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

It just doesn't make sense????

Mike

This won't help with the loading question but here is (subject to me linking with flickr ok) the current illustration of 'old' and new wishbone on the Yeti, change 11/10/2010.

Whether this is a change for better or worse is anyone's guess.

Yeti Wishbone

This won't help with the loading question but here is (subject to me linking with flickr ok) the current illustration of 'old' and new wishbone on the Yeti, change 11/10/2010.

Whether this is a change for better or worse is anyone's guess.

Yeti Wishbone

Many thanks Gazza

Is that From ElsaWin 3.81 by the way :wonder: Without wishing to be a pain but do you have an image of the new assembly carrier (sub frame), be much appreciated.

Regards,

TP

Edited 30 December, 201015 yr by The Plumber

Many thanks Gazza

Is that From ElsaWin 3.81 by the way :wonder: Without wishing to be a pain but do you have an image of the new assembly carrier (sub frame), be much appreciated.

Regards,

TP

Your wish.... Assembly Carrier. No not Elsawin, her brother on this occasion

It will be interesting to see whether someone with an engineering background can deduce whether this is purely cost saving (strange as clearly the assembly carrier has had to alter too) or whether it actually results in greater strength. If I get the chance I'll have a look at the schematics for the Golf VI - if the Yeti matches their layout then difficult to be too critical.

Without an engineering background I would have thought that the lateral forces when cornering would have been held in check better by the original setup.

Without an engineering background I would have thought that the lateral forces when cornering would have been held in check better by the original setup.

It seems to me that the original design was a proper bearing with rotation in the direction you expect. The new rubber thingy seems less precise, and hence a step in the wrong direction from a suspension accuracy standpoint.

It seems to me that the original design was a proper bearing with rotation in the direction you expect. The new rubber thingy seems less precise, and hence a step in the wrong direction from a suspension accuracy standpoint.

Absolutely agreed, although having thought about it I believe there is a reason other than just cost. The bush needs to allow rotation when the suspension moves and yet resist the lateral movement when cornering - this the original bush will do very well and with significant loading. The new design will not have the same loading capacity as far as lateral strength is concerned (bourne out by the axle loading figures quoted by TP) but what it will do is provide a rubber cushioning effect when the suspension moves which the original design does not. i.e. as the suspension moves up and down and the wishbone (where it enters the bush) rotates, it meets the resistance offered by the new rubber bush which did not happen with the original design which would allow rotation without resistance.

I would surmise that the effect of this additional rubber resistance is to cushion those small movements of the suspension that are too small to be properly damped by the dampers - in other words smooth out a potentially 'jiggly' ride where the dampers never really get to work.

Interestingly the new design wishbone is the same as the Golf Mk VI which is pretty much class-leading comfort wise so we're in good company :yes:

My only concern would be the effect that the lateral forces have on the bush over time, I can see it failing far more frequently than the original design. So if owners of Yeti's built after 11/10/2010 start to hear a mild knock when cornering after a few thousand miles I know where I'd be looking first!

I never felt the ride to be jiggly, and contributed that comment to mostly UK monsters with a predominance of 17" wheels. Wider shallower tyres do have a bit of a tendency to walk from one shoulder to the other as the suspension moves.

I never felt the ride to be jiggly, and contributed that comment to mostly UK monsters with a predominance of 17" wheels. Wider shallower tyres do have a bit of a tendency to walk from one shoulder to the other as the suspension moves.

Hence I mention 'potentially' jiggly ride - even without the 17" wheel issue (yes, give me 16" wheels and decent profile tyres any day) I guess one persons jiggly is another's perfectly smooth (as shown by some UK reviews commenting on the jiggly ride quality whilst others do not despite all being on 17" rims). Whether the change was for this reason or whether it may be a by-product I guess we will not know. Still at least we are following in the footsteps of the Mk VI Golf which can't be bad

Edit: and hence the reason I will be going with 215/60 R16 winter tyres next year so at least I can be in 'comfort mode' for 4/5 months of the year

Edited 31 December, 201015 yr by GazzaC

Hi Gazza,

appreciate your time again. Cars are not my main area of engineering know-how (aircraft engines mainly) but from my point of view I for some reason prefer the new set-up. Less parts for one thing and the front bearing is pinned in the horizontal plain and the rear in the vertical. Whereas the previous was horizontal front and back, the former makes more sense to me.

Wife's Fabia II FL uses this new system; Fabia also moved away from consoles sometime last year and the ride and handling is very good with little tyre/road vibration transferred into the car. Will have to wait and see with the new Monster but I do remember with the Pat Monster that being an area of weakness on the very rough roads round here, you would feel a resonance through the pedals and sometimes the foot-well floor. This was on both 205/55 R16 winters and the daft standard sports tyres.

