Which Yeti do i need?

[rog737]

Yep, 1.2 Manual here and happy with it (and my last car was a 200+hp diesel)

It isn't the fastest car in the world, but the 1.2 is more than adequate.

First gear is very low which means that 1st to 2nd is a big step which takes a bit of getting used to, but the engine is very torquey and flexible. Typical motorway hills are no problem in 6th gear.

Get a test drive.

Edited 2 October, 2012 by rog737

[andyspan]

Sounds like the 1.2 is the way to go..Never had an auto though. Would probably want to go with the manual. Anyone got the 1.2 manual?

We have had the 1.2 manual for around 17 months now and are delighted with it. Like many I couldn't believe a weeny engine like that could possibly pull along a fairly large vehicle like the Yeti, how wrong can you be, it really doesn't feel under powered at all and really flies along. When you factor in the higher price of buying the oil burner and the higher price of diesel fuel at the pumps, if you do a fairly low annual mileage (I do around 7,000 miles) for us it was a no brainer!

[domhnall]

Had my 1.2 manual for a year now, and it's been fantastic. Prior to this I have run a series of diesel octavias, various 1.9 tdis, and ending up with the 2.0 PD. I was sure the 1.2 wasn't going to cut it - but as others have said it's been a real revelation.

[James I]

we had a 1.2 fabia courtesy car, same 105 bhp turbo motor, it was lively to say the least, really enjoyed it even though I had dropped a vrs fabia off for oil issues.

I currently have the 170 diesel Yeti also and this is a great car, as stated though your short journeys might not be good for the dpf.

[olibluegoat]

That was myn thinking. Just got rid of my Octavia VRS CR 170 and would love a 170 Yeti. Didnt have the octavia long enough for dpf issues but i do a very stop and start short run in the mornings at the moment (longer runs at weekend). Just feels like the petrol engine is perhaps the way to go this time. Loved the CR 170 engine though. Effortlessley quick

[Norse]

I drive a 1,2 petrol Yeti, 2wd. One of the reasons for not buying diesel, is the heater which does not get warm enough on cold winter days here in Norway. My wife's 2009 A4 2,0 tdi is not even close to my old Merc 180, which was nice and comfy after 10 minutes in minus 20 Celsius.

Due to cheaper diesel than patrol in this country, more than 70% of all new cars sold here since 2007 have been diesel cars, up from 9% in 2000. A lot of people, even the police in their brand new diesel Passats, complain about the heaters in them.

Another reason is that major cities here do talk about banning diesel cars due to pollution. That has resulted in many angry owners and a sharp sales drop this year.

http://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/3129-norway-may-ban-diesel-cars

A third reason is that I do drive a lot of short trips in my job, and after hearing about all the problems the community nurses diesel cars in Oslo have after doing the same in their job, I went for petrol. They are actually ordered to go for a long drive twice a week just to give the filters some fresh air.

With more than 30 years of driving, I cannot remember more than 3 or 4 times when I really needed a 4x4. And I never go off road. That's why I bought a 2wd.

Edited 7 October, 2012 by Norse

[YetiSwede]

All,

Why is noone considering the 1.4TSI, marginally more expensive than the 1.2TSI, but with quite some more peps. Longevity could get a boost from the fact that it's a cast iron bloc engine compared to the alu block 1.2 (and it's an Audi engine). Max torque is 200Nm compared to 175 for the 1.2 (122 over 105 horses). A lot of the TSI122 engines have been measured for >130 hp though.

Just a thought!

[domhnall]

Poorer fuel economy, difference of around £800 and in real world driving I couldnt really tell much of a difference between the two

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Zib]

I have only driven one example of the 1.4 TSI but it was nothing like the energetic unit found in Audis or VWs. Strange given that it is the same engine.

[The Plumber]

All,

Why is noone considering the 1.4TSI, marginally more expensive than the 1.2TSI, but with quite some more peps. Longevity could get a boost from the fact that it's a cast iron bloc engine compared to the alu block 1.2 (and it's an Audi engine). Max torque is 200Nm compared to 175 for the 1.2 (122 over 105 horses). A lot of the TSI122 engines have been measured for >130 hp though.

Just a thought!

Personally rate a Skoda engine higher than an Audi one :yes:

Skoda have been making aluminium engines for many years; had one in the Rapid 136 (pre VW and probably one of the reasons they bought into Skoda)

TP

[domhnall]

Petrol yetis topped the reliability survey published by which today. Beat the diesels but overall a cracking performance by the yeti. This was a survey of all cars not just the suv segment.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Austin 7]

As I have a 1.4 TSi Elegance, my vote naturally goes to this engine. It has noticeably more urge than the 1.2, meaning fewer gear changes. At anything over 45 mph you are in 6th gear unless its very steep or you are loaded right up. My average mpg for the 4500 miles since new is 39.5 on both maxidot and by old fashioned recording of fuel used. Somewhat surprisingly, even my 6 mile journey to work usually gives 40 mpg for the trip including a cold start.