This last weekend I met up with my brother in law for a run out and the 16 inch wheel question arose again. We tried out both his Greenline MY2011 model and my Elegance MY2013 model and we both agreed if anything my Elegance on 17" wheels actually felt more sure footed and actually smoother on the road than the 16" Greenline. I know there have been changes to the rear suspension on the latest models do you think this has finally put to rest the wheel size issues. My car in running on Dunlop SP tyres his is on newly replaced Michelin low rolling resistance tyres or is it the tyres that make the difference?

We all know what TP is going to say about the tyre issue but there's another dimension to the comparison you're making isn't there? I'm not an expert (anorak ), but doesn't the Greenline have a dfferent suspension/lower ground clearance than the rest of the range, and wouldn't that affect matters too?

16" wheels give more body wobble, as they allow more movement.

17" wheels do give a more planted/sure footed feel.

The argument for the 16" is purely comfort as far as I know, when the road surface is bad.

Which is why you get more wobble and body roll.

I was surprised how much more roll there was when I took my Mum's Greenline II in for it's service.

But it did rattle less over potholes. Easily explained by the tyre doing more of the work and passing less onto the suspension.

Yes, Greenline suspension is a little bit lower, but I don't think it's firmer.

Doesn't feel like it anyway.

Agree with BossFox, based on my experience of the GL II v's my test drives in "normal" yeti's.

Haven't had the chance to drive a standard Yeti on 16's so it might be somewhat different but i'd be surprised if made a huge difference.

Even though the GL II does roll a bit it is still surprisingly planted considering what it is.

Not as convinced about the tyres in the rain though.

What a difference an inch makes

Seriously though its all gobbledegook to me. Why does an inch less in tyre size make much difference...can someone explain in simple terms?

What a difference an inch makes

Seriously though its all gobbledegook to me. Why does an inch less in tyre size make much difference...can someone explain in simple terms?

The tyres and wheels have have almost the same radius/diameter on all Yetis.

So on 16" rims the tyres have more sidewall, due to the rims being smaller.

Hence more soft squishy tyre to deform when cornering, but also absorb bumps from potholes etc.. better.

With 17" rims there is more rim, so the tyres have small sidewalls = less give, less body roll, more tranmission of lumps and bumps to the car.

The Greenline runs 205/55/16 tyres.

Those who fitted the 16" wheels all run the larger, higher profile 215/60/16 tyres(as far as I know.)

In a perfect world that's what my next Yeti would be fitted with.......

However,as it will almost certainly be another Elegance,a nice set of Annapurnas will do nicely.

( Unless they fit Gobi leather to the FL L&K....)

Ah ok now I get it, cheers

See the attached image MarieK...

I prefer a car that sticks and does not wobble when I go around corners, to comfort in a straight line. In an emergency lane change, in a tall car like the Yeti, I know 100% which tyre I want underfoot and what behavior I think is safest.

The Greenline runs 205/55/16 tyres.

Those who fitted the 16" wheels all run the larger, higher profile 215/60/16 tyres(as far as I know.)

In a perfect world that's what my next Yeti would be fitted with.......

However,as it will almost certainly be another Elegance,a nice set of Annapurnas will do nicely.

( Unless they fit Gobi leather to the FL L&K....)

My winter wheels are the same 205/55/16 size as the Greenline. Slightly less ground clearance (half an inch) and the ride is slightly softer, but very little in it. I think there will be a bigger difference comparing the standard 17s with the 215/60/16s, as you get more sidewall and more flexibility.

...The argument for the 16" is purely comfort as far as I know, when the road surface is bad....

Don't forget the safety factor of the extra sidewall under impact, or the protection of those alloys!

....I prefer a car that sticks and does not wobble when I go around corners, to comfort in a straight line....

Possibly a bother under track conditions (!) but not really noticeable when 'making progress' out in the lanes, even though it's mostly corners!

....In an emergency lane change, in a tall car like the Yeti, I know 100% which tyre I want underfoot and what behavior I think is safest.

Which is quite right and proper for your average driving conditions. In my own average conditions, an emergency maneouver probably means wheels in the crumbling tarmac shoulder or up the bank on to the verge (if there is one).

To sum up, as before - each to his/her own. Put the lid back on the can!

I would be more attracted to the 16s for the greater choice and cheaper price of winter tyres than the standard 17s.

I don't corner very fast anymore and I avoid as many potholes as I can, it causes less pain to these old bones.

Fred

Fred

one other thing no mentions as to why the older yeti might not feel as planted is it is 2 years older, so the bushes in the suspension will have aged and got softer, also joints may have some play depending on how hard a life it has had

Run a 4x4 TDI Yeti a few thousand miles on most of the official tyre sizes; 205/55 R16, 215/60 R16 and 225/50 R17.

Each have their merits but I would tend to agree with Jon on the comparison he's discussing. The 205 (winter in my case) from my own experience is not as stable in cornering than either of the wider profile tyres and the 55 is not a great jump in profile over the 50 in terms of improving ride.

