Thanks for all the replies so far, some are helpful but others just make the agonising worse!

For those that say I should ask my wife, that's a futile exercise. It really doesn't bother her either way but has said that DSG would be nice for the morning school run. She has driven the Fabia once but it's just something she'd get used to or so she says. When it comes to cars, she just trusts my judgement and as I do drive her car on a regular basis with the family on board, my preferences are equally as important. As with many of our better halves, the car is just a way of getting from A to B!

I can't give the Fabia vRS to my wife as she always gets the hand-me-downs and it's her turn for a new car. She also needs a bigger car than me for the kids and this is why we chose the Yeti for its practicality.

Somebody said here that absolute power corrupts and this is so very true. Every car I've had up to the present has been a better more powerful version than the last and this is the first time I'd be taking a step backwards where power is concerned. Having been used to the 170 PD of the Octavia and the 180 TSi of the Fabia, 140 CR is, at least mentally, a step down from what I'm used to. Throw in the acceleration and mpg penalty of the DSG and it looks on paper like a bad choice.

If we're talking about what things look like on paper then the 170 manual wins hands down against the 140 DSG but we all know it's never as simple as that!

I know it sounds like I'm gravitating more towards changing the order to a 170 manual, and I probably am, but I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment. I'd miss the DSG if I went manual but I'd miss the power of the 170 if I went for the 140. Question is which I'd miss out on most.

The Yeti figures are all misleading.

The reason.

It has 4x4.

When you accelerate away it puts drive to all 4 wheels then gradually moves it to the front. Very good in the wet. You may find it faster and safer than a 2wd vehicle because of the 'quattro' effect as Bahnstormer referred to it a while ago.

Yes it is down on power compared to the 1.8tsi & the fabia vRS, but they are not slow. I kept up with a fabia vRS and a similarly engined Seat at Castle Coombe in my Yeti DSG. When it rained I said good bye .

BossFox has similar experiences as well in his 170, but his is even faster than mine.

I just love burning off 'faster' cars at the traffic light GP. It can be entertaining.

The DSG ticks the boxes for me every time.

So pretty much where you started I guess?

Both 140 DSG and 170 manual are fine setups in the Yeti. I went for the 170 manual as the gearbox is a lot less complicated (also I prefer the hands on decision to what gear I want) and the extra power gives that extra security for overtaking. The DSG 140 I tested was impressive though.

You can 'retrofit' the missing 30BHP and uprate the front brakes to 312s later on if you choose to. Adding a DSG afterwards would be a bit more problematic! The 140 DSG was a little out of my budget as I was originally looking at a 140 manual. I'm not unhappy with my choice but if I had to make it again now I think the 140 DSG would be the front runner. Best of luck choosing between them.

So pretty much where you started I guess?

Pretty much. I'm in a no-win situation at present!

Figures can be misleading but 1.8s difference 0-60 between the 170 manual and 140 DSG sounds like a lifetime. I know it may not feel this much slower in real life, however.

One thing I can't verify is how accurate the mpg figures are - does the DSG really have that much of a penalty on fuel consumption?

Re-mapping the 140 has been mentioned more than a few times in this forum but I'm not a fan of re-mapping in general. I won't go into the reasons why in this thread but suffice it to say it's not something I'd be prepared to mess about with.

I have noticed that the 170 comes with bigger brakes too but I'm not factoring this into the decision as I didn't have a problem with the brakes on either the 110 or the 140.

Edited 24 February, 201313 yr by scottpcs

If the Mrs is not concerned either way and currently drives a manual then the 170 feels a no brainer. If you own 2 cars with slush boxes you will forget how to drive!

If it helps dealer drives 40 mile round trip to work and says DSG does 5mpg less in real world.

Good luck deciding which way to go, what colour have you chosen or is that still up for grabs?

Edited 24 February, 201313 yr by gbpxg01

Mightn't it seem a bit picky to be worried about power and speed - and then consumption (plus/minus 5mpg?), in the same equation :think: ? JMO

Consumption is so much about driving style, routes travelled and how heavy a right foot one has. My 'research' seems to be in line with the 5 mpg mentioned above.

it's not really the cost difference that grates me. As Al Coda has said, there's no pockets in shrouds and so it doesn't bother me

In that case, why not just buy one of each? They can have a race to see which one gets delivered first...

