I thought the Yeti was based on the Tiguan floor pan and drive train,

but apparently not, so where has it evolved from.

Golf I believe and I am sure it does share parts from the Tiguan too and probably most other VAG group cars are in there too.

It's a previous generation Golf.

It was on the A5 platform, which is shared by many from the VAG family in various guises.

Nice big list here on Wiki:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_A_platform#A5_.28PQ35.29

Surprising how many cars share the same basic platform.

Wow hadn't realised that one chassis was so well used

Sent from my Galaxy S5

I think the official line is/was that the Yeti was developed from the last Octavia Scout, which itself was Golf based.

VW Golf, eh!

Thank you very much gentlemen, if anyone comes up with

a complete list of VW donors to the Yeti that would be interesting.

I seem to recall reading that it has a Polo (Fabia) front sub frame which is why it has a better turning circle than the Tiguan :sun:

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/index.php?/topic/187308-A-Guide-to-Yeti-DNA,-MY10-&-11

The only real downside of the parts bin approach used on the yeti, and it is a big downside, is the unneccesarily poor bootspace, forcing people like me who need as much space as possible to not spec a spare wheel and boot floor. The spare wheel well should be lower but it isn't because they just used the haldex 1k floorpan. Real shame in my opinion.

If the boot floor was lower it would have reduced the ground clearance and the departure angle, both defeating the object of building a part-time off-road vehicle.

I can't agree with that. The spare wheel well could have been usefully lower without any impact on the departure angle.

 

Just had a look on mine out of interest and there's a huge amount of wasted space beneath the wheel well where you'd have

 

 

on a 4wd model. So it's certainly true to say that it would have been very easy to give 2wd cars more boot space. And I wouldn't mind a bet with a bit more development work something could have been done to improve on the 4wds without compromising ground clearance. Look at it this way - how likely is it that the solution representing path of least resistance and cost, i.e. taking the 1k floor pan unmodified, is the also the best solution?

Edited 13 July, 201411 yr by Nick P

Simplest answer would have been a bit more rear overhang and longer boot, cf. Fabia Estate, SEAT Altea XL.  Departure Angle would still have been OK, and would have worked for 2WD and 4WD.

Liked the Haldex pic! Makes me feel happy to know I've got all that juicy technology driving my rear wheels when necessary! 

Edited 15 July, 201411 yr by Horacecoker

I thought the Yeti was based on the Tiguan floor pan and drive train,

but apparently not, so where has it evolved from.

900000 will be along soon, but it is based on several vehicles including Polo, Golf, & Tiguan if I remember correctly.

Sorry what Polo bits? People keep saying this. I think they're thinking of a Roomster.

Ask 900000 he knows.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's mostly mk5 Golf I believe.

 

Boot size is fine.

Yeti is 4.2m long (ideal for us) and the boot is bigger and far more useful than a 4m long Fabia or Fiesta.

Those criticising the boot space tend to come from bigger cars (Octavia?) which is understandable to a degree.  But the Octavia is a longer car... which wouldn't fit in our garage.

If you want a bigger boot, I believe you buy a VW Tiguan or something else.

It's mostly mk5 Golf I believe.

 

Boot size is fine.

Yeti is 4.2m long (ideal for us) and the boot is bigger and far more useful than a 4m long Fabia or Fiesta.

Those criticising the boot space tend to come from bigger cars (Octavia?) which is understandable to a degree.  But the Octavia is a longer car... which wouldn't fit in our garage.

If you want a bigger boot, I believe you buy a VW Tiguan or something else.

That says it all really.  

 

Fred

Just to round this off, the Yeti is built on the VAG PQ35 floorplan.  The first cars to be built on this were the Golf V, Audi A3 and Touran in 2003.  In chronological order, by year, it was then:

 

Toledo, Octavia, Altea, Caddy

Golf+, Jetta, Leon

Eos, S3,  TT

Tiguan

Golf VI, Scirocco

Yeti

Octy Tour, Alhambra, Sharan

Beetle, Golf cabriolet, Leon hybrid, Octy Greenline, Q3, e-Altea XL

Macan, RS Q3

Proposed TTQ

 

The only reason you'd say it was "based on a Golf" is that the Golf was first, and most common, to use the platform.  You could equally say it is based on an A3 or Touran, or any model that preceded it.  In truth it isn't "based on" those cars, it just shares a common underpinning and some other assemblies.

A Macan is not PQ35.

Ask 900000 he knows.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would have just posted the link Nick P posted.  

 

Which I would have thought, explained pretty clearly that a Yeti is a bas£ard child of MANY bits and is NOT based on a singular platform.  And even then a "platform" these days is not as you had had with a Ford Model T, a ladder frame chassis with bits of suspension and an engine hanging from it. All modern cars (bar a few wooden chassis Morgans and most pick-up trucks) have a monocoque chassis WITHIN which you can tinker and fit whatever bits you like. To make lay people understand these things and get the marketing people excited, they call some of these "combinations" of parts a "platform" yes. But that is all just marketing hype. Most cars are made up like a Yeti. From whatever parts suited the purpose best, to make a specific car.

The wood in Morgans isn't the chassis, it's the frame on which the body panels sit. The chassis is metal (IIRC steel in the classic models and aluminium in the Aeros).

The wood in Morgans isn't the chassis, it's the frame on which the body panels sit. The chassis is metal (IIRC steel in the classic models and aluminium in the Aeros).

 

I stand corrected then! But then I was not born yet for decades when Morgan first started making a chassis that way. So I guess it's ok that I didn't know.