I've been driving the Yeti for 2 days and just got in our 14 plate Fabia Monte 1.6 tdi 105 - what a huge difference. Clutch on the ceiling, steering heavy and no brakes ! The Montes only done 2800 miles. Quite a shock.

Can you explain please, confused, where you driving a new 1.6 TDI 105 ps Yeti and went back into your Fabia which feels terrible in comparison.

Or what Yeti were you driving.?

What sort of price difference on the 2 vehicles?

Traded wife's Fabia Elegance 1.6 tdi 105 for the Yeti 2.0 tdi 110. I used the new car for 2 days and then drove my own car a Fabia Monte Carlo 1.6 tdi 105.

I've got a 1.2Tsi Yeti and my wife has a 1.4 tdi Fabia. I agree about the clutch the biting point is very high which I assumed was because its on its way out but 60K on its still fine. Every time I drive the Fabia I'm impressed. It feels lively, light and has loads of character the brakes are also good. Have you come from a high power Yeti?

Apart from it being lower which was the reason going for our Yeti my 10 year old 1.4 16v Fabia Elegance estate is still a very good drive with light clutch, steering and very effective brakes.
It also manages about 46 mpg.

Chalk & Cheese.

The Yeti is so much more of a car, compared to the Fabia Monte Carlo.

But It’s also a lot more money, so one should feel a difference.

 

The Fabia was a Driver’s car, I liked it a lot, but SWMBO didn’t get on too well with it.

She much prefers the Yeti, as I do now, The Greeline 1.6 has proved to be very economical and a very comfortable ride.

 

I have now started to think about the new (Greenline) 2 Ltr 110  (Euro 6) as they say it’s more frugal....But I have noticed on the Configurator it now comes with 17" wheels.

I was under the impression 16" wheels were more Economical??...

 

No, larger wheels are more economical

I think the original greenlines 205 55 16 tyres were more economical because they lowered the car a bit more. Does the new greenline have more than the old 20mm suspension drop?

No, larger wheels are more economical

 

Disagree with that - larger diameter rims are usually less economical. The bulk of the rim weight is further from the centre of rotation, therefore they take more effort to accelerate (and also decelerate).

^^^plus wider (lower profile) tyre section increases aero drag.

Now is it not the case that narrower tyres on the road surface are more economical. and ECO tyres with less grip / friction / traction 

are more economical.

 

And the size of the Wheel in the centre of a tyre the same width makes very little difference where the Total Diameter / Rollinng Circumference is the same.

 

The Volkswagen Group can defy science.

4 Sister Car.

3 on 215 / 40 R 17 tyres, all 3 with a minimum 180 PS. all 3 heavier. VW, Audi, Seat

the 4th car is a Skoda, same engine, same gearbox. same wheels, lightest of the 4 even with 25kg added to the rear crash bar,

yet it is a VED Class higher, given a higher C02 g/km figure with Skoda Testing, and higher fuel consumption figures

of the 4 cars / 5 if you include the Skoda Estate version, 9 3/4" longer but lighter than the hatch according to official figures.

(was it Volkswagen Fiddling of figures, or the Gearing of the DSG,?

but put 215 tyres on the Skoda and it gets the same Economy.)

 

http://kouki.co.uk/utilities/visual-tyre-size-calculator

Edited 15 June, 201511 yr by goneoffSKi

This un-scientific test seems to show that generally increasing the wheel diameter while keeping the tyre circumference and width constant results in a worsening of MPG: (note the 17x8" 18x8" results)

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/effects-of-upsized-wheels-and-tires-tested

 

Jim

Very unscientific, plenty of numbers.

I like to see how the 225/40 R 18 measure stood next to the 225/45 R 17,  because they might side by side be identical total diameter, or physically not no matter what the scores on the doors says.

 

I have plenty examples of tyres here where 215 /40 R17 Winter Tyres are actually Narrower and Smaller than 205/40 R 17 tyres.

The measurement being the Tyre wall to wall and not tread width.

Edited 15 June, 201511 yr by goneoffSKi

This topic seems to have drifted some way from where it started but in terms of tyre economy I've just priced up at MyTyres a set of the new Michelin Cross Climates for the standard 17" Yeti wheel and for my (Special Build) 16" Moon alloys. (I chose these as I'm thinking about them for my next tyres but also as new tyres to the market they are directly comparable).

