engine choice

[Yetiflute]

Yetiflute, re your comments about DSG effect on economy:

The more powerful VW group diesels use wet clutch dsg which can handle the higher torque, but are a bit less fuel efficient. Until recently this has been a 6 speed, though a 7 speed has recently been introduced in some VWs eg Tiguan. Your Octavia has a 7 speed dry clutch which has slightly better economy than a manual

Thanks for that info. I was aware of the above and I know the reasons why but am disappointed that the 7 speed wet dry clutch version is not used on diesel versions (It is on some 1.6 versions). I suspect that it will used be one day when a beefed up version is available. Had the 7 speed version been available the I would definitely have chosen the DSG diesel option. I know it is more to do with torque etc but I am slightly surprised that the 7 speed version is the one used with the 1.8TSI Octavia. The 0-60 figures for the 1.8TSI Octavia are near identical to the 170 Yeti. That 1.8TSI DSG Octavia of mine was a fantastic car (Still available at Telfords Carlisle, 8600 miles 10 months old, L&K Rosso Brunello estate) and I hope the Yeti gives me equal pleasure or I will be disappointed.

[stanjackos]

An interesting site. I've just done a comparison between my 1.2 TSi SE DSG and the only diesel DSG SE spec option (which is 4 x 4). The deisel is more expensive to buy and more expensive to run so there is no break even point. The DSG gearbox was the first thing I specified before I'd even chosen which manufacturer's car I was going to buy let alone which model I wanted!

I can appreciate the lure of the torque of a diesel but the way a petrol engine revs out is quite adictive too. The 1.2's turbo does an amazing job of filling out the bottom end of the torque curve to almost diesel proportions but without any of the uncivilised noises and vibrations that diesels so often have. I really like mine and everyone who has travelled in Hettie has comented on how smooth and quiet she is.

Explain why a Diesel 110PS (52.3 mpg combined) is more expensive to run than a Petrol 105PS (44.1 mpg combined). How does the torque figure of 175NM equate to the diesels 250NM in real world driving.You also appear to have overlooked the fact that the enhanced cost of the diesel when new is recouped when the vehicle is sold especially when the residual values are also some 3% higher.

As for your comments about "Uncivilised Noise" and vibrations, utter nonsense drive a modern diesel and find out for yourself.

[Trevorminor]

.... but without any of the uncivilised noises and vibrations that diesels so often have.

Have you tried one of the CR diesels as fitted to the Yeti? I think that you'd totally change your opinion if you did.

[Rob The Dog]

I also think the Parkers calculator is neat, but Please someone tell me I am wrong, I would think break even can't just be based on better MPG and mileage taken to do it, what about when you sell the diesel, wouldn't you expect to get more for the diesel ? and therefor get some of the cost difference over a petrol model back, lets face it many used Audi Avants for example are sought after....(diesels)

[Crawfsyeti]

I also think the Parkers calculator is neat, but Please someone tell me I am wrong, I would think break even can't just be based on better MPG and mileage taken to do it, what about when you sell the diesel, wouldn't you expect to get more for the diesel ? and therefor get some of the cost difference over a petrol model back, lets face it many used Audi Avants for example are sought after....(diesels)

No your not wrong. However, there are many reasons governing trade in values etc. Try writing a program to cover all the variables. At the end of the day ones car is only worth what the next purchaser will pay for it. In my opinion no car is more sought after than any other until someone parts with their cash. However, I guarantee that person will also have aimed for the best deal they can get. Hence, no inclusion of any depreciation / dream price / etc by Parkers in their rough guild calculator. Harsh but true, sorry.

[Little-Brit]

Explain why a Diesel 110PS (52.3 mpg combined) is more expensive to run than a Petrol 105PS (44.1 mpg combined). How does the torque figure of 175NM equate to the diesels 250NM in real world driving.You also appear to have overlooked the fact that the enhanced cost of the diesel when new is recouped when the vehicle is sold especially when the residual values are also some 3% higher.

As for your comments about "Uncivilised Noise" and vibrations, utter nonsense drive a modern diesel and find out for yourself.

Why don't people read what is said?

