The 140CR (admittedly in a new Passat not a Yeti) took nearly six miles to start blowing warm air into the cabin in the worst of our winter. Thats half my daily commute gone! My Yeti is blowing warm air into the cabin after a mile.

Before I got my Yeti I'd have had the same reservation since UK Yetis do not come with the Webasto secondary heating my diesel Audi had as standard. BUT it is amazing how quickly the car sends heat into the car. Not much further down the road than your 1 mile I'd suggest and the heat can be felt. Certainly not only after 6 miles.

Before I got my Yeti I'd have had the same reservation since UK Yetis do not come with the Webasto secondary heating my diesel Audi had as standard. BUT it is amazing how quickly the car sends heat into the car. Not much further down the road than your 1 mile I'd suggest and the heat can be felt. Certainly not only after 6 miles.

There are types of secondary heating other than fuel based; some diesel Audi models and/or trim levels have PTC electric heaters to provide demisting warmth early in the journey.

Don't forget the road tax in the uk for the 1.8TSi:

Band - CO2 - First reg - Following years

J -- 186-200 - £415.00 - £225.00

This review from "Car Buyer" sums it up

Drive

4.8 /5 Accurate steering, good engines and a high driving position Thanks to its upright, easily adjusted driver's seat and large glass area, the view out of the Yeti is good, and the boxy, easy-to-see extremities make parking easy. The controls are all light and easy to use, the steering accurate and gearshift positive. The small 1.2 TSI petrol engine with 105bhp should be ample for most buyers, its fine performance backed up with 44mpg economy. It's good enough to ignore the larger 1.8 TSI petrol or the 2.0 TDI diesel in its various outputs - unless you plan on towing or covering large mileages. Four-wheel-drive models feel little different to drive on the road, though off-road they’re surprisingly capable. A DSG automatic transmission is offered on the entry-level 1.2 TSI petrol and 140bhp 2.0 TDI diesel. It works smoothly and has no effect on the fuel economy of the smaller petrol engine.

This review from "Car Buyer" sums it up

Drive

4.8 /5 Accurate steering, good engines and a high driving position Thanks to its upright, easily adjusted driver's seat and large glass area, the view out of the Yeti is good, and the boxy, easy-to-see extremities make parking easy. The controls are all light and easy to use, the steering accurate and gearshift positive. The small 1.2 TSI petrol engine with 105bhp should be ample for most buyers, its fine performance backed up with 44mpg economy. It's good enough to ignore the larger 1.8 TSI petrol or the 2.0 TDI diesel in its various outputs - unless you plan on towing or covering large mileages. Four-wheel-drive models feel little different to drive on the road, though off-road they’re surprisingly capable. A DSG automatic transmission is offered on the entry-level 1.2 TSI petrol and 140bhp 2.0 TDI diesel. It works smoothly and has no effect on the fuel economy of the smaller petrol engine.

But without starting a largely pointless arguement I could quote plenty of other reviews that point to the 1.8 as being the best choice and most driveable - offering good economy and with the torquey feel of the diesels.

My comments on the Car buyer quote would simply be that if I was driving purely around town then it may be more economical (although Im not actually convinced of this fact). If however I was doing any of the bigger journeys ive done, even since just September last year (to France, to the Costa Blanca, to Germany and Switzerland, to Bruges...) Id put money on the 1.8TSi being more economical by a fair bit. The simple fact that the 1.2TSi is front wheel drive only rules it out of the running for me anyhow.

As Ive said previously, I have no 'problem' with the CR diesels - I think they are great units but they dont particulalry suit my driving needs or style and too many people are too quick to quote the cold clinical figures which do show there should be clear advantages. Variety is, however, the spice of life.

Edited 3 February, 201115 yr by FocusZtec

Variety is, however, the spice of life.

OH yes! If it was not we'd all still be driving black Ford Model Ts!

Personally I ignore these MPG figures and life cycle costings between CR and TSI. To me it is about if I like the engine or not and the overall character of the car. I don't care that I might not recoup the extra I paid for my diesel. You go and test drive a CR, you drive a TSI. You feel their different characters and you buy the one you LIKE. Not the one that will save you 2 bob per mile over a five year life cycle! The extra you pay (in fuel or initial cost) is just what you pay for having the car you like (and not a Polo Bluemotion). If you really want to save every penny then you will buy a Polo Bluemotion. You are buying a whole package.

