRS octavia Yeti's ride was like a magic carpet :yes:

I find the ride comfort and handling/the way it drives the Yeti's most impressive feature I believe that fitting tires with a taller profile would ruin some of the presicion and feel of the beautifully set up car.

65 section and above and still maintaining the standard circumference (spelling??) would probably force you to pick rims that won't fit over the brakes..

My Yeti has spent most of it's 6500km's on studded 225/50-17 Gislaved winter tires, and I'm really looking forward to fitting the summer rubber sometime after easter is over. The summer rubber will be the original Pirelli tires on Annapurna rims. Having a problem deciding if I should pick the black/silver or the silver/silver Annapurnas :p

Take the Yeti out on another testdrive

:yes:

George,

I have the Ambition version with 60 series tyres. It was delivered with winter tyres. It is quite firm and precise, even with the soft compound winter shoes. I also considered the 50 series on 17" wheels for the summer, but stayed with the 60 series on 16" wheels. I have not driven a Yeti with 17" wheels, so no possibility of comparing.

Visually, I prefer the 16" wheels - the skinny rubber on the 17's just don't look right to me on the Yeti. Ditto with the 45 and 40 series you see on other SUV's on the highways in Germany.

Jon, go for the Annapurna Black. They look good and the black does not show the brake dust as much.

Edited 1 April, 201016 yr by Agerbundsen

I would suggest taking a YETI out for a longer test drive on lots of different roads, especially as you say it is important to you.

I agree. Before I bought my Yeti, I had two test drives. In the second one i was better able to evaluate the car.

John

I agree. Before I bought my Yeti, I had two test drives. In the second one i was better able to evaluate the car.

John

I notice one of your previous cars was a Mercedes A Class - which I also have. How would you compare that with a Yeti?

Thaks for the advice everyone. I will try and get another test drive. Unfortunately my local dealer has no Yeti's and I went all the way to Essex where my father lives to try one out. However, his nearest dealer (Colchester) had no demostrators and at the next nearest (Clacton) ,both their demo cars were on 17" alloys (a 1.8 TSI SE and a 140 diesel Elegance) so I was not able to try either 16" wheels or the 1.2TSI and obviously could not try a DSG as they are not here yet. I suppose I'll have to phone around various dealers until I find suitable demo cars.

I insisted on a 2nd test drive and arrange to borrow the car for an hour (unaccompanied) where I was able to evaluate it on the motorway, A & B roads and some green lanes too.

I found the ride to be perfectly acceptable.

I test drove the top spec on 17" low profiles and purposely chose the worst set of roads in the area, through the Hafren Forest, and found it coped remarkably well, with no "softness" or wallow, and it wasn't upset by changes in surface mid bend or deep puddles. Better than my Freelander on 80 aspect tyres!

50 isn't low profile. It's a ratio. 50%. 50% without a previous number is useless.

135/50 would be low profile. 225/50 wouldn't be.

50 isn't low profile. It's a ratio. 50%. 50% without a previous number is useless.

135/50 would be low profile. 225/50 wouldn't be.

50% sidewall height to tread width are low profile tyres

225/50-17 are low profile tyres.

135/50-17 would be impossible, you'd be driving on the rims, but they would have the same relative tread/sidewall profile.

OK to call it nitpicking or semantics.

Babs

I think you will find that the tyre industry define anything with an aspect ratio of 65% or below as low profile.

Doesn't matter. What I put is common sense!

Edited 2 April, 201016 yr by fatty5000
Cool your jets

BOYS- this is not a playground- please remain calm and civil at all times ...

and bear in mind others opinions are equally valid to your own...

or else I'll have to bang your heads together

Thank you

Lady Penelope

No they're not!

You'll soon learn that I'm right, damnit!

My decision to stick with the 16" 215/60 standard size wheels was made from an economic perspective as well as a sense that the skinny 17" rubber did not really offer any major advantages. So the following comments may well be post-decision rationalization, but so be it.

ADAC did a comparison a few years ago, test ing diffeent tyre widths for the same diameter tyre and on the same car. Unfortunately, all the tyres were not the same brand and there were no 50 series or 60 series tyres, but anything else from 85 to 40 series profiles.(If you prefer ratio instead of profile, OK, whatever blows up your kilt, but most will understand the idea.) So, there is some intrapolation involved and specific tyres may do differntly from the table results.