The only DSG equiped diesel Yeti option is the 2.0 TDI CR140 SE with 4 wheel drive (and I don't need 4 wheel drive). According to the comparitor site referred to this deisel option costs £21,860 against £17,855 for my petrol version. The fuel consumption is quoted as 44 mpg for mine and 43 mpg for the diesel. There is no break even point with this scenario, full stop. Borrowing £4,000 more than you need is not prudent at the best of times let alone now and anyone who thinks that buying a car is some sort of investment scheme is deluding themselves.

The peak torque of my Yeti starts at 1550rpm and extends to 4,100 rpm and is more than adequate for my use, it copes easily with 4 adults on board. Further more it revs on freely to 6,000 if really necessary. In addition the magical DSG gearbox swaps ratios seamlessly to ensure that maximum go is available in the majority of driving situations without having do anything other than press the loud pedal.

I have driven a modern diesel, a brand new 2010 Octavia 1.6 110bhp demonstrator. It was very good, extremely quiet and smooth and a worthy contender for my money. But it still isn't as smooth or quiet as my TSI.

But I bought my car because it most closely met my requirements for a smallish car with a DSG gearbox, a highish driving position, reasonable economy and performance in a package that I was prepared to pay the asking price for. That just happens to be a 1.2 TSI DSG SE, and I'm very happy with my choice.

Of course if you're wanting real get up and go the 103 bhp and 115 Nm of torque of a BMW R1200GS pushing a paltry 230 kg is real grin territory and makes almost anything on four wheels rather dull actually!

[HKPhooey]

I've been doing a similar calculation for the last couple of cars and the petrol has worked out cheaper everytime - much to the derision of my mates.

Using the Parkers calculator confirms my own arithmetic - the 2.0TDi would take 83,000 and the 1.6 Greenline 48,000 to break even and we tend to keep the cars for 3 years/36000 miles. While the higher residuals claw a little back, this is more than offset by the extra interest paid on the diesels (due to the higher purchase price) as the interest calculation includes the final balloon payment.

[Llanigraham]

In your comparisons you are making a presumptions in that everyone buys their cars with a loan, so pays interest.

Also you haven't taken into account the servicing cost differences between petrol and diesel.

[HKPhooey]

I'm only talking from personal experience.

Everybody's needs are different and I wouldn't suggest that what works for me is right for someone else. Or personal preference.

I did look at servicing and the frequency was more important to us - the variable servicing made a big difference for us.

[Trevorminor]

I did look at servicing and the frequency was more important to us - the variable servicing made a big difference for us.

But both diesel and petrol can be set to fixed or variable. The Perker website also indicates that the 2.0 CRd 140 4x4 takes much less than a year to pay for itself in comparison to its equivalent petrol.

Nevertheless, hearing the cautionary stories about using diesels for short journeys, I would consider petrol instead of diesel if my driving patterns were to change to such.

As you say, it's up to the individual and the Yeti is pretty good with either diesel or petrol.

[kibby]

Have you seen this website? You key in the vehicles you're considering, and the price you'll pay for them, and the site calculats how long it will take you to recover the extra cost of buying a diesel (ie break even) from the cost savings due to better fuel consumption.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/petrol-vs-diesel/

Careful.. if you select an auto car (i.e. DSG) it doesn't compare it with an auto version

so comparision is skued. Works OK for manual comparison.

Maybe just flaw with Skoda Yeti comparator ..didn't check other makes.

[HKPhooey]

But both diesel and petrol can be set to fixed or variable. The Perker website also indicates that the 2.0 CRd 140 4x4 takes much less than a year to pay for itself in comparison to its equivalent petrol.

As you say, it's up to the individual and the Yeti is pretty good with either diesel or petrol.

Indeed, our 1.2 is now on a variable setting and it's currently saying that we have 16,000 miles to go until the next service. Much better than the 9000 mile fixed intervals on my Wife's previous car (Nissan Micra). I was also happy with the cost of the first service £125(fixed) or £165(variable).

My comparison when we bought our car was with the 110bhp 2wd diesel, and for us the petrol worked out cheaper overall. I did a similar calculation when we bought the Micra and whether to buy a 1.5Cdi or the 1.2 petrol.

VAG make some very good engines which gives the customer a genuine choice - long may it continue.

