Hi Everyone

 

As I've mentioned when introducing myself I'm seriously looking at getting a Yeti.

 

3 to 4 years old (I like the big round lights!) and I want the 2.0 litre diesel.

 

I don't really want/need 4x4 but am I right in thinking that the 2WD ones only come in a fairly basic spec?

 

Would like a higher spec. really so if needs be will go for 4x4.

 

What are they like for fuel consumption and tyre life? Are they permanent 4WD?

 

Thanks.

Hi VAGCF - welcome!

 

Like you, I didn't want 4x4 and didn't think I needed it so bought a 2WD 110.

 

It only took a few weeks before I'd traded it for a 170 4WD in the exact same SE plus spec.

 

The 2WD 110 was a little more economical but the brakes were poor, and even with 110bhp I found myself struggling for grip exiting wet roundabouts.

 

The 170 4WD has much better brakes and none of the traction problems - remember, 4WD is not just for farmers! Those that say that there's no need for 4WD if you don't go off road have never had a tall car with a big torquey diesel engine ;-)

 

Not sure about tyre life yet, and I've not stopped smiling long enough to worry about consumption.

 

As I've mentioned before though, my main gripe with the 110 was not the trim, the power, the traction but the brakes.

 

Have fun test driving and enjoy; they're a hoot!

The Haldex clutch used in the 4x4 stops the wheel spinning, so if anything tyre life is longer - certainly if I compare it to the 2WD diesel Octy I had before. I've done around 15K in two years on the original Dunlop SP01 tyres (plus another 12K on winter tyres) and they are down to around 5mm.

 

If I remember correctly only around 5% of the power goes to the rear wheels in normal driving, but up to 90% can be directed to them if they're the ones with the grip.

 

You'll get different figures for mpg. I'm at the low end with 41 average (lots of short trips) but others here are getting mid to upper 40s out of the 140 & 170 diesels. That's for manuals - the DSG models will be a few mpg lower.

The only trim level not available in the 2WD pre-FL Yeti was the very top level Laurin & Klement.

 

Engine options only go up to the 2.0 litre 110 PS diesel in 2WD form whereas the 4WD get the 160PS 1.8TSI petrol and the 140 & 170 PS 2.0 litre diesels.

 

As Gyp has suggested, unless fuel economy is vital, the 4WD versions give much better traction on the road especially in the wet.

 

The 4WD is permanent but automatically controlled so that most of the time it's something like a 90/10 front/rear split but will change almost instantaneously if a wheel starts slipping.

 

My 2.0 litre 140 PS DSG is currently getting low 40's mpg but it's not being used daily and mainly short trips. I try to give it a reasonable run up the dual carriageway weekly.

IMO the higher the trim level the better. The xenon lights are just magnificent far better than any halogen set up. The completely automatic 4wd is proof against wheelspin and means the yeti will go anywhere normal driving may demand.

the 110 has poor brakes and is generally less able. I've had a 140 which was economical enough-and a 1.8 which is livelier and better suited to my low mileage/ short run use. The extras are much better value if bought as elegance/L&K packages but if someone else has indulged themselves when ordering an SE you could do well. The panoramic roof is great.

40 mpg is what I get out of my 2010 2ltr SE 4x4.

Fuel consumption averages across different people can be a bit misleading as there are too many variables, from the type of journey, the time of day, right down to the driver's methods.

 

In the nearly 80k I've had my 140bhp 4x4 my average is just over 46 mpg, mostly on typical cross country Welsh A roads on a 48 mile each way commute to work, but also including journeys across the UK and France towing a caravan, plus a fair bit of low gear off-road use. I do drive defensively but at a reasonable pace.

 

I fit my tyres in pairs, as the front ones wear out first, so then swop the rears to the front so the new ones always go on the back and think I have bought 8 tyres in total. Since getting rid of the Goodyears the Yeti came on I have always used Kumho's. 

My 110 BHP has adequate brakes, no noticeable traction issues in the wet and has averaged ~46mpg over the last 37K miles.

