17" or 16" rims which would you choose if you had a choice

[175GDY]

Thanks. Most dealers don't list 15" wheels as an option for Yeti, but since "wheelbasealloys" listed this dimesion, I hoped there would be an option for us that don't mind driving like a Minesweeper in force 12

[rockhopper]

I've just been doing some 312mm did brake investigating. The 312 on the Octavia needs a minimum of 16" wheels, whereas the 288mm disc on an Ocatvia can accept 15" wheels, but I also read that the Yeti does not accept 15" rims for some reason. All info came from Briskoda, but I googled it!

[bahnstormer vrs]

I've just been doing some 312mm did brake investigating. The 312 on the Octavia needs a minimum of 16" wheels, whereas the 288mm disc on an Ocatvia can accept 15" wheels, but I also read that the Yeti does not accept 15" rims for some reason. All info came from Briskoda, but I googled it!

In hindsight (from my earlier comments) you're correct from the point of view of wheel diameter but ....

...... the offset may well be a factor as the Octavia wheels generally have a higher offset i.e. they sit more inboard than a Yeti. This maybe a reason for 15" wheels (from an Octavia) not to fit on a Yeti as they may hit the callipers.

[rockhopper]

In hindsight (from my earlier comments) you're correct from the point of view of wheel diameter but ....

...... the offset may well be a factor as the Octavia wheels generally have a higher offset i.e. they sit more inboard than a Yeti. This maybe a reason for 15" wheels (from an Octavia) not to fit on a Yeti as they may hit the callipers.

Ah...just the person. What is the part number for the carriers required for the 312mm did brake upgrade. My local dealer couldn't find it, just said they would be £177 each, which sounds a lot.

Mike

[bahnstormer vrs]

Ah...just the person. What is the part number for the carriers required for the 312mm did brake upgrade. My local dealer couldn't find it, just said they would be £177 each, which sounds a lot.

Mike

I've got the info at home on the invoice; I'll post it later this evening (still in the office).

[rockhopper]

I've got the info at home on the invoice; I'll post it later this evening (still in the office).

Thanks.

[The Plumber]

Thanks to all who have replied so far; much appreciated

Pleased but slightly surprised with the results so far, had envisaged more members being satisfied with the standard spec. Appreciate this is a very small and unscientific survey but I think Skoda UK should take note; please let the customer choose whether they want sport or comfort not the marketing team :yes:

Regards,

TP

[JCP]

Just getting a feel for the 6jx16" with 205 Conti Winter Contact tyres which I have installed a little early. So I now feel qualified to join the debate.

The 16s do look very small in the arches and the car now has lost the very foresquare Stance which the standard set up gives. I accept this is entirely a matter of taste, but for me it is less appealing. The designers are right to go for 17s.

On the more important ride handling side I think the engineers are right too.

The car on 16s does have marginally softer ride characteristics which some, I accept, may welcome.

The handling is however less stable and reassuring. The car tracks a little less securely in straight line running and responds less crisply to steering inputs-there is a less precise feel and while outright grip is no doubt adequate it feels less secure.

I'm more than 40 years on the road now and my recent cars have included Lexus (large and small-2 V8s and a six)a BM Cooper "s" and a hot Leon. I find the ride on the 17s perfectly acceptable when compared with my Leon also on 17s.

The soft and comfy side of things is not achieved by downsizing rims-the air sprung and steel sprung Lexus shows how that can be done with well matched springs and dampers even with large wheels.

The conclusion I am moving towards is that the Yeti as sold has a very fine chassis where a little firmness helps achieve quite remarkable sporting character for such an upright device. To introduce sogginess at the margin is a downgrade if you wish to enjoy the chuckable character of our cars.

If you don't want that from the Yeti you will not miss it from fitting 16s. I'm willing to drive a softer vehicle because I am convinced of the benefits of winter rubber but am looking forward to regaining the designed character of my car when the winter has passed.

[The Plumber]

Hi JCP,

thanks for the interesting report and having driven with 205/55 winters but on 7J rims I can appreciate some of your comments in warmer weather. The Nokians WR G2's I had felt firmer and more precise below that magic 7 deg. The 215/60 summers on the other hand handle totally differently but I think you would need to try it for yourself to compare.

Regards,

TP

[Lowen]

Just getting a feel for the 6jx16" with 205 Conti Winter Contact tyres which I have installed a little early. So I now feel qualified to join the debate.

The 16s do look very small in the arches and the car now has lost the very foresquare Stance which the standard set up gives. I accept this is entirely a matter of taste, but for me it is less appealing. The designers are right to go for 17s.

Surely 7J 215/60 x 16 would cure this problem

[JCP]

Surely 7J 215/60 x 16 would cure this problem

It would help the cosmetics I agree, but although the total cicumferece of wheel and tyre would be about the same the smaller wheels still would look smaller the greater amount of rubber does not stand out against the darkness of the ineer of the wheel arch. The stance would also not be restored.

