Well in this week's Autocar they finished their longterm test with their 1,2 DSG Yeti. They loved everything as much as we do. Practical, spacious, high seating, build quality, handling you name it. BUT, and there is always one, they think the 1,2 is too small and needs to be trashed too much to get going resulting in mediocre fuel consumption:

"Smooth enough, but just a bit out of its league in a Yeti. Needs to be worked too hard, too often."

But all in all a stellar report once again!

Well in this week's Autocar they finished their longterm test with their 1,2 DSG Yeti. They loved everything as much as we do. Practical, spacious, high seating, build quality, handling you name it. BUT, and there is always one, they think the 1,2 is too small and needs to be trashed too much to get going resulting in mediocre fuel consumption:

"Smooth enough, but just a bit out of its league in a Yeti. Needs to be worked too hard, too often."

But all in all a stellar report once again!

Pretty typical of a magazine car test. They apply the wrong standards and should test it for what it is not what they want it to be. Anybody who buys a 1.2 will surely not expect it to set the world alight with performance. 10yrs ago 105BHP would have been considered pretty good now it is merely adequate - not startling, but adequate. Anyone wanting more would buy a bigger engine.

Also they may have gone into the test with the attitude "1.2 is a very small engine for a car that size - lets see how it performs". Looking at the engine size not the power/torque it produces.

Skoda have clearly considered this in the past. When the new Superb was released I remember seeing a banner in the dealer with the list of engine options. All the engines were listed as engine size except the 1.4 and that was listed as 125BHP. I reckon that was to counter this small = puny preconception.