Hi

Does anyone own or has driven the 2.0 SE 4x4 110bhp Yeti? I've just ordered one but my test drive was in the 140bhp version. I'd be interested in any general comments about it's power and performance.

Cheers

Hi

Does anyone own or has driven the 2.0 SE 4x4 110bhp Yeti? I've just ordered one but my test drive was in the 140bhp version. I'd be interested in any general comments about it's power and performance.

Cheers

Hi

TP Tim will give you the best comparison, but I have a 110 4x4 and love the performance you will not be disappointed

regards

Kevin

Hi,

had a early production 140 SE for 13 months and covered 13000 miles until I sold it to James@allams last November. In April I collected her replacement my current 110 4x4 Elegance and have had no regrets so far in downsizing in output. There's no discernible difference between the two when it comes to day to day driving. Very occasionally like a long steep hill climb or running with a full load of passanges you can tell there that slight bit less go but as I say slight. If you tow regularly then maybe the 140 is the best option, if not stick with the 110; it's better value for money in my book.

Oh the 110 engine is physically the same as the 140 just a different tune of software. The gearbox ratio set-up also differs and the front brakes are slightly smaller diameter but that's about it.

Regards,

TP

Tim,

You fuel consumption is interesting. I suppose it will improve with time?

As a comparison, I am getting 45 mpg (UK) consistently with mostly short trips nowadays, and well into the 50 mpg on longer trips on A-road equivalents.

Typically, I am not pussyfootting around :S

I would agree with TP.

I test drove the 140 elegance and now own a 110.

Very little difference in performance.

There is a notion that the power of the 110 is more like 125bhp or possibly more, evidenced by those that have had their cars on the dyne.

I too am getting approx 45mpg or more round town but, due to the height and less than aerodynamic shape, this drops to approx 42mpg.

I'm perfectly happy with it and for me, the 110 is powerful enough

I would be tempted to go for the 110bhp Yeti but according to the stats the mpg and the emissions are worse than the 140bhp. That seems to go against logic. I know the car is £1,000 cheaper on list price but that is not enough of a tempter to make me drop from the 140. Surely the point of getting a less powerful car is that you get better mpg and the emissions are better. (apologies to all engineers who find this entirely logical and obvious)

Oh the 110 engine is physically the same as the 140 just a different tune of software. The gearbox ratio set-up also differs

Regards,

TP

Hi TP, does this mean that the 110 will be sitting at higher revs at 70 mph for instance? ie the gearing lower on the 110?

I've driven a few 110BHP 4x4s and we've got a 140BHP 4x4 again now and whilst the 140BHP does have a slight edge in terms of power over the 110, the difference is not noticable around town. I can't say I noticed a difference in gear ratios but I don't doubt Tims information one bit.

As TP said the brakes are slightly smaller but again not something you notice in day to day driving.

In general you can't go far wrong with a Yeti. I'd prefer a high spec 110 than a standard 140, but obviously I'd prefer a 170CR with everything on it but that's not going to happen!

Hi TP, does this mean that the 110 will be sitting at higher revs at 70 mph for instance? ie the gearing lower on the 110?

Hi Focus,

the RPM in sixth at 60 -70 is about the same from memory as that of the 140. The 110 4x4 up to MY12 used the LNN gearbox , whereas the 140 used the LNM box, which likewise has been superseded in the MY12. Interestingly the LNM box received a revision in it's lifetime in the Yeti but the LNN remained the same throughout.

Regards,

TP

Interestingly the LNM box

Now then TP I do realise and value much of your helpful information on this site; but when you use the word "interestingly" about gearbox revisions, well...

TP - great info (as always!)

thank you.

So the only difference with the box is the ratios... not strengh?

The one thing that continues to bug me with most modern powerful cars (that are apparently set up for the best fuel economy and have lots of nice torque low down in the rev range) is... top gear always revs to high for my liking! Mine could easily sit at 2,500rpm instead of 3,500rpm at a set speed and driveability wouldnt be harmed but it would be a quiter, more fuel efficient drive! I dont get it! :wonder:

TP - great info (as always!)

thank you.

So the only difference with the box is the ratios... not strengh?

The one thing that continues to bug me with most modern powerful cars (that are apparently set up for the best fuel economy and have lots of nice torque low down in the rev range) is... top gear always revs to high for my liking! Mine could easily sit at 2,500rpm instead of 3,500rpm at a set speed and driveability wouldnt be harmed but it would be a quiter, more fuel efficient drive! I dont get it! :wonder:

Of course Betty would.......with all that extra torque (but I do know what you mean) I drive around town at 30mph in 5th lots which is about 1000-1100rpm, but if the car doesn't like it, it will change down of its own accord, but again I do have more torque than the average CR140.

My 110 now does around 50 mpg .....all it needed was a little bit more power..

Around 47 on short journeys and over 55 on longer trips

Hi

Thanks for all your comments. I feel a lot easier about my decision to go for the 110bhp and all I have to worry about now is the delivery date.

Cheers

I'm glad we helped you come to the right decision for you.

As for the wait, you'll enjoy it all the more when it arrives