Apologies in advance - this isn't a very Yeti-specific post, except that it's been prompted by Yeti ownership.

I've been driving for more years than I care to remember (well about 45 actually) and thought that I knew something about fuel consumption in different cars, driving styles etc. But the Yeti is the first car I've owned that's had an MPG meter and looking at the trip and longer-term MPG readouts over the first 500 miles of ownership has provided quite a revelation. I've been checking this out in a little detail because the Yeti is also the first diesel I've ever owned and so I've been curious as to what mileage I've actually been achieving.

Two things have surprised me - I'm sure that they're not a revelation to anyone who's more used to diesels and their fuel consumption, but they're new to me. The first is just how good a modern powerful (CR170) diesel can be, offering anything up to 47-48mpg driving steadily on an open A road at the legal 60mph, and this with an engine that's bound to be pretty tight still. Well, no surprises there perhaps for previous diesel owners.

But the second point, which I also find others commenting on in various threads here, is just how long it takes the engine to build up to this level of efficiency. I find that my trip mpg does not start to exceed my overall 500-mile mpg figure of around 38mpg until I've gone maybe 10-15 miles (which typically includes 1-2 miles or so in-town traffic, followed by the rest in more open A/B road driving, albeit often still in traffic).

What does strike me, especially about this second point, is just how far removed from reality this will often make the official MPG figures. In one sense this is obvious of course, but I now realise also that it's nonsense to talk about MPG without also specifying a driver's average journey length. A good BMW (and maybe VW too, but I always thought that BMW set the benchmark in this context) diesel may well equal or better the MPG of say a Prius over longer distances - say 30-40 miles plus. But for any driver whose average journey or commute is no more than 10-15 miles (and isn't this case for many if not most drivers/journeys?), then I'm starting to think that a plug-in hybrid would win the consumption/emissions contest outright.

It really must be time for the authorities to revisit how they calculate official consumption figures and for them to reflect typical journey patterns as well as urban/open-road differences.

Edited 21 November, 201015 yr by prodata

You raise an interesting point.

my daily commute is only 5 miles as well so mpg is around 38.

I have lots of long runs as well and will be looking at 20k this year.

my overall average after 11k is coming out at 43 mpg.

I would have preferred the 1.8 petrol engine but the poor mpg put me off so went for the CR140

many drivers buy diesel cars when their mileage is well under 10k a year which is asking for trouble expecially when the DPF light keeps coming on because they never get the engine/exhaust hot enough to clean the filter.

The CR140 is very good but I'll probaly go back to petrol when the time comes for a change.

Your MPG is the same as mine with the 140 engine, it's low until 12 miles have passed.

Also, if you go to 70mph, the mpg drops from 48 to 44

At 80 mph, the mpg is 40

The Yeti is not very aerodynamic.

Official mpg figures are obtained (as I recall) with a fully warmed up and run-in engine. They are also obtained on a rolling road to eliminate many other variables.

They are really only much use to give comparative consumption figures between different cars, and are often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain in reality.

Having said that, I've got 45.5mpg indicated over the last 900 miles, which compares favourably to the official combined figure of 46.3mpg. And I'm probably going faster overall than the official tests!

Official mpg figures are obtained (as I recall) with a fully warmed up and run-in engine. They are also obtained on a rolling road to eliminate many other variables.

They are really only much use to give comparative consumption figures between different cars, and are often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain in reality.

Having said that, I've got 45.5mpg indicated over the last 900 miles, which compares favourably to the official combined figure of 46.3mpg. And I'm probably going faster overall than the official tests!

....and with absolutely no auxiliary things working - radio off, no heater on, no A/C and only a calculated wind resistance. In other words under ideal conditions on a test stand.

The official figures can only be used to compare like vehicles, and not be used to reflect real life.

Any other method would lead to so many interpretations and chances for cheating, that this is probably what we have to live with.

Edited 21 November, 201015 yr by Agerbundsen

But the second point, which I also find others commenting on in various threads here, is just how long it takes the engine to build up to this level of efficiency. I find that my trip mpg does not start to exceed my overall 500-mile mpg figure of around 38mpg until I've gone maybe 10-15 miles (which typically includes 1-2 miles or so in-town traffic, followed by the rest in more open A/B road driving, albeit often still in traffic).

What does strike me, especially about this second point, is just how far removed from reality this will often make the official MPG figures. In one sense this is obvious of course, but I now realise also that it's nonsense to talk about MPG without also specifying a driver's average journey length.

Ive been suggesting this for years tbh but many people jst take it as diesel bashing. (Im the first to admit that modern diesels are very good generally!) If you do mainly short journeys then I favour the Petrol equivalent due to warm up time and the time taken to actually start achieving the quoted figures!

It takes my TDCi engine around 8 miles to get upto temperature (quicker than the 140CR VAG unit on the same journey!) and start giving an average commuting consumption of around 44mpg at this time of year. The bigger, heavier 1.8TSi 4wd Yeti takes just a couple of miles and returns 36mpg. So not only do I get the benefit of all the warmth in the cabin so much sooner, I also get the benefit of driving the better car for actually not a great deal of difference in overall fuel costs.

The tests certainly need to be changed - firstly they need to calculate the figures based on a cold engine (not a pre warmed up one as real life isnt like that!!) and then average the overall result weighted as 50/50 between summer and then winter temperatures testing. Giving a more realistic yearly expected mpg figure. :yes: Can I see this actually happening? :no:

I think most people realise that manufacturers ' massage ' the activity they do on their cars, in order to look good, my personal view is that it is down right misleading to make themselves look good, & generate sales.

I am a sensible person so take these with a huge pinch of salt, & deduct 8 -10mpg on their best lie , so this sets my expectations on what i could get at best.

As far as the dash readout is concerned , I have found with Skoda in particular that this is optimistic by 4-5 mpg, & miles -> fuel used confirms this.

I am a sensible person so take these with a huge pinch of salt, & deduct 8 -10mpg on their best lie , so this sets my expectations on what i could get at best.

I guess what I hadn't quite realised is that the official figures aren't just misleading in the sense of being optimistic by say 10-20% - if not more - across the board. But they are potentially grossly misleading in that by not factoring in the average journey length they can lead a purchaser to make completely the wrong decision about what sort of engine might be most economical for them (in terms of MPG), ie a diesel rather than petrol or hybrid for drivers whose commonest journey type is eg 5-10 miles from cold.

Ive been suggesting this for years tbh but many people jst take it as diesel bashing. (Im the first to admit that modern diesels are very good generally!) If you do mainly short journeys then I favour the Petrol equivalent due to warm up time and the time taken to actually start achieving the quoted figures! ? :no:

I do agree having had both petrol and diesel. Apart from a short commute to work most of my journeys are long ones so can justify the diesel.

Also the British psyche is geared towards diesels so resale values will always be better.

36mpg out of a 1.8 petrol 4x4 is impressive though. What sort of motorway speed do you go at bearing in mind the ‘chunky’ aerodynamics of the yeti? Are you spinning that Turbo?

Cheers, David

Whilst I agree that manufacturers figures are to be taken with a pinch of salt, I wouldn't say they were misleading, in that the test method is now specified, so ALL manufacturers do it the same way, and therefore produce figures that are comparable across the market. I think most people now realise that they do not mirror what Joe Public gets in the rear world.

And for comparison to everyone else, here are my figures for my 48 miles commute to work this afternoon:

car not be used for 3 days, so very cold.

air temp 4F at start, to 5 here.

car didn't get to full temp until 12 miles covered, most of which was between 50 and 55mph.

from maxidot overall av was 50.4mpg

from satnav, fastest speed reached 62mph.