Comfort wise and socking up road imperfections is the 215/60's domain, sharper handling then the 17's but my own experience with this size was, as some reported at the time, not only poor in winter but jittery over poor surfaces. This however may in part be down to the early suspension design and settings on the first Monster, so it would be interesting to try a current one against my special build, which I consider to be the right balance between handling and comfort for my type and power output of Yeti.

TP

This however may in part be down to the early suspension design and settings on the first Monster, so it would be interesting to try a current one against my special build, which I consider to be the right balance between handling and comfort for my type and power output of Yeti.

Tim you would be welcome to have a run about in mine when we next have a meet, but I do not have the torque of yours or the 4 wheel drive, but you should get the feel. To clear up other comments, my brother in law's car although two years old has only done 23k miles so there will not be a lot of wear to make the handling seem inferior, which he commented on continually. It would be interesting to see if the changes in rear suspension (what are they) has improved the ride. No doubt with other members coming into their second cars now, we may here comments about this from them

Hi again Jon,

the rear suspension has only significantly changed on the 2wd with a switch in June 2010 from the fairly complex Tiguan rear subframe to a lighter and simpler 2wd Golf VI set-up. Would imagine there's been a few other tweaks with settings etc. otherwise the front subframe wishbones and bushes on all models has been the other big change but again that came in, in August 2010.

Think vehicle weight has a lot to do with things as well; our Fabia TSI runs sport suspension and crazy 17" rims with 205/40 tyres (what side wall ), however the ride is not to bad but the cars as light as a feather; even struggles to make winter tyres work properly due to that lack of weight over the driven wheels.

TP

When I was younger(!) I was involved in road testing of various sizes of tyres on a Rover P6 3.5 V8 and a Triumph 2.5 PI saloon. One of the interesting facts that emerged was that different drivers produced more variation in the elapsed time on the test route than did the profile of the tyres. The difference was more pronounced when the test route was wet. A case perhaps of more bottle than throttle

I prefer a car that sticks and does not wobble when I go around corners, to comfort in a straight line. In an emergency lane change, in a tall car like the Yeti, I know 100% which tyre I want underfoot and what behavior I think is safest.

As a q from an Octy owner do all yetis have ESP? It was certainly one thing I was dissapointed to find wasn't on my SE+ Octy II

As a q from an Octy owner do all yetis have ESP? It was certainly one thing I was dissapointed to find wasn't on my SE+ Octy II

Alarmingly no, For some (very wrong IMO) reason Skoda only fitted it as standard to the DSG, Elegance and Greenline models.

Which to me is just plain stupid.

It should have been standard through the range, especially considering the Yeti's extra height.

Obviously it's an optinal extra on the others.

Unfortunately as a "safety feature" that doesn't look good some people don't add it.

When I was younger(!) I was involved in road testing of various sizes of tyres on a Rover P6 3.5 V8 and a Triumph 2.5 PI saloon. One of the interesting facts that emerged was that different drivers produced more variation in the elapsed time on the test route than did the profile of the tyres. The difference was more pronounced when the test route was wet. A case perhaps of more bottle than throttle

Could that be because the different profile gives a different feel in terms of roll and comfort, but not a huge difference in grip?

The Greenline will go round corners about as fast as an Elegance, it just has more body roll.

That's why I never mentioned the level of grip in my earlier posts, too many variables and influenced by the actual tyre compound more than the sidewall.

Erm,

Reference to "emergency" lane changes above.

(i) Why?

(ii) How frequently?

(iii) What about the vehicles behind?

(Iv) Why not drive a lower more stable vehicle of choice?

(v) Why not leave sufficient room in front to anticipate, react and smoothly brake?, while staying in lane.

Regards,

Marcus

If every one drove like that then emergencies would never occur. My observations over the last few decades suggest that some people drive too fast and without any of the skill you exemplify. Some are driving to advanced standards as you describe. The great mass inn the middle are simply neither bad nor good and are sometimes barely in control as they either lack proficiency or are not concentrating so life is full of surprises for them which can present hazards to others.

Try riding a motor bike for a while-where hazard perception is all that stands between you and grave injury.You will then observe the things which may need emergency reaction or soon be hurt.

PS

I sought out ESP in our last 2 car purchases.

We only buy every 10 or 12 years, so not available before.

I also specify it for any work vehicles I am responsible for purchasing.

Much better value than any bling options or extras.

Boring fart arnt I.

As a q from an Octy owner do all yetis have ESP? It was certainly one thing I was dissapointed to find wasn't on my SE+ Octy II

Alarmingly no, For some (very wrong IMO) reason Skoda only fitted it as standard to the DSG, Elegance and Greenline models.

Which to me is just plain stupid.

It should have been standard through the range, especially considering the Yeti's extra height.

Obviously it's an optinal extra on the others.

Unfortunately as a "safety feature" that doesn't look good some people don't add it.

What?!? Really?!?

It IS standard through the range in these parts of Europe:

Edited 13 June, 201313 yr by Hirundo

Skoda UK define the specs of the models for sale in the UK.

They didn't make it standard across the whole range.

Daft.

For example, buy an SE and you have to tick this box.

ESC Inc. ABS, EBD, EBC, ASR, EDL, HBA, DSR, ESBS (standard on 4x4, DSG and GreenLine II) £420.00