 

Spec is reasonable on my Urban - satnav, DAB, rear park assist, bluetooth etc.

 

I run winters on 16" rims in the winter and have yet to miss 4WD.

 

The rear tyres are currently at 4mm and the fronts down to just over 2mm (Dunlop SP01) since June 2012 (I run winter tyres late Nov- early March).

 

My old 4WD Mark I Octavia appeared to wear all its tyres down at the same time - I never really understood this as Haldex 4WD runs in FWD most of the time.

I agree with Pink Panther.

I have just had the 110 2wd FL Elegance for two weeks, have covered 1200 miles on a trip to Devon, and averaged 57.5 mpg.

My last two cars were VW Tiguans with 4x4 and 140 bhp, and so far I can't tell much of a difference in terms of traction or power. The Tiguan was a little quieter but that was about it, apart from an average of 41mpg.

Early days I know but I think a lot of people think more power is essential but in truth there is a lot more to making a pleasant car.

I agree with Pink Panther.

I have just had the 110 2wd FL Elegance for two weeks, have covered 1200 miles on a trip to Devon, and averaged 57.5 mpg.

My last two cars were VW Tiguans with 4x4 and 140 bhp, and so far I can't tell much of a difference in terms of traction or power. The Tiguan was a little quieter but that was about it, apart from an average of 41mpg.

Early days I know but I think a lot of people think more power is essential but in truth there is a lot more to making a pleasant car.

 

To be perfectly honest, if my 110 had had better brakes, I'd not have bothered changing for the 170. The cost of up-rating the brakes on the 110 to be the same as the 140 or 170 was prohibitive, especially as my insurance company said they would no longer insure the car as it would be "modified".

 

The 110 engine is powerful enough for the size of car, and the 170 engine doesn't turn it into a sports car. The 2WD drivetrain is smoother in day to day use than the 4WD, and the 110 engine doesn't trouble the traction control that often unless you're driving in a spirited manner.

 

It's just that a few times I found myself pushing the brake pedal quite hard and not slowing down as much as I'd like; the brake performance was nowhere near as good on the ones as my Octavia Greenline that I had before.

My old 110bhp which went on Tuesday was economical, averaged about 50mpg, (55 on the maxi dot) over the last 10k.

 

It had really good brakes and could certainly stop faster than I was expecting in several emergencies over the years.

 

Handling was great, like a litle go cart at times, really good for a high sided car.

 

Comfortable with the Elegance spec, leather seats etc.

 

Yes I would have liked 4wd, but that had too high a CO2 to be worthwile under the conpany car tax rules, and it would have done a lot less mpg.

 

The car was great in the type of off roading I did for work, ie rough but not too steep or muddy, just needed the ground clearance.

 

The only time it was poor was in snow. The wide low profile tyres just spun on top and would not cut in and get perchase. However that was about 2 weeks of issues in 4 years and probably not best to be out on the road in those conditions anyway.

 

Conversely the tye life was excellant. At 61k went it went the front tyres wer nearly new having lasted about 29k each time, and the rear tyres were original with a little tread left. This is the best tyre life I have ever had. (Worst was a mondeo where the front tyres were worn out after 11k!)

 

In nearly 40 years of driving I have previously never had the same car twice in a row, and rarely even the same make. I have now had a Skoda superb, then the last Yeti, and have just replaced it with a Yeti greenline this week. 

My 110 BHP has adequate brakes,

Yes, I agree, I have never felt that the brakes on my 110 were inadequate.

I have never noticed any fade or lack of power in stopping, not like some of the faster cars I have had in the past - particularly the Ford Capri 2.8i which would run out of brakes by the time you got down to about 40mph.  Harder brake pads did help the Capri.

Yes, I agree, I have never felt that the brakes on my 110 were inadequate.

I have never noticed any fade or lack of power in stopping, not like some of the faster cars I have had in the past - particularly the Ford Capri 2.8i which would run out of brakes by the time you got down to about 40mph.  Harder brake pads did help the Capri.

I never had any problems with the brakes on my 2wd 110, even when towing, common sense was applied.  