Personally I like the fact that in a diesel I can get into gaps in traffic without having to gear down. Once in 6th (in a manual) you just go up and down hills without changing gear, take gaps in traffic without gearing down to get the engine into its sweet spot. In a petrol this sweet spot is many revolutions higher than the revs at cruising speed, so putting your foot down in the top gear will lead to initial languid acceleration. OR you need to gear down. And some people don't mind that, and in fact prefer using their gears. So again it is a package you buy and you choose the character that suits you best.

So as FocusZtec said: "Variety is, however, the spice of life."

That's right. Car makers produce a range of engine types and sizes, manual and automatic cars, different trim levels because people have different requirements and/or preferences, which - being human - are not necessarily based simply on logic or reasoning. Many of us - funds allowing - live in a bigger house than we strictly need, eat more exotic food than our bodies require, buy clothes that go way beyond the utilitarian, etc., etc. Others lead a more simple and self-denying lifestyle. I have ordered a 170 4x4 Elegance because, although I do a lowish annual mileage compared with many, I do several trips a year down to the south of France, and I like the power and comfort for those journeys (and cheap diesel on the continent); I also live in a fairly remote area, and the 4x4 capability, together with the torque and weight of the diesel engine is, in my opinion, a luxury perhaps, but a useful and reassuring one. If I had less disposable income, I would no doubt make do with a lower-powered, lower-spec model, but as stated earlier, this is all down to personal preference as well as spending power. If Henry Ford had been correct in weighing up market forces, we'd still all be driving identical black cars!

If Henry Ford had been correct in weighing up market forces, we'd still all be driving identical black cars!

We posted a minute apart BOTH quoting Mr Ford's business model! hehehe

Personally I like the fact that in a diesel I can get into gaps in traffic without having to gear down. Once in 6th (in a manual) you just go up and down hills without changing gear, take gaps in traffic without gearing down to get the engine into its sweet spot. In a petrol this sweet spot is many revolutions higher than the revs at cruising speed, so putting your foot down in the top gear will lead to initial languid acceleration. OR you need to gear down. And some people don't mind that, and in fact prefer using their gears. So again it is a package you buy and you choose the character that suits you best.

So as FocusZtec said: "Variety is, however, the spice of life."

That could describe any number of well sorted modern petrol turbos too. The petrol sweetspot on the 1.8TSi is certainly no higher, infact I thought peak torque arrived 250rpm LOWER in the petrol rev range and then held on for longer - thats certainly how it felt on the comparison test drives anyway. Oh and I actually wish my sixth gear was taller than it actually is!

OH yes! If it was not we'd all still be driving black Ford Model Ts!

Personally I ignore these MPG figures and life cycle costings between CR and TSI. To me it is about if I like the engine or not and the overall character of the car. I don't care that I might not recoup the extra I paid for my diesel. You go and test drive a CR, you drive a TSI. You feel their different characters and you buy the one you LIKE. Not the one that will save you 2 bob per mile over a five year life cycle! The extra you pay (in fuel or initial cost) is just what you pay for having the car you like (and not a Polo Bluemotion). If you really want to save every penny then you will buy a Polo Bluemotion. You are buying a whole package.

Personally I like the fact that in a diesel I can get into gaps in traffic without having to gear down. Once in 6th (in a manual) you just go up and down hills without changing gear, take gaps in traffic without gearing down to get the engine into its sweet spot. In a petrol this sweet spot is many revolutions higher than the revs at cruising speed, so putting your foot down in the top gear will lead to initial languid acceleration. OR you need to gear down. And some people don't mind that, and in fact prefer using their gears. So again it is a package you buy and you choose the character that suits you best.

So as FocusZtec said: "Variety is, however, the spice of life."