Values were given to each tyre on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was best and 5 was unacceptable.

Values in the following order: Dry handling; Wet Handling, Aquaplaning; Ride comfort; Noise level; Rolling resistance.

215/60 -16: 2; 2; 2, 2; 1; 3, resulting in an overall score of 12.

225/50 -17: 1; 2; 2; 3; 2; 4, resulting in an overall score of 15

My conclusion is that the 225/50-17 is better handling on road surfaces - except for aquaplanig resistance. The differnces are small and really only on dry roads.

Having gone through this excerzise, I suspect the Skoda thinking behind offering the 17" wheels on high end vehicles is more to do with cosmetics and buyer perception than actual road performance.

Yes, the Annapurna Blacks would have looked great - but at an additional £1000. no way.

Edited 1 April, 201016 yr by Agerbundsen

Chicks dig big wheels.

I notice one of your previous cars was a Mercedes A Class - which I also have. How would you compare that with a Yeti?

We still have the A Class. It's an '05 A170 automatic...a fine car. It's my wife's.

The Yeti's a different kettle of fish but they both have an upright driving position which we like.

We love both cars.

John

For reference:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/282/low-profile-tyres/

So actually it is 60% not 65%, which is the figure I was given.

The yeti on 225/50-17 is a little firmer than the 215/60- 16 I agree but the advantage in the handling with the lower profile sidewall stiffness is a good trade in my opinion , I drive through a trading estate every day which has some of the largest potholes I have seen in twenty odd years of driving and the yeti handles them much better than my golf which has 225/45-17 tyres on so i know it's your choice but consider the height of the vehicle and the way it can change direction at the drop of a pin and does not wallow out of turn like a lot of other 4x4 style vehicles .

Oh and working in the tyre business for twenty five years anything under 80 series is considered a low profile tyre so all yetis are on low profiles just some lower than others.

Potholes are not so much a concern here, but the sharp-edged granite curbstones used in the many chicanes used here to reduce speed are. The 60 series would be less prone to damage than the 50 series - albeit not much so.

No wallowing on the 60 series winter rubber, so I expect less on the summer ones. They get mounted next Wednesday, so I will report later in the week.

Edited 2 April, 201016 yr by Agerbundsen

We still have the A Class. It's an '05 A170 automatic...a fine car. It's my wife's.

The Yeti's a different kettle of fish but they both have an upright driving position which we like.

We love both cars.

John

Many thanks for this reply John. How do you find they compare on ride quality? I'm still waiting for 1.2 to become available for a test drive at my local dealer so haven't yet been able to assess the two cars in this respect. My choice is essentially to go for another A Class or change to Yeti. I would give the A Class 10/10 in almost every respect but maybe only 6/10 for the ride which I find a little choppy on poor roads.

Not really reference... that's like listing a Wikipedia as a reference... That is the opinion of a Mr Alborz Fallah. And not fact.

And as it's an Australian site (where they like muscle cars on balloon tyres and pickup trucks, sorry... "utes"), I'll not consider it a reference even more.

To be honest, the whole "low profile tyres ride badly" argument is a facility.

My car comes with 205/55/15's (which, as an aside, I do not consider low profile), how ever it rides much better on the 205/40/17 wheels/tyres and lowered and stiffened suspension. The sidewalls and the suspension just seem to work together better. I've also noticed this on a previous car I tinkered with, my Vento. Standard was 185/60/14, I put new wheels on with 195/45/16 tyres, again with lowered and stiffened suspension. I found the same thing: a much more compliant ride.

...how ever it rides much better on the 205/40/17 wheels/tyres and lowered and stiffened suspension. The sidewalls and the suspension just seem to work together better. I've also noticed this on a previous car I tinkered with, my Vento. Standard was 185/60/14, I put new wheels on with 195/45/16 tyres, again with lowered and stiffened suspension. I found the same thing: a much more compliant ride.

Babs,

As you should know by now I am not a tecky by any stretch of the imagination :S

and I may be way of the mark here :wonder: ... but could it be your lowered suspension that make the difference and not the tyres?

Just a thought :sun:

Lady Penelope