Cosmetics are not much of an issue since they only arise on the way to the car-once aboard they are irrelevant.

I am speaking as a man who ran a £230 3.0 Granada Ghia in purple as a stop gap car-think "The Sweeney" and imagine the ghastlyness!

[rockhopper]

<br /><br />

Surely 7J 215/60 x 16 would cure this problem<br />

<br /><br /><br />

They do. Check out the photos I and others have posted. The problem is the tyre size, not the rim size.

The winter tyres do feel less precise in warmer temperatures, but gets better as it gets cooler and goes under 7 degs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[900000]

It would help the cosmetics I agree, but although the total cicumferece of wheel and tyre would be about the same the smaller wheels still would look smaller the greater amount of rubber does not stand out against the darkness of the ineer of the wheel arch.

You'll be surprised how much of a visual difference those few millimeters make! When we had our Yeti's dyno tested I had my baby winters on and Rockhopper his proper ones. The difference in stance and height was so noticeable that Rockhopper even got a tape measure out to check!!!! So as you can see from that thread Rockhopper's was a full 30mm taller and those wheels really filled the arches nicely. Hence me changing my tyres this winter:

Standard 17" on the right and the new 215s on the left:

Look at the difference in size between the 205/55 6J winter wheels on left and the 215/60 7J ones on the right!

The new tyres just standing in front of the alloys:

So back OT: I ticked the 17" box. Coming from a hard-as-nails Audi in which I had to do speedbumps at no more than 15mph the Yeti feels like a Rolls Royce to me on its 17" wheels. I like the crisp handling and that it does not wallow in the bendy bits. I've only had the baby 16" wheels on the car to compare with and have not driven yet on the marshmallows - it is too warm to put them on just yet. But I suspect I'll have to take corners slower and will be able to take speedbumps faster once I do have them on. Neither of which I really need to be honest.

I find this debate the same as audiophiles have on speaker cables. Some highly evolved superhuman ears will hear the difference but to the normal person out there they sound exactly the same... Tyres are just the same to me. Maybe I'm just a Neanderthal but I've never felt an acute difference when changing tyres. Worn out to brand new of course you can feel it as the steering feels different but that bit more grip? The 5% less aquaplaning?! Forget it. A tyre is a tyre to my bum. Since winter to summer is not the same as worn to new the difference is even less acute - in the same temperature and same day. In the cold or snow of course there is a huge difference but that is a different argument. We are comparing summer 16" to summer 17".

I'm willing to put money down that if we have two Yetis on a test track (one with 16" rubber and one with 17" rubber on) that 9 out of 10 people won't be able to tell (from driving it) which one has which rubber on. Just like most drinkers not being able to tell their Carling from a Stella in a blind taste test. A lot of this is in the mind and to do with perception. You know you have 16" rubber on your car so you convince yourself beforehand that it must be more comfortable... and low and behold so it is when you start driving!!! :no: But then as I said I might just be a Neanderthal.

[EdmundBlackadder]

Johann - The main difference being then that the range on offer, and the pricing, is vastly better for 16" compared to 17". Perhaps a number of the 16" brigade are thinking of their wallets, and as someone who has just paid for 4 new tyres I am with them.

[900000]

Johann - The main difference being then that the range on offer, and the pricing, is vastly better for 16" compared to 17". Perhaps a number of the 16" brigade are thinking of their wallets, and as someone who has just paid for 4 new tyres I am with them.

Perhaps. But it is never exactly how this argument comes across. The 16" wheels are always ONLY compared to the 17" in terms of handling and comfort and cost is rarely mentioned - in my view anyway. As stated Neanderthals like me can just about read let alone string coherent replies together!

[EdmundBlackadder]

I agree that is how it is usually portrayed. I only noticed as this is the first time I have had to replace 4 tyres in one go and I also wanted All Season Tyres which made things a little more awkward. This lead me to research tyres, prices etc on the web far more than I had done in the past. I reckon the price difference for a same brand/style tyre is around £25 which is not insignificant. Some mfrs also do not offer their tyres in the Yeti 17" size, Vredestein being a good example, when the 16" version is widespread.

[Bobdog]

Just getting a feel for the 6jx16" with 205 Conti Winter Contact tyres which I have installed a little early. So I now feel qualified to join the debate.

The handling is however less stable and reassuring. The car tracks a little less securely in straight line running and responds less crisply to steering inputs-there is a less precise feel and while outright grip is no doubt adequate it feels less secure.

Mmmm ... but the point here is that you have made two changes 1) you have changed wheel/tyre size, and 2) you have changed from summer to winter rubber. You cannot be sure therefore whether the changes to handling are due to the size switch or the summer/winter switch. It is an important principle of scientific testing that only one variable is changed at a time, if we are to be able to state with any certainty the effects resulting from such a change.

[900000]

It is an important principle of scientific testing that only one variable is changed at a time, if we are to be able to state with any certainty the effects resulting from such a change.