" OH yes! If it was not we'd all still be driving black Ford Model Ts! "

Is that black Ford Model Tsi

Don't forget the road tax in the uk for the 1.8TSi:

Band - CO2 - First reg - Following years

J -- 186-200 - £415.00 - £225.00

This is what ultimately put me off the 1.8TSi in favour of the CR170. Yes it's a pretty marginal point but I was finding the choice so finely balanced that in the end it came down to something so marginal to tip the balance one way or the other. If only Skoda had managed to find a higher performance petrol engine that could deliver say 179 (or even 185) rather than 189 then I might well have chosen the petrol option. As it was I would only have been trading down one emissions category (with the 1.8TSi from my previous Accord 2.4) rather than the minimum of two I was aiming for.

My concern was more about how much the tax band differentials might widen in the future and the effect that this might have on resale prices, although lowering emissions isn't a bad aim per se.

But I do now realise how misleading these official mpg and emissions data are in the sense that they don't seem to factor in at all the average journey length, ie they don't take into account that many drivers mostly use their cars for relatively short journeys when diesel emissions could be as great, if not greater, than for an equivalent petrol engine. I'm guessing that the average driver (who doesn't typically use their car for longer-distance commutes or journeys) would not actually see too much difference in emissions between equivalent diesel and petrol engines. It's about time that the official figures reflected this idea.

Edited 3 February, 201115 yr by prodata

Does anyone know how long it takes for a new Yeti to run in and improve its MPG/fuel economy? And to what extent it might improve?

We had a lovely run up to the Lake District yesterday - very comfy and good to drive - but the economy was poor. The brochure indicates something like 30 urban to 40 extra urban, but cruising at 65-75mph for five hours got us a paltry 30 mpg. My ten year old 2 litre BMW averages 36-40 on the same journey so I expected the 1.8 Tsi to achieve better than that... Any ideas?

In terms of the petrol v diesel argument, I worked out on our mileage that the diesel would break even over three years, but we preferred the response and driveability of the petrol anyway...

The 1.8tsi felt really tight as new engines go. I'd say when mine hit 10k miles it was noticeably better than when it was new. At motorway speeds i used to struggle to see 34mpg when it was new iirc but on the last two decently long runs ive seen higher than 40mpg - keep in mind that mines remapped now though and that also helps slightly if you are driving with economy in mind. On my last two euro trips I've seen an almost diesel rivalling 46 and 48mpg so it is possible to get good returns from the 1.8tsi.

I've now had my 1.8TSI for just over a week. Unsurprisingly fuel economy is not great yet. On the motorway I'm getting 28-30 at the moment. However on steady drive down country roads at 40-50mph I got 40mpg (according to Maxidot), which is better than my old petrol vrs did after 30k miles. As already mentioned as far as new engines go it does feel particularly tight.

Three 1.8TSi owners posting concurrently on a thread?! Has that ever happened before in the Yeti section?

What is it like fuel wise in heavy London traffic?

20mpg?

Mike

What is it like fuel wise in heavy London traffic?

20mpg?

Mike

Noooo, id say a few mpg better than that. Traffic wise, I dont think ive ever seen worse than 24mpg. Has this been other 1.8TSi owners experience too?

Noooo, id say a few mpg better than that. Traffic wise, I dont think ive ever seen worse than 24mpg. Has this been other 1.8TSi owners experience too?

Interestingly, on the way back down, I got more like 32.5 mpg, so a slight improvement, but when I turned off the M25 and drove through towns, I got 33.5 mpg so actually better in that respect then on the motorway.

I know that we must always take manufacturer figures with a pinch of salt, but I do feel that the Skoda brochure was a pile of **** because I chose the 1.8TSi over the Diesel because of smoother driveability but also the fact that on paper, the Diesel only achieved 10mpg better than the 1.8 petrol in all cycles which meant it would take three years to start saving money on my mileage. But at this moment in time, if it doesn't improve markedly, I'll be pretty peeved because my 10 yr old BMW 2.0litre achieves significantly better MPG than the Yeti.

The fact is, if a brochure specifies 30mpg urban cycle, I think you're entitled to expect significantly better than that on a 70mpg motorway cruise!!!

Interestingly, on the way back down, I got more like 32.5 mpg, so a slight improvement, but when I turned off the M25 and drove through towns, I got 33.5 mpg so actually better in that respect then on the motorway.

