I am still trying to make up my mind between the 110 or the 140 4x4. I was wondering if in day to day driving the 110 is any more economical than the 140.

I know that the official figures suggest that the 140 has slightly better fuel consumpion than the 110, but is that the reality?

Whats the real life experience, rather than the brochure figures

Thanks

Dileas - Good question but you will need both cars figures. I have 7,500 on the clock and my 140bhp diesel averages between 43-45mpg.

I don't quite understand the point of the 110bhp engine if it does not offer better economy.

I am still trying to make up my mind between the 110 or the 140 4x4. I was wondering if in day to day driving the 110 is any more economical than the 140.

I know that the official figures suggest that the 140 has slightly better fuel consumpion than the 110, but is that the reality?

Whats the real life experience, rather than the brochure figures

Thanks

Actually, the 170 is more fuel efficient, even though it seems counterintuitive.

I achieve 16.5 km/l in daily use with many short trips. I don't pussyfoot around. If I keep to the 80 km/hr speed limit on ordir´nary roads, the figure goes up to over 19 km/l.

On that basis, I don't think the 110 is more efficient than the 140.

Dileas - Good question but you will need both cars figures. I have 7,500 on the clock and my 140bhp diesel averages between 43-45mpg.

I don't quite understand the point of the 110bhp engine if it does not offer better economy.

I think they are likly to match each other in real day to day driving. My reason for opting 110 4x4 is purely cost based, either get a 140 SE with loads of options I wanted or a 110 4x4 Elegance with only a few options. Price difference between these two was very small, so it seemed a no brainer to go for the much better spec Elegance for retained value.

Will probably find I'll miss the extra horses for overtaking but again for the daily cross country commute, I'll not notice any real difference (no Sterling Moss here).

Oh issuance should be noticeably cheaper for the 110 4x4, sits just below my wife's Fabia 1.2TSI 85 in the insurance banding :wonder:

Regards,

TP

I think they are likly to match each other in real day to day driving. My reason for opting 110 4x4 is purely cost based, either get a 140 SE with loads of options I wanted or a 110 4x4 Elegance with only a few options. Price difference between these two was very small, so it seemed a no brainer to go for the much better spec Elegance for retained value.

Will probably find I'll miss the extra horses for overtaking but again for the daily cross country commute, I'll not notice any real difference (no Sterling Moss here).

Oh issuance should be noticeably cheaper for the 110 4x4, sits just below my wife's Fabia 1.2TSI 85 in the insurance banding :wonder:

Regards,

TP

Good point about the insurance banding. I had not really thought about that in terms of the overall running costs

Edited 11 December, 201015 yr by Dileas

Dont know if you can trust the Skoda website to be accurate.

But it says combined mpg

110 4x4 = 46.3 mpg

140 4x4 = 47.1 mpg

170 4x4 = 47.9 mpg

Dont know if you can trust the Skoda website to be accurate.

But it says combined mpg

110 4x4 = 46.3 mpg

140 4x4 = 47.1 mpg

170 4x4 = 47.9 mpg

So, on that basis, a 140 with a remap up to 185/190bhp, will be over 48mpg

Mike

That 140 figure ties in quite well with what I am averaging for a non DSG car.

And Rockhopper, if a remap only gives a 0.9 increase I don't think I'll bother!!

That 140 figure ties in quite well with what I am averaging for a non DSG car.

And Rockhopper, if a remap only gives a 0.9 increase I don't think I'll bother!!

I would hope it would give more

Mike

So, on that basis, a 140 with a remap up to 185/190bhp, will be over 48mpg

Mike

How do you come to this conclusion out of interest?

The 170 gets it better figures from having a different turbo and therefore doing things with less effort hence the lower mpg figures surely?

Ramping up the boost on a smaller turbo will only give very marginal improvements when remapped and noticeably worse when that aftermarket remap is fully utilised?

How do you come to this conclusion out of interest?

The 170 gets it better figures from having a different turbo and therefore doing things with less effort hence the lower mpg figures surely?

Ramping up the boost on a smaller turbo will only give very marginal improvements when remapped and noticeably worse when that aftermarket remap is fully utilised?

I understood that they remapped all areas of the ecru so that it did give additional gains in the economy stakes - Superchips guarantee you will improve your fuel economy with their remap. I do understand if you use the extra power then economy suffers.

So the 170 has a larger turbo. I did wonder.

Mike

Edit. I used to have a 530d which was remapped and the fuel economy was much better after the remap - unless I used the extra power.

Edited 11 December, 201015 yr by rockhopper

As my 110 2wd has averaged around 45.68 mpg for its 8000 miles over a variety of driving with lots of motorway use, I think you need to take the figures for combined use with caution, especially as they are done on a rolling road under controlled conditions.

The combined figure for the 2wd is 52.3, some 5.2mpg better than the 4wd 110, so I would think that real life figures from the 4wd 110 will be nearer 41-42mpg.

