Good afternoon,

Hello. New member here.

I'm due to change my company car in about 14 months time and I'm starting to look around for what i will choose next. Currently I have an 09 Ford Mondeo Hatch.

My main cricteria's for the new car are as follows;

Diesel

Good MPG

Cruise Control

Good Stereo.

Decent Sized boot.

I've seen a couple of Yeti's around and really like the look of them.

I'm interested in finding our what the true world MPG figures are for comparison to the manufacturers stated ones. (The Mondeo is returning 44mg over 40k miles Ford stated 48mpg on combined, calculated by tank to tank measurements and not the trip computer)

I'm interested in finding out the mpg for the 2.0 TDi 140 4x4 and the 2.0 TDi 2 wheel drive as I'm torn between the two options.

Thanks in advance

Big Rich

Big Rich - I have the 2.0D 4 x 4. I have just completed 4,000 miles and my real mpg, the trip computer has always over egged the numbers by 4-5mpg so far, has been between 43-45mpg. I managed 45mpg on a trip of mainly motorway and dual carriageway from Northumberland to the Lakes but otherwise I have been stuck on 43-44mpg. Mine is a company car so I measure the mpg each time I fill up.

I would say I am a pretty regular driver, neither fast nor slow. I am hoping I will squeeze up to 45-48 as I put more miles on the clock. My last car, another 2.0D followed a similar pattern of 43-44mpg up until 10k when I bizarrely gained another 3-4mpg.

I, like you, toyed with the idea of 2WD but still have strong memories of sliding around on the snow last year and so decided it was worth sacrificing a few mpg for peace of mind in the winter. I think this is a good thread as it is a very genuine choice.

The only compromise you may have here is the boot size. I have learnt to pack vertically more often as there is plenty of height and width in the boot, it is the depth that is lacking. The advantage of this though, I assume, is that this short length enables the car to drive like a normal car, not like a wallowing 4 x 4.

My early production 140 4x4 is returning 42-44 mpg as an average after almost 10,000 miles of rural driving. On a long run this can climb to 46+. 140's built after WK45/09 have an updated engine which is slightly cleaner on emissions and better on economy. The 110 2wd are into the 50's I believe and if you don't need 4x4 are a good choice for commuting.

Regards,

TP

oh almost forgot there's the new Greenline 1.6TDI CR on the horizon if SUK import it here, should be good on fuel but may lack a little performance.

Edited 1 October, 201015 yr by The Plumber

My 2wd 110bhp diesel, which is the one to go for if tax is an issue, returns a real worl 46mpg. This is over 4000 miles from new with a variety of long motorway trrips, touring holiday and commuting.

The Yeti is noticeably more economical in town than my prior superb, but worse on the motorway due to the aerodynamics. Trip compute usually around 52mpg on A roads, drops to 49 on the motorway.

Thanks for the updates.

Doing 20k a year on mainly motorways means that good MPG can make a big financial difference.

Whilst I like the idea of 4x4 the question is do I really need it? Will I be leaving the tarmac? I haven't up to now on both these questions, so is the extra cost and lower MPG worth it. Still not sure.

Will be intrested to see this thread mature with vehicles that have passed the 10k mark.

Rgds

Big Rich

11.5 K miles and an average of 43-44 on the longer journeys (A55 to Manchester) I think you need to ask different questions as well.

For example is the Yeti a good long distance cruiser?:- For myself, I am less tired after a long trip than I was in my (now ex) X-Trail.

Is it a good car for motorway driving?:- I find that the mirrors do not give as good a view of cars passing (compared to the split mirror on the XT) and certain care needs to be taken when changing lanes.

What about seating and driving position?:- The seat on my SE is infinitely variable and very comfortable (fabric not leather) but, after the rather close up position of the XT, the steering wheel is more at arms length and took some time to get used to.

Noise?:- No problem with acceptable levels of road noise. For me, the Bolero radio is more than adequate. But then I could never understand why people wanted concert hall accoustics in a car.