Many thanks,

TP

Hi Gazza,

appreciate your time again. Cars are not my main area of engineering know-how (aircraft engines mainly) but from my point of view I for some reason prefer the new set-up. Less parts for one thing and the front bearing is pinned in the horizontal plain and the rear in the vertical. Whereas the previous was horizontal front and back, the former makes more sense to me.

Wife's Fabia II FL uses this new system; Fabia also moved away from consoles sometime last year and the ride and handling is very good with little tyre/road vibration transferred into the car. Will have to wait and see with the new Monster but I do remember with the Pat Monster that being an area of weakness on the very rough roads round here, you would feel a resonance through the pedals and sometimes the foot-well floor. This was on both 205/55 R16 winters and the daft standard sports tyres.

Many thanks,

TP

Hi TP, you're welcome. Any engineering know-how you have will be beyond mine which simply stems from looking as these damn schematics for ages. At least I have a technical mind which helps!

I agree that the new design is likely to be beneficial for the very reasons you mention - I think the resonance/vibration over poor surfaces may well be aka the jiggly ride sometimes mentioned and so yes, I tend to agree that the extra damping offered by the new design bush will help (I'm sure on surfaces where the suspension is 'pattering' that the dampers are largely ineffective and so resonance will find its way to the cabin). I only ever test drove 2 Yeti's briefly so when mine arrives in Feb/March I'll have nothing to compare it to but of course you will and hopefully you'll remember this thread and can provide some unbaised feedback when Pat2 arrives

Interestingly the new design wishbone is the same as the Golf Mk VI which is pretty much class-leading comfort wise so we're in good company :yes:

That is good news. How did you find out? The Mk6 is supposed to be much better than the Mk5 which the octavia was based on. Wonder if the Octavia has changed now. I was told a while back the Skoda has to wait a few years for the new VW stuff to filter through - like the CR engines for example.

Mike

Interesting to note that the part number for the assembly carrier and both old and new wishbones start with 1K; this is the Golf V platform designator. Yeti is 5L and the Golf VI uses 5K.

TP

That is good news. How did you find out? The Mk6 is supposed to be much better than the Mk5 which the octavia was based on. Wonder if the Octavia has changed now. I was told a while back the Skoda has to wait a few years for the new VW stuff to filter through - like the CR engines for example.

Mike

Sorry Mike, my error (I was looking at the Golf for South American market!). The '2011' UK Golf has the same set up as the Yeti had, not the new design. Of course that new design is quite possibly still better for the Yeti.

Interesting to note that the part number for the assembly carrier and both old and new wishbones start with 1K; this is the Golf V platform designator. Yeti is 5L and the Golf VI uses 5K.

TP

All the Yeti body part numbers (these of course are bespoke Yeti) start 5L. The majority of engine and shared components parts start 1K (my error re Mark VI Golf, see my post above), none that I can find start 5K. I guess this to be expected given the shared platform. I've double checked and the schematics (wishbones/carrier) I have linked to above are 2011 Yeti.

All the Yeti body part numbers (these of course are bespoke Yeti) start 5L. The majority of engine and shared components parts start 1K (my error re Mark VI Golf, see my post above), none that I can find start 5K. I guess this to be expected given the shared platform. I've double checked and the schematics (wishbones/carrier) I have linked to above are 2011 Yeti.

Thanks Gazza,

I suppose the Yeti and Golf VI both trace the design back to that of the Golf V (same basic platform). Therefore its logical that components which also derive from that original design, even those subsequently modified should use a related part no. With regard to the assembly carrier it still sits in the same position and attaches to the same points on the chassis. All that's changed is the material used in manufacture and subsequent construction and the type of bearing attaching the wishbone.

Be interesting to know what the part numbers are for the rear assembly carrier and associated components, as this is where I think things may differ, with rumours of a blend of Passat (3C) or even TT (8J) :wonder:

Edit: oh I forgot to say that the new bearing starts with 5C but I cannot find any mention of a model with this designation; maybe this South Americas Golf :wonder:

Regards,

TP

Edited 1 January, 201115 yr by The Plumber

Thanks Gazza,

I suppose the Yeti and Golf VI both trace the design back to that of the Golf V (same basic platform). Therefore its logical that components which also derive from that original design, even those subsequently modified should use a related part no. With regard to the assembly carrier it still sits in the same position and attaches to the same points on the chassis. All that's changed is the material used in manufacture and subsequent construction and the type of bearing attaching the wishbone.