[stanjackos]

Why don't people read what is said?

The only DSG equiped diesel Yeti option is the 2.0 TDI CR140 SE with 4 wheel drive (and I don't need 4 wheel drive). According to the comparitor site referred to this deisel option costs £21,860 against £17,855 for my petrol version. The fuel consumption is quoted as 44 mpg for mine and 43 mpg for the diesel. There is no break even point with this scenario, full stop. Borrowing £4,000 more than you need is not prudent at the best of times let alone now and anyone who thinks that buying a car is some sort of investment scheme is deluding themselves.

The peak torque of my Yeti starts at 1550rpm and extends to 4,100 rpm and is more than adequate for my use, it copes easily with 4 adults on board. Further more it revs on freely to 6,000 if really necessary. In addition the magical DSG gearbox swaps ratios seamlessly to ensure that maximum go is available in the majority of driving situations without having do anything other than press the loud pedal.

I have driven a modern diesel, a brand new 2010 Octavia 1.6 110bhp demonstrator. It was very good, extremely quiet and smooth and a worthy contender for my money. But it still isn't as smooth or quiet as my TSI.

But I bought my car because it most closely met my requirements for a smallish car with a DSG gearbox, a highish driving position, reasonable economy and performance in a package that I was prepared to pay the asking price for. That just happens to be a 1.2 TSI DSG SE, and I'm very happy with my choice.

Of course if you're wanting real get up and go the 103 bhp and 115 Nm of torque of a BMW R1200GS pushing a paltry 230 kg is real grin territory and makes almost anything on four wheels rather dull actually!

Why dont people understand what the are saying!!!

I must give you top marks for the most jaundiced comparison imaginable. If you truly wish to compare the running costs of the 1.2 and a diesel (Spelt diesel not deisel)the most reliable comparison would be between the Yeti SE 1.2TSI 105PS 0-60 11.8 Secs, 175NM 1550-4100, £16705 and the Yeti SE 2.0TDI CR 110PS DPF, 0-60 11.6 Secs, 250NM 1750-2500, £18045. These two vehicles are more or less perfectly matched in performance and specification. The 2.0 TDI works out at £1340 more than the petrol, according to the trade depreciation tables, at the end of 3 years the 1.2 TSI will be worth 43% which is £7016 and 2.0 TDI will be worth 45% which is £8120 a difference of £1104. Therefore, in 3 years time the Diesel has cost £236 more than the petrol, if we now factor in the fuel costs obtained from the official "VCAfueldata" site, 12,000 Miles per year x 3 using the combined fuel cycle figure, the petrol costs are £4155 and the Diesel £3537, which equates to the Petrol costing £618 more than the Diesel, if we now deduct £236 mentioned above from this figure of £618 the Petrol does in fact cost £382 more over a 3 year period!

Put that in your tailpipe and smoke it!

I own a 58 Plate Mini Cooper S Clubman, 1.6T, 173BHP, 177LB/FT,0-60 7.6 Secs, 47.9 mpg (Combined)Band E Road Tax £110, Fuel costs on a combined cycle according to the VCA £1276 for 12,000 miles.

My wife owns a Mini Cooper D 1.6D (Diesel) 108BHP, 177LB/FT, 0-60 9.9 Secs, 74.3 mpg (Combined) Band B Road Tax £20!!!!!, Fuel costs on a combined cycle according to the VCA £830 for 12,000 miles.

I drive both these cars and find that once on the move the diesel is more than a match for the Cooper S, that is because both engines produce the same amount of torque. But that is where the comparison stops, the Diesel has nearly half the fuel costs, £20 a year Road Tax, 5 Year servicing £180. That is why the Cooper S is going to make way for a Yeti 170 2.0 TDI CR 170PS 4X4 DPF Elegance.

