Front suspension design change

[The Plumber]

Appears there has been a change in the design of the front suspension; noted thanks to images posted by rockhopper.

The Original Yeti used console bushes to support the rear of the track rod arm which were fitted inside an alloy casting attached to either side of a cast alloy assembly carrier (subframe).

These appear to have been replaced by a more conventional rubber-metal bearing and a pressed steel assembly carrier as they did with the Fabia II in 2009. Not sure at this stage when this change occurred as rockhoppers Monster is the first I've identified with the new arrangement.

Original Yeti suspension, item 4 is the console bush housing

and the real thing;

Do not have any drawings to compare the difference for the Yeti but the following show the changes in the Fabia II

Item 11 being the console bush

From 2009 the Console bush is replaced by rubber-metal bearing; also item 11

Rubber-metal bearing on rockhoppers Monster;

My link

See post#37, image 7 & 8.

Edit

These changes may also explain the changes in descriptor and figures given for axle loading in the Technical Changes supplement issued 11/2010 :wonder:

For example 2.0TDI 110 4x4;

Previous (owners manual 06/10)

Permissible front axle load - 1200kg

Permissible rear axle load - 1250kg

New (Tech Changes 11/10)

Max. permissible gross weight per front axle - 1090kg

Max. permissible gross weight per rear axle - 1020kg

Regards,

TP

Edited 29 December, 2010 by The Plumber

[Tech1e]

Yeti and Fabia are completely different.

Yeti subframe is the same as the Octavia II which uses the first picture.

Getting platforms mixed up here, havent noticed on a change of Yeti subframe but next PDi I get in ill take some detailed pics.

Edited 28 December, 2010 by Tech1e

[The Plumber]

Yeti and Fabia are completely different.

Yeti subframe is the same as the Octavia II which uses the first picture.

Getting platforms mixed up here.

Hi,

yes appreciate there different and thanks but the principle of operation is the same and unfortunately the drawings I have for the Octavia II and Yeti only show the concole design, not the new set up now observed which is similar to how the Fabia's design changed away from the use of console's.

TP

Edited 28 December, 2010 by The Plumber

[Tech1e]

Yeah i knida miss read your first post sorry, havent noticed a different yeti as yet so ill take note next time. But should also change on Octavia then and Superb.

[The Plumber]

Just been looking at Onesque's RRP photo's again and now understand why I thought it looked a bit different to the Pat Monster. The new thermoplastic shield is attached to the also new pressed steel subframe :yes: Wonder if the introduction of these changes coincide :wonder:

TP

Edited 28 December, 2010 by The Plumber

[rockhopper]

Just had a thought, would the design change help increase ground clearance in that area?

Mike

[rockhopper]

Just had another thought - has it changed to be like the new MK6 Golf? if so that is a good thing as the MK6 suspension is so much better than the MK5.

Mike

[The Plumber]

Just had a thought, would the design change help increase ground clearance in that area?

Mike

Hi Mike,

unlikely that has changed; possible reduction in weight :wonder: and improvements in ride/handling would be my guess. As stated this set-up is similar in concept to that on the later Fabia II as we have on ours, which rides very well even on daft low profile sports tyres.

Believe this design is used by VW but cannot say for sure as I don't have access to manuals for other VAG group brands.

Regards,

TP

[rockhopper]

Hi Mike,

unlikely that has changed; possible reduction in weight :wonder: and improvements in ride/handling would be my guess. As stated this set-up is similar in concept to that on the later Fabia II as we have on ours, which rides very well even on daft low profile sports tyres.

Believe this design is used by VW but cannot say for sure as I don't have access to manuals for other VAG group brands.

Regards,

TP

Thanks TP

I can understand the cost reductions/weight saving. The early SM's were slated by the press for a jiggly ride, so maybe this is their answer to the criticism?

Mike

[silver1011]

My guess is that their aim is to cut costs, costs and costs.

Economies of scale will come into play if this new component is already used across the VAG range...

Of course the official line will be that the reduced weight saves fuel, the new design improves the ride quality and the latest manufacturing process ensures durability.

Edited 28 December, 2010 by silver1011

[Mafuta]

I've never noticed any "jiggliness" - the firmness is far better on cornering than the wallowy Octavia was.

[looby]

The reason that the Golf V1 was hurried to production is that the Golf V was too expensive to manufacture. One of these expenses was the complex front and rear suspension setup. I imagine that the Yeti now uses the more simple version from the Golf V1.

Edited 29 December, 2010 by looby

[Pete-n]

From a replacement point of view the new bushes are easier to remove and replace as opposed to the old style where more stripping out is required to maintain , at work all my lads hate doing the old style which appears on various VAG platforms from polos to passats inc mk5 golfs the new style which is a more conventional design on the mk6 is so much easier but obviously cheaper.