My 2wd 110bhp diesel, which is the one to go for if tax is an issue, returns a real worl 46mpg. This is over 4000 miles from new with a variety of long motorway trrips, touring holiday and commuting.

The Yeti is noticeably more economical in town than my prior superb, but worse on the motorway due to the aerodynamics. Trip compute usually around 52mpg on A roads, drops to 49 on the motorway.

Same as my 2wd 110. I live in a rural area and a lot of journeys are 3-4 miles little traffic and other journeys 20 to long distances. I have achieved approx 54 mpg on rural 50 to 60mph roads. I have never managed 60mpg.

I keep a detailed record, full to full, and over the last 8000 miles have averaged 46mpg, which is a little bit better than 10 miles per litre (my "target").

Interestingly I get the same mpg out of my 1300cc Yamaha FJR1300 tourer.

tom

Hi,

My 170 has done 7k now and on the maxidot returns 46mpg as Skoda suggest. Most of my journeys are short but on longer runs I have seen 60 mpg av. Just returned from a 500 mile round trip to Lincolnshire and on the return leg of 150 miles got 54.4 mpg according to maxidot at max motorway speed limit 70 mph on sat nav which shows 75 on speedo. I was using Shell Ultra Diesel and feel its smoother using it although I could be fooling myself to justify extra cost.

With respect, I question Edmund Blackadder's remark that 4wd costs 3-4 mpg over 2wd . With the Haldex clutch 2wd is operational most of the time and 4wd only kicks in if traction is lost so the only penalty should be a result of the negligible extra weight, or am I wrong. (comments please.) Also I think Skoda acknowledge the 170 as the most economical of the 2litre diesels and they only come in4wd.

Finally , with the power that a 170 pushes out I find it comforting to know that electronic trickery will tame it if I overcook it which is hard to resist now and again and again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With respect, I question Edmund Blackadder's remark that 4wd costs 3-4 mpg over 2wd . With the Haldex clutch 2wd is operational most of the time and 4wd only kicks in if traction is lost so the only penalty should be a result of the negligible extra weight, or am I wrong. (comments please.) Also I think Skoda acknowledge the 170 as the most economical of the 2litre diesels and they only come in4wd.

Finally , with the power that a 170 pushes out I find it comforting to know that electronic trickery will tame it if I overcook it which is hard to resist now and again and again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I double checked my post and I can't see that I make that claim, certainly not with a figure of 3-4mpg. I make an assumption that 2wd is normally more economical but I don't put a figure on it.

After your post I decided to have a look at the figures. According to the offical figures on the 2.0d the 110bhp 2wd is supposed to get 52mpg whilst the 110bhp 4wd gets 46mpg. If the 170bhp engine was available in 2wd then presumably it is likely to be more economical than the 4wd version, down as 47.9mpg. The fact that the 170 version outperforms the 110 and 140, 47mpg, versions of the 2.0d is still hugely impressive.

Maybe the haldex kicks in a little more than we all realise. An interesting part of this thread is to see if the 110bhp 2wd does get over 50mpg in the real world.

Incidentally I agree with you that it is worth going for the 4wd if you decide to have a 2.0d. If economy is the key then the 1.6d is probably the answer. Now that the weather is turning nasty I feel comforted knowing I have that extra bit of back up.

I double checked my post and I can't see that I make that claim, certainly not with a figure of 3-4mpg. I make an assumption that 2wd is normally more economical but I don't put a figure on it.

After your post I decided to have a look at the figures. According to the offical figures on the 2.0d the 110bhp 2wd is supposed to get 52mpg whilst the 110bhp 4wd gets 46mpg. If the 170bhp engine was available in 2wd then presumably it is likely to be more economical than the 4wd version, down as 47.9mpg. The fact that the 170 version outperforms the 110 and 140, 47mpg, versions of the 2.0d is still hugely impressive.

Maybe the haldex kicks in a little more than we all realise. An interesting part of this thread is to see if the 110bhp 2wd does get over 50mpg in the real world.

Incidentally I agree with you that it is worth going for the 4wd if you decide to have a 2.0d. If economy is the key then the 1.6d is probably the answer. Now that the weather is turning nasty I feel comforted knowing I have that extra bit of back up.