Official Goverment Fuel Data Site:- http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/

[HKPhooey]

If you truly wish to compare the running costs of the 1.2 and a diesel (Spelt diesel not deisel)the most reliable comparison would be between the Yeti SE 1.2TSI 105PS 0-60 11.8 Secs, 175NM 1550-4100, £16705 and the Yeti SE 2.0TDI CR 110PS DPF, 0-60 11.6 Secs, 250NM 1750-2500, £18045. These two vehicles are more or less perfectly matched in performance and specification. The 2.0 TDI works out at £1340 more than the petrol, according to the trade depreciation tables, at the end of 3 years the 1.2 TSI will be worth 43% which is £7016 and 2.0 TDI will be worth 45% which is £8120 a difference of £1104. Therefore, in 3 years time the Diesel has cost £236 more than the petrol, if we now factor in the fuel costs obtained from the official "VCAfueldata" site, 12,000 Miles per year x 3 using the combined fuel cycle figure, the petrol costs are £4155 and the Diesel £3537, which equates to the Petrol costing £618 more than the Diesel, if we now deduct £236 mentioned above from this figure of £618 the Petrol does in fact cost £382 more over a 3 year period!

Put that in your tailpipe and smoke it!

Official Goverment Fuel Data Site:- http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/

That's assuming you paid full price and in cash.

Depending on the discounts available on each of the models and the APR rate of any finance deal would completely change the sums.

[Little-Brit]

Why dont people understand what the are saying!!!

I must give you top marks for the most jaundiced comparison imaginable. If you truly wish to compare the running costs of the 1.2 and a diesel (Spelt diesel not deisel)the most reliable comparison would be between the Yeti SE 1.2TSI 105PS 0-60 11.8 Secs, 175NM 1550-4100, £16705 and the Yeti SE 2.0TDI CR 110PS DPF, 0-60 11.6 Secs, 250NM 1750-2500, £18045. These two vehicles are more or less perfectly matched in performance and specification. The 2.0 TDI works out at £1340 more than the petrol, according to the trade depreciation tables, at the end of 3 years the 1.2 TSI will be worth 43% which is £7016 and 2.0 TDI will be worth 45% which is £8120 a difference of £1104. Therefore, in 3 years time the Diesel has cost £236 more than the petrol, if we now factor in the fuel costs obtained from the official "VCAfueldata" site, 12,000 Miles per year x 3 using the combined fuel cycle figure, the petrol costs are £4155 and the Diesel £3537, which equates to the Petrol costing £618 more than the Diesel, if we now deduct £236 mentioned above from this figure of £618 the Petrol does in fact cost £382 more over a 3 year period!

Put that in your tailpipe and smoke it!

I own a 58 Plate Mini Cooper S Clubman, 1.6T, 173BHP, 177LB/FT,0-60 7.6 Secs, 47.9 mpg (Combined)Band E Road Tax £110, Fuel costs on a combined cycle according to the VCA £1276 for 12,000 miles.

My wife owns a Mini Cooper D 1.6D (Diesel) 108BHP, 177LB/FT, 0-60 9.9 Secs, 74.3 mpg (Combined) Band B Road Tax £20!!!!!, Fuel costs on a combined cycle according to the VCA £830 for 12,000 miles.

I drive both these cars and find that once on the move the diesel is more than a match for the Cooper S, that is because both engines produce the same amount of torque. But that is where the comparison stops, the Diesel has nearly half the fuel costs, £20 a year Road Tax, 5 Year servicing £180. That is why the Cooper S is going to make way for a Yeti 170 2.0 TDI CR 170PS 4X4 DPF Elegance.

Official Goverment Fuel Data Site:- http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/

Why would I bother trying to answer someone who hasn't vaguely understood any of my comments so far?

[My_Yeti]

I guess everyone has their own preferece.

I bought my 1.2 TSI because I mainly do short journeys, with a small number of long journeys and the servicing and DPF issues means a Petrol is better for me.

I drove the 1.6 TDI in a Golf and was thoroughly impressed by the mid range performance, very good indeed and the 1.2 TSI cannot match that kind of mid range power, however I do miss having a 6th gear.

What else, in my short journeys, the MPG is vitrually the same. Its really down to how you use the car, if you do lots and lots of motorway mileage then a diesel would make complete sense, but short journeys or low mileage owners then petrol may make more sense.

[rockhopper]

A Snow Monster does not make financial sense as a motorway cruiser. It's aerodynamics of a brick seem to stop it getting over about 40-44mpg at legal speeds, with any engine.