 

Fred

I never had any problems with the brakes on my 2wd 110, even when towing, common sense was applied.  

 

Fred

Along with the foot on the relevant pedal I hope .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK OK I know were the corner is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   it here  :beer:

Its a long time since i last had a car with brakes which required me to make allowances for them. On bikes and cars i have got used to the notion that the limits are mine, not the vehicles I expect I have become more experienced and more able to drive around limitations but if I ever misjudge or am confronted with someone else's misjudgement I am happier with better capacity.

Thanks for all the replies, great to have such a thriving Yeti community on here.

 

The amount and breath of views and advice given is very useful and certainly food for thought. 

 

I'd never given wheel spin much of a thought given that I've had three of the VAG's finest 2.0 litre tdi's, two 140bhp Passats and a 177bhp A6, all front wheel drive and never had a problem. Then again I've got a gentle right foot but having said that I've just bought a TT so I will have to see how that goes!!

 

The brakes are a concern and a surprise (as mentioned by some) but then again I'm currently using an old Fiat Stilo which doesn't have the best brakes in the world and again I'm pretty gentle so that shouldn't be a problem either. I'm sure that when required, the power will be summoned in my right leg!! 

 

Given that I'm going to be commuting three days a week, 20 miles each way and general dodging about I'm sure that the 2WD, 110bhp version will be the best bet for me, especially as it is a second car. With that in mind as well I didn't want to spend too much money and thought the 2WD would suit my budget better of around 12k. and a max. mileage of around 35k.

 

Having looked at cars on Autotrader I've pretty much worked out the hierarchy of models i.e. S, SE, SE Plus and Elegance (I think SE to Elegance will form the basis of my choice) but where does E fit into this? The ones I've seen seem to be at the lower end of the spec. range.

 

Thanks again for all the very useful advice and I look forward to becoming an owner.

I'm sure the 2wd 110 will be just fine.

The E sat lower than the S in the hierarchy. There are very few of them about, though I rather like the simplicity of them

Nobody seems to have covered fuel consumption yet.....

 

I get 42+mpg....with the highest figure I've managed is 48mpg.

 

Very respectable for the Yeti I think.  :yes:

I don't think they sold many E's, so you are unlikely to find one. Those that were made are more likely to be company vehicles.

 

My colleague at work wanted the lowest cost lease Yeti in around 2010, and he opted for the E.

 

It was one of the first actually ordered and delivered to uk in that Spec, and I gather was an extremely rare car.  When he wrote it off 2 years later he replaced with a higher spec Yeti, so it must have seemed really stripped out for him to pay the extra money! I seem to recall that the number of E's actually made was less than 100 vehicles, and its main purpose was to sit in the brochure as an option  so that those buying an S model thought they were getting something better than the basic car!

 

Just having a depression in the top of the dash instead of a useful storage compartment with a cover over seemed to me a sign of a really stripped out vehicle. What would the extra cover cost in bulk, £1/car?

 

 

I'd never given wheel spin much of a thought given that I've had three of the VAG's finest 2.0 litre tdi's, two 140bhp Passats and a 177bhp A6, all front wheel drive and never had a problem. Then again I've got a gentle right foot but having said that I've just bought a TT so I will have to see how that goes!!

 

The brakes are a concern and a surprise (as mentioned by some) but then again I'm currently using an old Fiat Stilo which doesn't have the best brakes in the world and again I'm pretty gentle so that shouldn't be a problem either. I'm sure that when required, the power will be summoned in my right leg!! 

 

 

 

I've had similar cars before - two Passat TDI estates. 

I generally notice the extra grip when pulling out of side roads in the wet. With fwd, sometimes if the road is greasy and/or you're in a bit of a hurry to pull out, the inner front wheel will spin a bit, resulting in an unnerving pause before you get moving.

With the 4wd, there's none of that. At all. Just bam, off you go. I'm definitely a 4wd convert now.

 

With regards to the brakes.

 

Does the 110 have 288mm brakes as standard ?