Ahem........... +1

Which reinforces my point of view that most of this "difference" is a placebo effect in knowing what tyres you have on your car and "feeling" the difference as a result.

[The Plumber]

My decision for wanting 16" over the 17's was based on my (perceived :wonder: ) impression that the level of grip, ride and handling with the 17's fitted to my first Yeti 140, was inferior to that I'd experienced with previous Haldex equipped Octavia I 4x4T and Golf V TDI 4motion, both of which ran on 205/55/ R16's.

This previous experience lead me to select this tyre size for my first winter option after nearly wiping out the Yeti 140 in snow on the aforementioned 17's. Found in cold weather come rain, snow etc. they worked very well and felt much more sure-footed, however that dropped away with a rise in the spring temperatures above 10 deg.

With Yeti no. 2 the idea of running 17's again was not a prospect I was particularly looking forward to and therefore I did contemplate running it on steels permanently (cost) with the 215/60 tyre (although I hadn't tried a Yeti with that option), however thankfully Skoda Auto were kind enough to help me out by fitting the 16's at the factory. Have found for my driving tastes anyway, the 215/60 tyres cope far better with the rubbish rural road surfaces, with very little if any of the tram lining, skipping, crashing, pogo'ing from the back and tyre roar that I experienced with the 225 on the 140. The one and only thing the 225 was better at is pushing on round a fast sweeping bend but the Yeti in my view is a 4x4 LUV not a vRS

TP

[bahnstormer vrs]

The one and only thing the 225 was better at is pushing on round a fast sweeping bend but the Yeti in my view is a 4x4 LUV not a vRS

TP

.... but there are some of us that would like it to be a vRS

PS> Yes; the Yeti is brilliant on fast sweeping bends

[The Plumber]

.... but there are some of us that would like it to be a vRS

PS> Yes; the Yeti is brilliant on fast sweeping bends

Very true and I did say in my view :yes:

The Golf 4motion was also very very good at said bends but UK cars did have sports suspension and no ground clearance hence wanting a Yeti

TP

[Bobdog]

The one and only thing the 225 was better at is pushing on round a fast sweeping bend but the Yeti in my view is a 4x4 LUV not a vRS

TP

As I've previously said, I've not driven a Yeti on the 16" wheels and cannot therefore comment on any differences between that and the 17" (save to say that I'm happy with the wheels/tyres I have).

But the point you make above is most interesting TP, what we might consider to be the optimal tyre choice may depend on our perceptions of what the car is for, and what type of car it is. Other threads have examined that debate in the past, and the general consensus seems to be that the Yeti is an all-rounder; some value primarily its 4x4 capabilities, some its potential sporty nature, some its load carrying ability, some its family friendliness etc etc. In none of these categories is it the best; it's not as good as (say) a LR Defender off road (but it's a sight better than that car on a long motorway cruise), it's not as good as a Golf GTI on the twisty stuff (but better than the Golf climbing a bumpy dirt track). But there are few, if any, other cars with its all round mix of abilities. However, it may be that for those who prioritise one dimension of those abilities a particular wheel/tyre choice is appropriate, whilst for others a different mix is preferred ... which I suppose brings us back to your real point - should Skoda give us all the choice?

[900000]

... which I suppose brings us back to your real point - should Skoda give us all the choice?

Nicely summed up there Bobdog. And yes since these perceptions of what the car is/does influences the tyre choice then yes, I think SUK should give new buyers the choice. It is just a tick in a box at the factory computer and won't make anything more difficult for them on any front that I can imagine.

[JCP]

Bobdog has encapsulated the position very well. For my purposes the Yeti is a comfortable, well made and well equipped car with a good view out and should ensure I can stay mobile through a hard winter.

My background is in more powerful and some more sporting transport so for me the surprisingly good handling and the brisk performance are an important part of the pleasure of driving.

For simple capacious transport a berlingo or similar with winter tyres would do the job. The Yeti's fun factor is a good part of why I hve paid 20k plus for one.

As for the accurate but irrelevant comments about science requiring only one variation before an asessment with respect they are tosh. I have an opinion based upon my subjective impressions. Of course I cannot claim it is a scientific conclusion and only a fool would mistake it for one.

[freedie]

My background is in more powerful and some more sporting transport so for me the surprisingly good handling and the brisk performance are an important part of the pleasure of driving.

For simple capacious transport a berlingo or similar with winter tyres would do the job. The Yeti's fun factor is a good part of why I hve paid 20k plus for one.

I agree with the above having collected my new car yesterday. I paid a tiny fraction under £20k but to say I was astonished by the car (from 6 miles on the clock=not fully run in then!) is probably an understatement. Drove home from sunny England to hit the most appalling driving conditions I have experienced in N. Wales for 4 years. Did the car miss a beat? Of course not. Did I struggle to find the right switches, etc. Of course not. The car seemed to drive itself. I have a long tale to tell; but this forum is not the place the long posts so will stop here.

Freedie is a happy man today.