yeti mpg

[ColinEdinburgh]

Just drove from Bakewell in the Peak District to Edinburgh. A steady drive (but followed a cement lorry through much of the Peaks grindingly slow).

A good five hour run, sitting at the speed limit or perhaps 2 mph above it all the way (cruise control), with the aircon running in this heat.

I came from the M74 to Edinburgh via the A702 for those who appreciate threading through twisty roads after 4 hours on motorways ....

140bhp engine with (now) 600 odd miles on the clock, still tight but getting better by the mile.

And the answer to the mpg? The computer reported an average of 48.6mpg for the whole run - which in my opinion is pretty fantastic, my previous DSG Octavia would not have bettered that.

[NGee]

I've now got about 2,200 miles on the clock.

Over the last 900 miles I've achieved 47.1mpg according to the trip computer.

Very pleased with that, as the official combined figure is 46.3mpg for this engine.

Also, once past the first 1,500 miles I've been letting the engine stretch a bit more, and I can feel it getting better with a few more miles.

[4 wheel driver]

That's pretty amazing, our 170 is averaging around 39 mpg due to it spending most of its time in town, but in fairness that does correspond to official consumption figures.

I've had it on a couple of longer, steady runs in the past couple of days and had nearer 45 to 47mpg according to the single trip readout, so would expect it to average between 42 and 44 on more mixed driving longer term.

Hi, I have read a few articles regarding the variable quality of both diesel and petrol.

Can't prove if the claims stack up or not but think my Honda 500 m/cycle was smoother and fitter on Shell Ultimate petrol.

Only ever used Shell diesel in my Monster 170 'cos of worries about coking up the DPF. Have tried Ultimate diesel a couple of times and it seems to run quieter and smoother. Not sure if mpg has improved or not.

Maybe I'm fooling myself , trying to justify the extra cost. Who knows, but it's food for thought and you might like to give it a go.

[freewheeler]

interesting to read about the yeti mpg,just how accurate do you think the computer is????

mike.

[Gyp]

This is all rather worrying - I sort of expected the Tdi Yeti consumption to be at least as good as the consumption on my Octavia, what with the diesel system being 2 generations further on.

My long term average is 49mpg and regularly get 55-60 on a run (with the best single run average being 72 when I did Cheltenham to London at 10mph below the posted speed limits). The 49mpg average includes a lot of drive-it-like-you-stole-it driving.

I note with concern in the latest Top Gear magazine review that they say they are getting a 25mpg average in a 110 2WD elegance.

Perhaps I'm not going to get a yeti either :'(

[jlwah]

Hi, I have read a few articles regarding the variable quality of both diesel and petrol.

Can't prove if the claims stack up or not but think my Honda 500 m/cycle was smoother and fitter on Shell Ultimate petrol.

Only ever used Shell diesel in my Monster 170 'cos of worries about coking up the DPF. Have tried Ultimate diesel a couple of times and it seems to run quieter and smoother. Not sure if mpg has improved or not.

Maybe I'm fooling myself , trying to justify the extra cost. Who knows, but it's food for thought and you might like to give it a go.

Ours runs Shell (regular, not the expensive stuff) most of the time simply because it's the nearest garage. It does get Tescos finest when there's a 5p / lt off coupon with the weekly shop.

[fuzzybunny]

I note with concern in the latest Top Gear magazine review that they say they are getting a 25mpg average in a 110 2WD elegance.

Perhaps I'm not going to get a yeti either :'(

Well that just doesnt makes any sense, the 2WD 110bhp should be the most economic Yeti and owners on this forum report twice that mpg figure.

Don't trust just one review read what the owners say and I'm sure you wont be dissapointed with a Yeti.

Cheers,

[kenfowler3966]

Well that just doesnt makes any sense, the 2WD 110bhp should be the most economic Yeti and owners on this forum report twice that mpg figure.

Don't trust just one review read what the owners say and I'm sure you wont be dissapointed with a Yeti.