Peter

P.S

still impressed with my yeti every day

[Yeti_Man]

In my mind theres no doubt that the reason for the change is to cut costs. I know that some manufacturers will do a cost cutting excercise after the new vehicle has been out for a while - I guess the thinking is to let it go out to the journos, ultimately gaining good reviews and good initial impact and then to look to see where money can be saved once the model is selling in bigger numbers. I also read that the golf mk6 was a real cost cutting exercise compared to the mk5 and that suspension changes contributed heavily to this saving so I'd guess the group may be using the same thinking (would make some sense!)

[rockhopper]

The reason that the Golf V1 was hurried to production is that the Golf V was too expensive to manufacture. One of these expenses was the complex front and rear suspension setup. I imagine that the Yeti now uses the more simple version from the Golf V1.

I thought that the Yeti used Passat rear suspension, or at least a modified version.

Mike

[Agerbundsen]

I thought that the Yeti used Passat rear suspension, or at least a modified version.

Mike

My understanding is that thr Yeti uses and Audi TT rear suspension.

[The Plumber]

Having looked at diagrams for the rear suspension, both the Yeti and Superb 4x4 look very similar the Octavia 4x4 is however different, particularly the design of the assemble carrier (sub frame).

Edit; please note I've added a bit extra to my original post.

TP

Edited 29 December, 2010 by The Plumber

[GazzaC]

Sorry I cannot produce the illustration right now (I'll see what I can do) but the change to rubber metal bearing from console bearing on the front Yeti suspension happened for builds after 11/10/2010. This appears to have followed a change to the construction of the wishbone itself for builds after 2/8/2010 although at that time the console bearing remained.

[Yeti_Man]

Wasn't one of the things mentioned on a press release or technical spec of the yeti at time of launch that it used suspension components from the new superb but that some of them were made from lower weight materials (aluminium instead of steel?)?

[The Plumber]

Sorry I cannot produce the illustration right now (I'll see what I can do) but the change to rubber metal bearing from console bearing on the front Yeti suspension happened for builds after 11/10/2010. This appears to have followed a change to the construction of the wishbone itself for builds after 2/8/2010 although at that time the console bearing remained.

Many thanks Gazza,

was this track control arm (wishbone) change one of design or method of construction :wonder: I understand the Octavia II had a pressed steel as well as cast steel version.

Regards,

TP

Edited 29 December, 2010 by The Plumber

[GazzaC]

Many thanks Gazza,

was this track control arm (wishbone) change one of design or method of construction :wonder: I understand the Octavia II had a pressed steel as well as cast steel version.

Regards,

TP

I'm no expert but the fact that the current wishbone is showing as 'sheet metal version' (taking that to mean pressed steel) is certainly suggestive that it was cast steel to begin with. So I would assume construction rather than design and that accords with the illustration (not that the illustration is definitive of course!)

[The Plumber]

I'm no expert but the fact that the current wishbone is showing as 'sheet metal version' (taking that to mean pressed steel) is certainly suggestive that it was cast steel to begin with. So I would assume construction rather than design and that accords with the illustration (not that the illustration is definitive of course!)

Hi thanks,

although my previous 09 Monster has a pressed steel version :wonder:

From the limited photos seen so far I think the new set-up looks simpler but more robust; could be wrong mind :wonder:

Regards,

TP

[roguebrit]

Much of this technical stuff goes over my head, I have to say, but what did strike me in TPs original post was the really quite large apparent change in maximum axle loadings. Interesting stuff!

Edited 30 December, 2010 by roguebrit

[rockhopper]

Hi thanks,

although my previous 09 Monster has a pressed steel version :wonder:

From the limited photos seen so far I think the new set-up looks simpler but more robust; could be wrong mind :wonder:

Regards,

TP

Hi Tim

If that is the case and it is more robust, why would the axle loading be less?

I spoke to Ross the parts guy at Beckenham Skoda, as I was passing and wanted more VAG screenwash, about the RRP changes and the suspension changes and he appeared to know about the changes, but not any detail.

Mike

[The Plumber]

Hi Tim

If that is the case and it is more robust, why would the axle loading be less?

I spoke to Ross the parts guy at Beckenham Skoda, as I was passing and wanted more VAG screenwash, about the RRP changes and the suspension changes and he appeared to know about the changes, but not any detail.

Mike

Hi Mike,

not sure exactly how this is calculated, however interestingly the terminology used has also changed :wonder: Plus the previous figures were indicating more loading at the rear now it's the other way round :wonder:

Will have to have a chat with one other the motor vehicle guys when I'm back at work next week.

Regards,

TP