I know that we must always take manufacturer figures with a pinch of salt, but I do feel that the Skoda brochure was a pile of **** because I chose the 1.8TSi over the Diesel because of smoother driveability but also the fact that on paper, the Diesel only achieved 10mpg better than the 1.8 petrol in all cycles which meant it would take three years to start saving money on my mileage. But at this moment in time, if it doesn't improve markedly, I'll be pretty peeved because my 10 yr old BMW 2.0litre achieves significantly better MPG than the Yeti.

The fact is, if a brochure specifies 30mpg urban cycle, I think you're entitled to expect significantly better than that on a 70mpg motorway cruise!!!

The Yeti is the first car I have ever had that I haven't been able to match or beat the manufactures figures. I suspect it is to do with the barn door like aero dynamics. I have also noticed that I can get some pretty impressive mpg figures at around 30-40mph speed limits with not too much stop/start.

The Yeti is the first car I have ever had that I haven't been able to match or beat the manufactures figures. I suspect it is to do with the barn door like aero dynamics. I have also noticed that I can get some pretty impressive mpg figures at around 30-40mph speed limits with not too much stop/start.

I get my best average consumption when meandering on holiday sightseeing at about 50mph. Doing this I've seen nearly 55mpg average over a day of doing about 150miles driving.

I get my best average consumption when meandering on holiday sightseeing at about 50mph. Doing this I've seen nearly 55mpg average over a day of doing about 150miles driving.

+1 (but highest I've ever seem was 48mpg). That drops quicker the faster you go above around 65-70mph). Id so like mine to have a higher geared top cog for the higher speed stuff through Europe! :yes:

I've doubled checked with fuel fill calculations and I'm getting 34mpg at 70mph on a long run, 20-25 urban. Nowhere near what I expected or hoped to be honest.

My 10yr old 2l BMW gives me 38mpg at 85mph, so I really thought I'd threaten the 40mpg mark with the Yeti but at 85mph I was getting 28mpg which scared the hell out of me.

Wish I'd bought the diesel to be honest. Or maybe just another car.

I've doubled checked with fuel fill calculations and I'm getting 34mpg at 70mph on a long run, 20-25 urban. Nowhere near what I expected or hoped to be honest.

My 10yr old 2l BMW gives me 38mpg at 85mph, so I really thought I'd threaten the 40mpg mark with the Yeti but at 85mph I was getting 28mpg which scared the hell out of me.

Wish I'd bought the diesel to be honest. Or maybe just another car.

As I just mentioned in the other thread, I'm getting 30+mpg around town and nearer 40mpg for any longer run. Reducing the top speed down to more of a cruise whilst in holiday touring mode will net 46-48mpg. The Yeti, by design, was never going to give great mpg at high speeds, purely down to the brick like aerodynamics, particularly of the frontal area.

I've doubled checked with fuel fill calculations and I'm getting 34mpg at 70mph on a long run, 20-25 urban. Nowhere near what I expected or hoped to be honest.

My 10yr old 2l BMW gives me 38mpg at 85mph, so I really thought I'd threaten the 40mpg mark with the Yeti but at 85mph I was getting 28mpg which scared the hell out of me.

Wish I'd bought the diesel to be honest. Or maybe just another car.

Perhaps you should drive slower.

And just to p you off, on my 48 mile journey to work this morning I got 54.3 according to the Maxidot!

Perhaps you should drive slower.

And just to p you off, on my 48 mile journey to work this morning I got 54.3 according to the Maxidot!

Yes, over 60mph the faster you go the more fuel you use. Some say driving at 80mph instead of 70mph uses about 20% more due to increased drag.

So if you don't like the price of fuel breaking speed limits seems a little odd.

Oh and if it's mpg oneupmanship I averaged 78.6mpg calculated fill to fill (700 miles) last week.

But not in my Yeti.

Was a Skoda though.

On a long journey I get ~34 (according to the computer). Going to work anywhere between 29 - 33 (depends on the right foot). I've done around 2500 miles now so expect the engine to still be a bit tight. From what sort of mileage have 1.8 owners found things improve?