Cheers,

Mine is nearly 2 weeks old now, one long work trip under the wheels (previously detailed above) and we have now just returned from a weeks holiday in Northumberland.

Three up and full of luggage to the extent of having to fold the unused seat out of the way for more luggage space, and averaged around 50mpg on the maxidot.

Whilst driving around at touring speeds and annoying the locals I saw up to 70mpg averages.

Overall average to date for 800 miles since delivered to me is 51.5mpg.

As an aside this was the perfect holiday car, the improved view over the hedges was much appreciarted by the passengers, and I felt a little safer driving it as well because of the improved visibility.

Comparing the Yeti to my previous car (A 130bhp superb) the Yeti is slightly slower on acceleration and the bumps are much more noticable, however the steering is much more precise and the handling feels better.

So far I really like this car, and personally like the style, whereas I dont like the corporate look of the current fabia, or the strange shape of the Roomster.

And contrary to the experience of others not a single rattle so far, just a little wind noise reported by the front passenger which I can't hear

[nick4444]

I have been using gascubby as well and mine has averaged 39mpg over 11000 miles, but on occasions have hit 50mpg but it dosent last long. It definately suffers on cruise above 70mph on the motorway as the juice is rammed into the turbo. I reckon that 40ish is achievable depending on how you drive. The engine is as sweet as a button and really loves being revved! OK its not rapid but it has a huge dollop of fun and is economical around town. Next door has a diesel Kuga and the MPG on that is worse than the Yeti and the Ford diesel sounds coarse! Love my car and think it ticks all the right boxes, might even buy another one when the mark2 eventually raises it head.

[garth514]

Hi all

My 110 2WD with 3900 miles on settled around 42mpg by calculation - the maxidot has it pretty consistently at 44.6mpg.It's driven carefully but certainly not like Miss Daisy and has the climatronic on all the time.

I travel 11 miles on town/country roads in the morning on the school run and same mileage on motorway/B roads at night.The gauge very often will not move from full until I've done about 80 miles but seems to drop very fast after that.

I did originally think that I may have got a little more but on the whole bearing in mind the weight and the aerodynamics it's pretty good.

Having said that the car is a cracker and I'm looking forward to getting some miles on French roads this summer and giving the air con a real workout.

[fuzzybunny]

Hi all

My 110 2WD with 3900 miles on settled around 42mpg by calculation......Having said that the car is a cracker and I'm looking forward to getting some miles on French roads this summer and giving the air con a real workout.

I would have expected better than that from the 2WD 110. You should be averaging over 45mpg. I suspect the engine is only just reaching optimum operating temperatures after 11 miles especially in this cold weather. Does your DPF light not come on?

You should do much better on your French holiday. Let's know how you get on. :yes:

[garth514]

Yes probably is temperature related - it does only get to normal on the gauge about two thirds into the morning journey, hopefully it may go up a bit as the ambient warms up.

I've never seen the DPF light come though I have smelt what I believe to be the effects of regeneration, a smell of burning rubber mixed with a hint of farm slurry , so guess this is working as it should

[lee67]

8000 miles in on my 1.2' and im getting on average 500-520 miles to the tank.....and have seen anything from 35-late 50's mpg depending on how i drive,

[AndyC]

Saw 55.1 mpg on maxidot on a recent (very steady driving) trip last week. Mainly busy A road, so just sitting in a line of traffic. Probably nearer 50 allowing for the maxidot over read, but not bad.

Overall figure for 2000 miles on maxidot is 46.1 mpg.

Andy

[Yetiflute]

Saw 55.1 mpg on maxidot on a recent (very steady driving) trip last week. Mainly busy A road, so just sitting in a line of traffic. Probably nearer 50 allowing for the maxidot over read, but not bad.

Overall figure for 2000 miles on maxidot is 46.1 mpg.