Edited 24 February, 201313 yr by ejstubbs

In that case, why not just buy one of each? They can have a race to see which one gets delivered first...

I wish... then me and the missus could have one each, eliminating the argument!

In response the speed / consumption above, the 170 is better than the 140 to begin with on both fronts but the DSG compounds that. Although this particular DSG box is the oldest one around, it just sounds like a big hit compared to what the latest DSG boxes will do. It wouldn't necessarily put me off having it though.

Of course minimal differences in 0-60 times don't make any difference in real life! And thank goodness, most sensible drivers don't attempt to verify such times anyway in their daily journeying, least of all on a school run! I would have thought your only choice is whether you want an automatic or a manual - clogging up the decision-making process with irrelevant factors such as 0-60 acceleration (which is not as clear-cut as it sounds anyway, since some cars will accelerate at a fairly even rate through that interval, while others will start more slowly and then accelerate more quickly ... ) is just indulgent. Auto or manual - what do you want?

Auto or manual - what do you want?

I want auto... mated to a CR 170 TDI!!

Seriously though, straight choice? DSG every time.

Edited 24 February, 201313 yr by scottpcs

Of course minimal differences in 0-60 times don't make any difference in real life!

Don't you believe it!

I want auto... mated to a CR 170 TDI!!

Seriously though, straight choice? DSG every time.

Maybe a daft question.... I'm good at those, but have you tried both options on a decent test drive so you can weigh up the pros and cons of each against your personal requirements/preferences?

Not a daft question and one worth asking.

I did ask for a test drive on the DSG but they didn't have one as a demo. Trouble with dealers in my neck of the woods is that they're all owned by the same group and I'd have to drive some distance to try another dealer outside of the group.

I did manage to get a drive on an Elegance CR 140 4x4 manual, however, and I was impressed by the engine. It even felt sprightlier than our current PD 170 engine in the Octavia which led me to think the 140 would be plentiful for our needs and wants.

It's difficult to compare a PD engine with the newer CR engines simply due to the refinement and power delivery differences. Whereas the PD engines deliver power in one lump, the CR engines are much smoother and deliver power over a much wider power band or torque curve. I actually prefer this and may explain why the CR engine seemed more capable than our old PD 170 lump. I seem to remember the PD 130 engine in my Mk1 Fabia vRS had the same characteristic and it was all or nothing, enough to catch me out a few times when flooring it outside the narrow power band.

Anyway, I digress. Due to the lack of available engines / transmissions for demo, in 4x4 guise at least, I had to make an informed decision about what to go for. As we definitely wanted the L&K trim level, that meant a straight choice between the 140 DSG or the 170 manual. As DSG was always the first choice and having already driven the 140 manual, we chose the 140 DSG option without giving a second thought to the 170.

Whilst a manual box wouldn't be the end of the world, DSG has been so impressive on the Fabia that it would be disappointing if we couldn't have it. Like I keep saying, however, I need to question whether I'd miss the DSG more or the extra power. In truth I think the DSG would prove more beneficial in everyday use and the desire for the 170 is purely a want rather than a need.

I would add that even if a 170 4x4 manual is available to demo, how awkward would it be to take one out without wasting the salesman's time? One would think that as soon as you drive back into their forecourt then the sales patter will start and how do you talk your way out of that one, especially as the order is already placed with another dealer?

Cheers,

As you've rightly said you've made the all important informed decision based on what will be the best option for you and Mrs you. I can understand how important the DSG box would be and why it's a top priority, even though I've never tried one! It's bad enough choosing when you can have the combination you want, without having the difficulty of choosing what you think will be the 'best compromise' I'm sure you'll really enjoy the 140 and soon adjust to the CR/DSG

.... soon adjust to the CR/DSG

Probably as you drive away from the dealer

Of course minimal differences in 0-60 times don't make any difference in real life!

Don't you believe it!

Hmibennet is right about this and prodata in fact is wrong.

To see if I'm correct in this opinion just ask yourself when you last saw anyone driving to the limit of their cars performance on public roads.

I've been driving since 1970 and I can remember every example because they are so few.

I've done it myself on a few occasions and remember most of them.

