About to order a 2.0TDI Elegance. Have test drive in near future, but would appreciate some opinions. Which engine is better, the 140 or the 170? I note that the official specs list the 170 as more fuel efficient, but is this right in real life?

I used to have an Altea FR with the 170 and it was a rocket. I thought at the time (after several sets of tyres) that perhaps a bit OTT. Interested to see how it works out on a 4x4 chassis.

I have the 140 as I wanted the DSG box, both are excellent and I get about 45 mpg.

I had stepped out of a Mercedes SLK 200 and the Yeti is fast enough for me!

VVrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 170 all the way.

There have been quite a few discussions on here about economy, and for whatever reason those of us with the 170 seem to be getting better figures than those with the 140. No idea why, but that seems to be the story.

Both are good.

The 170 is a bit faster and also has bigger brakes.

If you enjoy driving and pushing on a bit buy the 170.

The 170 CR engine with 4x4 and the good handling of the Yet isi good fun.

There is no fuel economy penalty, if anything the 170 seems a little better as you are using full throttle less often. But that depends how you drive.

I can get 50mpg driving sensibly and 42mpg driving quickly. Average over 9000 miles is 45mpg.

170 is good fun to drive. Can leave some so called hot hatches behind as well.

Andy

170 is good fun to drive. Can leave some so called hot hatches behind as well.

Andy

I did, at Castle Combe circuit on the Briskoda action day earlier in the year... including a number of VRS.

A bit boring after lap two (of five) as I was out on my own having overtaken the slower cars in front.

170.

Because I have one!

And - here's an interesting observation. I also acquired a '53 BMW Z4 2.5 SE with only 28k miles on the clock - part of growing old and needing wind in what is left of my hair before it all disappears.

The Z4 is a "roadster" with a soft top, long bonnet, top speed somewhere near 140mph and acceleration 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, and yet the 170 Yeti feels both a bluddy sight faster in acceleration and 'safer' in holding a decent top speed. The Yeti holds the road just like a tall go-cart, but the Z4 has far better chuckability round bends you accelerate round.

So if it is performance that turns your cogs, the 170 will provide that. It is also an exceptional towing vehicle, and a competent mud guddler.

The only reason to go for the 140 would be the economics of your situation because in nearly every other aspect the 170 is superior.

And finally, my 170 has completed 45k miles and has a valuation of about £17500 - a drop from new of about £5k - and for the "mileage-equivalent" of a three year old car, that retained value is extraordinary, though it probably won't last too much longer as more second hand Yetis become available.

170 is good fun to drive. Can leave some so called hot hatches behind as well.

Andy

So can a 140!!

So can a 140!!

SO can a 110!

Do parked ones count?

I test drove the 140 but opted for the 170, though on a day to day basis the 110 would do just as well (my previous car was a 110 Octy and was ideal 98% of the time). It's when you do want to get past something quickly that the 170 really comes into its own. Grip is terrific, even in all the rain we've had recently. I've only done 1100 miles so far, so can't really gauge long term economy. Only done two brim to brim fill-ups so far which gave 39.3mpg & 39.8mpg respectively. Maxidot gives 43.1mpg since collecting the car in June.

SO can a 110!

Do parked ones count?

BF, go do one!!

SO can a 110!

Do parked ones count?

Parked cars? The Yeti leaves them standing...

I have the 170 in a Superb L&K, I get over 600 miles a tank and a MPG of nearly 60 per tank.

Yeti is lighter.

The Yeti has the aerodynamics of the side of a barn, also hgiher of the road. Neither do anything for fuel consumption.

Andy

Edited 18 July, 201213 yr by AndyC

I have the 170 in a Superb L&K, I get over 600 miles a tank and a MPG of nearly 60 per tank.

Yeti is lighter.

...and makes more drag because it's taller and has a big flat rear end.

So can a 140!!

+1

170.

Because I have one!

And - here's an interesting observation. I also acquired a '53 BMW Z4 2.5 SE with only 28k miles on the clock - part of growing old and needing wind in what is left of my hair before it all disappears.

The Z4 is a "roadster" with a soft top, long bonnet, top speed somewhere near 140mph and acceleration 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, and yet the 170 Yeti feels both a bluddy sight faster in acceleration and 'safer' in holding a decent top speed. The Yeti holds the road just like a tall go-cart, but the Z4 has far better chuckability round bends you accelerate round.

So if it is performance that turns your cogs, the 170 will provide that. It is also an exceptional towing vehicle, and a competent mud guddler.

The only reason to go for the 140 would be the economics of your situation because in nearly every other aspect the 170 is superior.

And finally, my 170 has completed 45k miles and has a valuation of about £17500 - a drop from new of about £5k - and for the "mileage-equivalent" of a three year old car, that retained value is extraordinary, though it probably won't last too much longer as more second hand Yetis become available.

Of course unless you want the DSG box. The 170 doesn't seem to have one!

Edited 18 July, 201213 yr by MikeWales

Love my 170, puts a smile on my face when you give the accelerator a nudge and you leave some hot hatches behind. Just a shame it doesn't come with a DSG as my friends got it in his VW And it goes very well.

170 for me ... but after two Octavia vRS models with the same engine that is probably not a surprise.

Test drove a 140 just to get a feel for the Yeti ... it felt a bit flat, but I'm sure is a fine engine.

I get about 45mpg with mine, could get nearer 50 with the vRS but the aerodynamics of the Yeti account for this ... however when towing the vRSs dropped to 25 while the yeti is 28 - 30.

My 110 is quite quick ...another vote for go for the 170.....mind you 110s will remap to 175bhp and are fun

If I'd had a free choice 170 but my ex-demo 140 goes quite well. The everyday performance is good and, after more than a year in mine, I have no regrets.

For info, a 170 is an easy remap to 210.

It will take more, but that is safe and preserves the DPF...

Have to say I am tempted.

For info, a 170 is an easy remap to 210.

It will take more, but that is safe and preserves the DPF...

Have to say I am tempted.

+1

I would like a convertable, but haven't the room to store it, so a remap might be the way to go.....

Andy

How about a remapped CR140 DSG with flappy paddles and the bigger brakes from a CR170

That ticks all the boxes. (and some )

I had some fun today driving to an appointment. Manual all the way, such a pleasure to use my fingertips to change gear without letting go of the steering wheel.

The car really does shift if you want it to, and the 4x4 is confidence inspiring and amazing in the wet. Seems to average about 36mpg when really pushed - flat out acceleration where safe etc - easy really - slow into bends then floor it out when you can see, if safe

As Miranda's mother (Patrica Hodge) says

........... Such Fun.

170 for me

Have a 170 yeti now with new one been built this week, and had the 170 vrs octy, great engine,great cars.