Be interesting to know what the part numbers are for the rear assembly carrier and associated components, as this is where I think things may differ, with rumours of a blend of Passat (3C) or even TT (8J) :wonder:

Edit: oh I forgot to say that the new bearing starts with 5C but I cannot find any mention of a model with this designation; maybe this South Americas Golf :wonder:

Regards,

TP

I've only checked the 4wd Yeti but yes, the rear support frame is an identical part number to the 2010/11 Passat which is also an identical part number to....(drum roll).....the Tiguan (5N0 505 235) with the 5N designator being Tiguan. So if my interpretation is correct it appears that the Tiguan is the original vehicle housing the rear support. I think TT might just be wishful thinking! The rear wishbone in all three is also identical and it's good 'ole 1K, so Mark V Golf derived. There is nothing to indicate that there has been any change over the life of the Yeti.

I also cannot find 5C (probably 1974 Beetle ) but I see that the bush was replaced with a 1K Golf Mark V version as soon as the new style wishbone was brought into use on the Yeti (11/10/2010) so I would surmise that the wishbone was reused but the bush itself updated.

I'd love to know where you find out all this wonderful information Gazza....What do you have access to that I don't appear to?

Mike

Thanks 'Yet' again

So there we have it, our old Monster is running on a blend of Golf V / VI (possibly with a bit of Latin America) and Tiguan suspension Bit of a Heinz 57 then

For Mike;

try My link (I have the first Monster version; Skoda only without parts)

Regards,

TP

Close TP but no cigar on this occasion!

ElsaWin, which yes I do have, will only provide workshop type information. I only have that for Skoda (as I have a Fabia VRS and soon to be Yeti) and as you know it's extremely useful for those little jobs that you just can't quite see how to accomplish - the tools of the trade! The majority of jobs of course for the Yeti would be covered by warranty anyway for now but it will be worth its weight in gold when out of warranty. This of course is what Skoda make available online also, at a cost. (A flea-bay DVD version 3.81 is available for £9.99)

To get part numbers, prices and the full schematics you need Elsawin's brother ETKA. But a bit of interpretation is required! Not that I have ETKA of course.....

I've only checked the 4wd Yeti but yes, the rear support frame is an identical part number to the 2010/11 Passat which is also an identical part number to....(drum roll).....the Tiguan (5N0 505 235) with the 5N designator being Tiguan. So if my interpretation is correct it appears that the Tiguan is the original vehicle housing the rear support. I think TT might just be wishful thinking! The rear wishbone in all three is also identical and it's good 'ole 1K, so Mark V Golf derived. There is nothing to indicate that there has been any change over the life of the Yeti.

Interestingly, not long after I got my Yeti, (April 2010) I had left it for a few minutes at one of my Sprint meetings and when I returned I found two guys crawling under the rear of the car. They were checking the layout of the rear suspension. It turned out that they race an Audi TT, and they said that the Yeti's rear suspension appeared to be very similar. However, the Yeti's suspension was "far better" because the various problem areas on the TT had been redesigned and on the Yeti were now adjustable. They were very impressed.

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

hi,

octavia facelift has or (had until recently) the same lower arm / aluminum assembly carrier as the golf 6, golf 5 etc....

peter.

hi,

octavia facelift has or (had until recently) the same lower arm / aluminum assembly carrier as the golf 6, golf 5 etc....

peter.

Hmm; I wonder if this changes the camber angle at all?

If so it will negate the need to fit a WALK for better traction/less understeer.

If not, you better get a pre-facelift Octavia.

Currently only the Yeti, Superb II and some versions of the VW Caddy use this new carrier assembly and wishbones.

Regards,

TP

Currently only the Yeti, Superb II and some versions of the VW Caddy use this new carrier assembly and wishbones.

Regards,

TP

hi,

could this be the start of cutting costs and cheapening out skoda cars in order to have this brand safely positioned under volkswagen cars?

and also why would 2.0 tdi cr engines for skoda went back to electromagnetic injectors (from apparently more advanced piezo inj.) after only couple of months in production (year 2009)?

thanks, peter.

hi,

could this be the start of cutting costs and cheapening out skoda cars in order to have this brand safely positioned under volkswagen cars?

and also why would 2.0 tdi cr engines for skoda went back to electromagnetic injectors (from apparently more advanced piezo inj.) after only couple of months in production (year 2009)?

thanks, peter.

I understand, from another post somewhere on this forum, that the change back to electro from piezo was because the piezo was so unreliable.

Mike