You can't infer anything from the maxidot display, according to that I am averaging over 50mpg, but this is not correct when actual fuel purchase is compared to actual distance travelled. (Tank is brimmed at each refill)

All my fuel is bought on a fuel card, hence I know 740.72 litres used to cover 7443 miles, on last update, initial fill of tank ignored, 162.935 gallons for 7443 miles=45.68mpg. This covers long motorway trips, holiday touring when over 70mpg was seen on the maxidot for the days drive, commuting, struggling on snow etc, so a fair mix of driving and economy styles. Compared to my previous larger car, a mark 1 superb 1.9tdi, the Yeti is at least 5mpg less economical on the motorway and at high sppeds, but markedly better in commuting and short urban trips when at low speeds a high average is seen quite quickly.

Edited 12 December, 201015 yr by kenfowler3966

i've done about 3000 miles in my 110 4X4.

fuel consumption wasn't that good at first but am now getting an average of 44mpg which is mainly around town.

on longish motorway trips it seems to drop to about 42mpg travelling at about 75mph.

this cold weather doesn't help with the figures as it includes fuel used while defrosting the car in the overall average for the first trip of the day.

i have seen 50mpg in the autumn on short trips to work though.

overall i'm happy with that

...I think you need to take the figures for combined use with caution, especially as they are done on a rolling road under controlled conditions.

Completely agree, witness the variety between the official figures and what most people get out of their cars in the real world. Anyone getting close to 40mpg out of a 1.2TSI...thought not...

on longish motorway trips it seems to drop to about 42mpg travelling at about 75mph.

overall i'm happy with that

Well Clive, I'm sure you know how to improve on that figure?

I've averaged 43mpg in mixed driving over 15,000 miles.

Well Clive, I'm sure you know how to improve on that figure?

erm... bit of a typo. got the figures the wrong way round.

should have read 75mpg at 42 mph :p

erm... bit of a typo. got the figures the wrong way round.

should have read 75mpg at 42 mph :p

Yes, right!!

I've done 17000 miles in 6 months in my 2wd 110 and averaged 51.5mpg. On a motorway run cruising at 75 ish I get 54mpg. I can get up to 68mpg on a decent A road run if I'm trying but I just drive it fairly normally day to day.

Economy is excellent I think for a car this size. It's better than my old golf tdi.

I've done 17000 miles in 6 months in my 2wd 110 and averaged 51.5mpg. On a motorway run cruising at 75 ish I get 54mpg. I can get up to 68mpg on a decent A road run if I'm trying but I just drive it fairly normally day to day.

Economy is excellent I think for a car this size. It's better than my old golf tdi.

Yes I see these types of figures on my maxidot as well, but real fuel economy is nothing like this if you monitor actual fuel used. Compare the long term average maxidot fuel consumption with actual fuel used and I would expect it to be about 10% optimistic.

Yes I see these types of figures on my maxidot as well, but real fuel economy is nothing like this if you monitor actual fuel used. Compare the long term average maxidot fuel consumption with actual fuel used and I would expect it to be about 10% optimistic.

As I'm comparing it to the maxi dot display on my golf, I'm happy with what it's telling me. I average 600 miles on a full tank of fuel which I'm pleased as punch with :-)

Yes I see these types of figures on my maxidot as well, but real fuel economy is nothing like this if you monitor actual fuel used. Compare the long term average maxidot fuel consumption with actual fuel used and I would expect it to be about 10% optimistic.

We have 16,000 miles on our 110 4x4. Very little motorway driving or town driving, mostly country roads. As we are very poor and quite old (mid fifties) we tend to drive for max MPG. To date over 16,000 miles we are getting 55.7MPG, the range is 51 to 62.5 MPG. The critter is very comfortable and provides a great view over the hedges,with the back seats out we can put a small coffee shop in the back. All in all in our we are delirously happy with the critter.

QUITE OLD IN MID FIFTIES?.......

We have 16,000 miles on our 110 4x4. Very little motorway driving or town driving, mostly country roads. As we are very poor and quite old (mid fifties) we tend to drive for max MPG.

Well I tend to drive like you but if I say I'm quite young in my mid 60's and quite poor then I hope I might achieve really good mpg in my yeti 170 to be. I assume from the official figures that a yeti170 should be as economical as any of the 4x4 versions.

We have 16,000 miles on our 110 4x4. Very little motorway driving or town driving, mostly country roads. As we are very poor and quite old (mid fifties) we tend to drive for max MPG. To date over 16,000 miles we are getting 55.7MPG, the range is 51 to 62.5 MPG. The critter is very comfortable and provides a great view over the hedges,with the back seats out we can put a small coffee shop in the back. All in all in our we are delirously happy with the critter.

Very poor with a new Yeti on the drive - is it April 1st...