My current Yeti is 60bhp (minimum) shy of my last few cars and significantly slower to 60-but I find it very rare that anyone out drags me-many go on to higher top speeds as their tolerance to points is greater. 0-60 is a measure which is rarely relevant on the road.

Very true, JCP.

Of course minimal differences in 0-60 times don't make any difference in real life!

Hmibennet is right about this and prodata in fact is wrong.

To see if I'm correct in this opinion just ask yourself when you last saw anyone driving to the limit of their cars performance on public roads.

I've been driving since 1970 and I can remember every example because they are so few.

I've done it myself on a few occasions and remember most of them.

My current Yeti is 60bhp (minimum) shy of my last few cars and significantly slower to 60-but I find it very rare that anyone out drags me-many go on to higher top speeds as their tolerance to points is greater. 0-60 is a measure which is rarely relevant on the road.

The argument is specious--the lady who is going to be driving it [on the school run for heavens sake!] will not, I would guess, be bothered/care or notice the lack of 30 horse power and certainly should not attempt to use all the available power in a 140 hp engine as a matter of routine driving.

Power outputs which are now being made available in family cars are for the most part a marketing ploy to extract more cash from the hapless motorist-- discuss

--I'm off to get my coat!

The argument is specious--the lady who is going to be driving it [on the school run for heavens sake!] will not, I would guess, be bothered/care or notice the lack of 30 horse power and certainly should not attempt to use all the available power in a 140 hp engine as a matter of routine driving.

Maybe she wouldn't but I most certainly WOULD mate! Remember, it'll be me that drives the car most weekends and a few week nights in between!

I do agree with the amount of power in a family car these days being more than adequate though. Here we are discussing the merits of an engine

producing 140ps vs one producing 170ps and talking about the former as though it were a slug. We'd all do well to remember that it wasn't so long ago that the PD 130 was considered hot hatch territory. Heck, VW even put a 115ps lump into a MkIV Golf once and then had the brass neck to call it a GTi!

The question I keep asking myself is why is 'Howser' buying a Yeti at all? If 30 BHP is so important then surely a more sports oriented vehicle with performance tuned chassis, suspension and road holding would be more suitable?

A Yeti is basically a compromise between supermini and offroader, great if that is what you want but certainly not a sports tuned vehicle.

Having watched vehicles being tested for their 0 - 60 times, I seriously doubt any on this forum would willingly abuse their own car like that once, let alone on a regular basis.

Published standing start times are a complete irrelevance to everyone.

The question I keep asking myself is why is 'Howser' buying a Yeti at all? If 30 BHP is so important then surely a more sports oriented vehicle with performance tuned chassis, suspension and road holding would be more suitable?

A Yeti is basically a compromise between supermini and offroader, great if that is what you want but certainly not a sports tuned vehicle.

The collective 'we' wanted a practical 4x4 family car to replace the Octavia vRS that had been my daily wheels for 5.5 years and the Yeti ticked all the boxes. My problem is that just about all my cars have been more sports orientated and this is what I've become accustomed to.

I know exactly what the Yeti is and what it isn't and a sports car it ain't. That doesn't mean to say that it should handle like an elephant on stilts, unlike some other so-called SUVs or crossovers I've test driven before deciding on the Yeti, but just by having a big engine doesn't mean it should either.

Just because a powerful engine is available, doesn't make the Yeti, or indeed any car, a sports vehicle. It's just what I've become used to and psychologically this makes the 140 sound like a step down from that. On the other hand, I do need to remember what we've bought the Yeti for and it's just something I'd get used to. I would argue though that if the 170 engine is so unnecessary in a car like this then why is it such a relatively popular option?

30ps isn't the be all and end all of the car but given the choice, the 170ps engine with DSG is what I would've chosen. As it isn't, it means I've had to make the best compromise and go for the 140 DSG combo instead. That's what this thread is all about i.e. which is the better choice, 140 DSG or 170 manual? Had the option to buy a 170 DSG been available then we wouldn't be having this conversation but it isn't and therefore a choice has to be made.

By the way, it's 'H0wz3r' not 'Howser' - there is a reason for it being spelt that way but it goes a long way back into my youth!

Having watched vehicles being tested for their 0 - 60 times, I seriously doubt any on this forum would willingly abuse their own car like that once, let alone on a regular basis.

Published standing start times are a complete irrelevance to everyone.

+1 over and over again!