Maybe that is why us boring old farts like it so much, as we don't drive as fast as 'younger' people.

Yeah right............

In every other way it makes a good motorway tool, just not on the pocket.

Mike

[Llanigraham]

A Snow Monster does not make financial sense as a motorway cruiser. It's aerodynamics of a brick seem to stop it getting over about 40-44mpg at legal speeds, with any engine.

Maybe that is why us boring old farts like it so much, as we don't drive as fast as 'younger' people.

Yeah right............

In every other way it makes a good motorway tool, just not on the pocket.

Mike

But what are you comparing it to, Mike?

The Yeti at 70 is FAR more economical than the Freelander equivalent, and the stated figures for the Sportage. This is the sort of vehicles you have to compare it to, and the Yeti appears to be far superior.

[Freshacre]

A Snow Monster does not make financial sense as a motorway cruiser. It's aerodynamics of a brick seem to stop it getting over about 40-44mpg at legal speeds, with any engine.

Maybe that is why us boring old farts like it so much, as we don't drive as fast as 'younger' people.

Yeah right............

In every other way it makes a good motorway tool, just not on the pocket.

Mike

Hi Mike

I'm gonna beg to differ a wee bit. My 170 on the M'way is as economical as I would wish it to be. Having relatives in Scotland I too frequent the M6/M76, Kincardine Bridge route to Perthshire, and I can tell you that my MPG at a steady indicated 75 is fine. The 120 mile segment of my journey up the middle of Wales to Chester is much more costly in fuel and blood pressure!!

Also - because the 170 is as speedy as a tall go-kart, and almost as a hot-hatch I actually tend to drive it as such, dropping a couple of gears to blast past lines of traffic or lorries, and enjoying its cornering abilities on some of the wider back roads and so on. One of the reasons I enjoy the thing so much is because of its performance and sure-footedness - and I use that aspect to make all trips more enjoyable. Sure, the old fartiness comes out on occasions - but then a blast of RUNRIG or Wolfstone on the Bolero and I'm screeching around again.

I chose the 170 because, according to its details it seemed faster and more economical at the same time.

[Bobdog]

I too have the CR170. When you question its economy/fuel consumption, you have to ask 'compared with what'? My previous three vehicles were all 2.0 diesels; a Volvo V50 (140bhp), an Audi A4 Avant, and a VW Passat Estate (the older PD engine in both of those - 130bhp). The Yeti compares favourably with any one of them ... and I do long motorway trips across France at the legal limit of 80mph (130kph).

[stanjackos]

Why would I bother trying to answer someone who hasn't vaguely understood any of my comments so far?

"SNAP"

[rockhopper]

Hi Mike

I'm gonna beg to differ a wee bit. My 170 on the M'way is as economical as I would wish it to be. Having relatives in Scotland I too frequent the M6/M76, Kincardine Bridge route to Perthshire, and I can tell you that my MPG at a steady indicated 75 is fine. The 120 mile segment of my journey up the middle of Wales to Chester is much more costly in fuel and blood pressure!!

Also - because the 170 is as speedy as a tall go-kart, and almost as a hot-hatch I actually tend to drive it as such, dropping a couple of gears to blast past lines of traffic or lorries, and enjoying its cornering abilities on some of the wider back roads and so on. One of the reasons I enjoy the thing so much is because of its performance and sure-footedness - and I use that aspect to make all trips more enjoyable. Sure, the old fartiness comes out on occasions - but then a blast of RUNRIG or Wolfstone on the Bolero and I'm screeching around again.

I chose the 170 because, according to its details it seemed faster and more economical at the same time.

I guess what I was getting at is that at 75+ we aren't going to to see 55+mpg that I got out of my old octavia....

I'm very happy with my CR140DSG which is probably faster than your CR170

Mike

[CFB]

I guess what I was getting at is that at 75+ we aren't going to to see 55+mpg that I got out of my old octavia....

I'm very happy with my CR140DSG which is probably faster than your CR170

Mike

so is now a good time to say that my 110 muscovado is faster than both the 140 and 170 ??

[rockhopper]

so is now a good time to say that my 110 muscovado is faster than both the 140 and 170 ??

Yep. When we are doing 65 mph and you are doing 70mph

Mike