Andy

That is heartening and I will be very pleased if I get those figures when my 170 arrives. I tend to drive for economy at all times without being stupidly slow. Will still be nice to have 170hp at hand when really needed though.

[EdmundBlackadder]

I have a 140bhp Yeti. I have now done 12,000 miles and that distance plus warmer weather is starting to make a difference. I managed a genuine 50.6mpg on a motorway run a couple of weeks ago and my usual average is around 43-45mpg. I hope this will get closer to 45mpg and above from now on.

[Fluffy destroyer of worlds]

My 140 is averaging bob on 44mpg. I did manage an excellent 58mpg on the maxidot whilst driving from New Galloway to Carlisle after a fishing expedition. Soon put a stop to that nonsense further south on the M6, dragged it down to 39mpg (the road was empty yer onor.

Along with a Punto GT it is the only car to date out of 40 I have owned to have had zero defects in its first 6 months, long may it continue.

Can't imagine what I will replace it with - other than another Yeti.

[rockhopper]

The best I have out of my 140 DSG is 42.7mpg genuine. maxidot read 46mpg. That was going up to Shark last time to have the steering wheel fitted, and I cruised up at about 65mph on the motorway. Need to cruise slower than that to get the mpg up much higher due to the brick like aerodynamics. It did just under 40 on the way back.

I'm resigned now to accept that it is no where near as economical as I'd hoped it would be, but Elsie the Helipad seems to be the most economical of the ones on the forum, but there are a few that I don't know what are doing - Rogebrit, Yellowyeller, Macdemon to name the ones that I can remember off the top of my head.

[Llanigraham]

Last weekends jaunt to near Ipswich and back. Filled up in Newtown on Friday morning and then again on Monday lunch time:

543 miles

48 ltrs

= 51.36mpg

Certainly can't complain at that!

[rockhopper]

I would love to get that

[EdmundBlackadder]

I have never quite understood why an automatic box has such a negative effect on mpg. I would have thought that an automatic would have changed gear at the optimum time and so should be more efficient than a manual. Any engineers out there who can clarify why this occurs?

[rockhopper]

I have never quite understood why an automatic box has such a negative effect on mpg. I would have thought that an automatic would have changed gear at the optimum time and so should be more efficient than a manual. Any engineers out there who can clarify why this occurs?

Not exactly sure either, but it does 'slip' the clutch more than a manual would. I would expect the DSG to pretty similar once moving. The old torque converters were dire at fuel consumption, but I believe the new BMW 520d has an 8 speed outbox which is more economical than the manual.....

My fuel consumption is down because it sits idling around London all the time. My average speed tends to be between 16 & 20mph (on a good tankful)

[900000]

I have never quite understood why an automatic box has such a negative effect on mpg. I would have thought that an automatic would have changed gear at the optimum time and so should be more efficient than a manual. Any engineers out there who can clarify why this occurs?

It baffles me too. Especially since with a DSG on board most every VW out there has BETTER CO2 emissions, better 0-60 times and better fuel consumption. Just not when you add a DSG to a Yeti?!?! Why?!

[rockhopper]

4x4?

[BossFox]

I have never quite understood why an automatic box has such a negative effect on mpg. I would have thought that an automatic would have changed gear at the optimum time and so should be more efficient than a manual. Any engineers out there who can clarify why this occurs?

While I am not an engineer, two reasons I believe for an old style auto box using more fuel were typically the auto had less gears and the Torque Convertor also absorbed some of the engine power.

When most cars had 5 speeds, most autos were 4 speed. Prior to that 4 speeds competed with 3 speed autos.

Now some of the cars have 7 and 8 speed autos the economy is getting much better.

The 7 speed 1.2 DSG is more economical on a run than the manual 1.2 petrol when it's on a run. It's around town is uses a little more fuel.

I was rather surprised by our 1.2 DSG the other day.

Drove it 42 miles and averaged 51mpg. and the maxi-dot is always accurate on it to within 1%