Both my Passat estates had that size, and I guess were a similar weight to the Yeti.

They'll be fine for pottering about, but on my Passats they didn't inspire confidence at all when braking from speed, or if you've got any extra weight in the car.

I felt they were under-specced for the car weight.

If you like to "press on", or regularly drive at higher speed and/or carry/tow heavy loads, then the larger brake size will give you much more confidence.

In fact, I'd say the 288->312mm brake upgrade on those cars more more of a satisfying upgrade than the subsequent remaps - but unlike the Yeti, it was a simple upgrade, just requiring different caliper brackets, and a larger pair of discs.

I don't think they sold many E's, so you are unlikely to find one. Those that were made are more likely to be company vehicles.

 

My colleague at work wanted the lowest cost lease Yeti in around 2010, and he opted for the E.

 

It was one of the first actually ordered and delivered to uk in that Spec, and I gather was an extremely rare car.  When he wrote it off 2 years later he replaced with a higher spec Yeti, so it must have seemed really stripped out for him to pay the extra money! I seem to recall that the number of E's actually made was less than 100 vehicles, and its main purpose was to sit in the brochure as an option  so that those buying an S model thought they were getting something better than the basic car!

 

Just having a depression in the top of the dash instead of a useful storage compartment with a cover over seemed to me a sign of a really stripped out vehicle. What would the extra cover cost in bulk, £1/car?

 

Funnily enough one of the Yetis at my local dealer (Listers Skoda) is E spec. and being a 2011 with only 9887 miles and a tow-bar (I have a trailer) and at £11995 would fit my needs nicely. But I guess that even though a low mileage the low spec. makes it unattractive and maybe over-priced? 

 

The down-side for me is the colour. Not that I don't like red it's just that my TT is metallic orange (looks far better than it sounds!) and the clash in the drive would be horrible!!

 

Must admit, having just read the posts on paint damage, whether a Yeti is in fact the one to go for as I intend keeping it for a few years? I assume though if it still appears fine after 3 years (about the age I'm looking at) it is probably OK?

VAGCF, 

Please can you put your answers below the quote box, not inside it? I had to go back to the original post to see where your reply started

Yep, sorry, I usually do, don't know what happened there?

I don't think they sold many E's, so you are unlikely to find one. Those that were made are more likely to be company vehicles.

 

My colleague at work wanted the lowest cost lease Yeti in around 2010, and he opted for the E.

 

It was one of the first actually ordered and delivered to uk in that Spec, and I gather was an extremely rare car.  When he wrote it off 2 years later he replaced with a higher spec Yeti, so it must have seemed really stripped out for him to pay the extra money! I seem to recall that the number of E's actually made was less than 100 vehicles, and its main purpose was to sit in the brochure as an option  so that those buying an S model thought they were getting something better than the basic car!

 

Just having a depression in the top of the dash instead of a useful storage compartment with a cover over seemed to me a sign of a really stripped out vehicle. What would the extra cover cost in bulk, £1/car?

 

Funnily enough one of the Yetis at my local dealer (Listers Skoda) is E spec. and being a 2011 with only 9887 miles and a tow-bar (I have a trailer) and at £11995 would fit my needs nicely. But I guess that even though a low mileage the low spec. makes it unattractive and maybe over-priced? 

 

The down-side for me is the colour. Not that I don't like red it's just that my TT is metallic orange (looks far better than it sounds!) and the clash in the drive would be horrible!!

 

Must admit, having just read the posts on paint damage, whether a Yeti is in fact the one to go for as I intend keeping it for a few years? I assume though if it still appears fine after 3 years (about the age I'm looking at) it is probably OK?

Re paint damage.

Remember that typically on a car forum you will only generally hear from people who have a problem with their car and not from the thousands of satisfied customers. Therefore you get a very biased opinion. 

It does appear that there might be a small problem with these zinc inclusions but from most of the reports on here it does appear to be mainly on the metallic finished cars and interestingly a lot are at the brown end of the spectrum.

It certainly won't stop me buying another Yeti.