Hi Edmund,

Thanks for your prompt reply. I stand corrected and don't know where I got the 3-4 mpg penalty bit from as nobody else mentions it either. I can only put it down to struggling with English, which is my second language as I come from the North-East !

Hi Edmund,

Thanks for your prompt reply. I stand corrected and don't know where I got the 3-4 mpg penalty bit from as nobody else mentions it either. I can only put it down to struggling with English, which is my second language as I come from the North-East !

From my experience of owning a Octavia II TDI PD 140 2wd followed by a Golf TDI PD 140 4x4 then this figure of 3-4 mpg difference was about right as a comparison between these two cars anyway. Currently the Yeti is slightly down on the economy of the Golf but she's heavier and more house brick then jelly mould

TP

Hi -

170 4*4 now done over 11000 miles in 5 months. I log all fuel and incidental costs in an App called FillPro on the iPhone, and always brim the tank, including giving the car a shoogle to get the last few drops down into the tank, and then stop when I see the stuff in the neck.

My per-tank MPG has varied from the worst using 48li was 40.20, to the best 49li and 49.04 mpg. The overall average from new to now is 43.8mpg. Significantly the average over the last month has risen to 45.4, and the previous 3 months (including the last month) was 44.3.

Others elsewhere have noted that the MPG improves with time, and my figures certainly bear this out.

My driving has not altered - good quality A roads with substantial hills, and C roads with vicious hills along with probably a monthly extended trip to Scotland, or Lakes, or Midlands on chiefly M-ways.

Fuel price has averaged 1.195 per litre, and (in the last month 1.162) with a high of 1.239 and a low of 1.139, as the price has dropped.

Mostly I refill between 48 litres and 50 litres, covering usually 470 to 490 miles on that.

My cost per mile for fuel, service, insurance, but without depreciation, has been 17p per mile. (Depreciation could add another 27p/mile to that, I think, making 44p/mile).

I have filled up brim to brim 25 times from new.

Edited 1 October, 201015 yr by Freshacre

Hi Edmund,

Thanks for your prompt reply. I stand corrected and don't know where I got the 3-4 mpg penalty bit from as nobody else mentions it either. I can only put it down to struggling with English, which is my second language as I come from the North-East !

Late post as my new pup is keeping me awake. Don't worry about the language issue. I have lived up here for 20 years now and have become reasonably good at translating. You do make a good point about the 170bhp engine which was well worth making. It would be interesting to see what the mpg of the 140 and 170bhp engines would be in 2wd. I am slightly surprised Skoda do not offer them. It would not have altered my choice but it may for others.

On my 2.0TDi 110 2WD, my real-time mpg at 2000 miles is 46.81 (cumulative) while the computer shows 50.4.

On my 2.0TDi 110 2WD, my real-time mpg at 2000 miles is 46.81 (cumulative) while the computer shows 50.4.

Which is virtually the same as I gave above, my maxidot reads about 50.5 as well

As discussed in other threads the maxidot seems quite optimistic and is reading 4 to 5 mpg out, so I take with a pinch of salt any claims which are not backed up with tank to tank measures.

As all my fuel is bought with a fuel card, I have a complete record of all used to date.

Dont forget that the speedo is also innacurate, a true 70mph is nearer 75 or more on the speedo according to the satnav and hence we will also be using an optimistic distance measure for the fuel consuption. I would guess that a calculated 46mpg is less than 44mpg when this is also taken into account.

I can remember owning a 2lt capri though, some years ago before diesel was an option, which only produced 100bhp and struggled to achieve 23mpg so things seem much better these days.

If we wanted true economy though we would not be buying a Yeti, we are buying one for its style and features first, there are other cars available which can easily achieve 65+mpg if that is alll that matters.

Fuel consumption difference is not that critical anyway, for the example above, on 20000 per year, comparing a 45mpg car to a 50mpg car means saving £220 per year, which is minute compared to all the other costs of running that car, and for normal motorists at 10000 per year it is less than the cost of the tax disc in difference.