 

225/50/17 - £518.40

215/60/16 - £446.40

 

Assuming no difference in working life that's a saving of £72 (about a tank of fuel) over the life of the tyres. It also means that wider, lower profile tyres have to be proven to give better mpg than the narrower, higher profile equivalent to even break even. 

^^^ I guess it comes down to your particular priority; performance or economy.

Agreed it's each to their own but the discussion stemmed from Carlodiesel's post #6 "I have now started to think about the new (Greenline) 2 Ltr 110  (Euro 6) as they say it’s more frugal....But I have noticed on the Configurator it now comes with 17" wheels. I was under the impression 16" wheels were more Economical??" I was just making the point that "economical" is more than just mpg.

Yes economic is not just 20 miles per tank more from one vehicle over another.

 

There is your fuel costs annually obviously,

but then the Purchase price, Service & Maintenance costs, replacement parts costs such as tyres say over 6 years.

VED, Insurance etc etc.

Do you use the same tyres all year or have a change for the seasons, 

its all about Location, Location Locations and what suits you needs or wants or your idea of what looks good usually.

 

You pays your money and make your choices, a new Yeti at the same price as a MK2 Fabia might be a more comfortable car 

and not far off on the economy, but if it does not fit in your garage door then you either forget it, or leave it outside.

 

Fuel saving tyres / wheels are fair enough, but some ECO tyres manufacturers fit as OEM are just Ditch Finders in the wet or cold 

and either last for ever or some wear out, or you change them because they are crap, and that is not Green or Economic.

If the mass production of graphene can be overcome, nothing will be as we know it now.

It will be exciting but destructive technology affecting practically everything you see now.

My next car will almost certainly be battery powered with no expensive engine/transmission to maintain plus all the other benefits.

Technology combined with reduced unit costs is already destroying second hand value; even more of a throw away world.

Current fuel economy is a minor matter compared to the future.

We have recently ordered an Octavia SEL.

The original spec was with 17" wheels.

As a "special build" yeti owner I contacted SUK seeking a change to 16's for the new car.

You can have a S or SE with 16's but not an SEL.

A couple of days after contacting them. I had a phone call from SUK, telling me they were just about to change the SEL spec so that it could be fitted with 16's if the customer wanted.

The reason being that the size of wheel/tyre combination was now a factor in determining VED levels.

By fitting the smaller wheel on our car we have dropped down one band from £30 p/a to £20.

Apparently we are also supposed to get better consumption figures.

So it would appear that the more metal you have the more it's going to cost in VED.

Perhaps it's a plan to get a bit more money out of the likes of Mr Rooney and his chums who drive around on wheels the size of stage coach ones!!!!

You know that is a load of crap, 

as i posted after another post where you mentioned that, they test the vehicles them selves and submit their results, 

co/2 km, and weight as tested. One example of the model, basic with no options fitted that a car might be delivered with fitted.

 

They sell a Economic car and say it can not have a 20kg spare wheel as an option, 

then somebody puts a spare wheel in anyway, fills the car up with passengers and luggage, maybe fits a towbar, and roof bars 

and a roof box. 

Maybe even tows with the towbar, or uses a Bike Rack and carries bikes.

Edited 16 June, 201511 yr by goneoffSKi

My last car had different tax rates, for the same model on different wheels. A big difference, £290 per year, instead of £490! Yet I had quite a long search to find one (second hand) with the options I wanted, on the unfashionably cheaper wheels. It was also the comfort on poor roads I was after.

George

 

it may be cr@p but it is what SUK were saying. I have ordered a 1.4 SEL estate. The 1.4 SE estate was listed as 119g CO2 (Band C) and the SEL as 121g CO2 (band D). The difference being the 17 inch wheels on the SEL. I was too late to switch to 16 inch wheels but guess what? Skoda UK have now agreed that both cars emit 119g and are therefore band C. 

 

In short Vegit8 was right but so are you 

Volkswagen Group Manufacturers keep doing this with vehicles with the same engines, drivetrain and components.

Sometimes the Premium Brand Model is tested and the results submitted and they go to the lowered VED in the UK.

They have done it with Roomsters and Fabias and no doubt with other Skoda Models.

They have Face Lifted Models from Seat and changed the VED to a lower VED while the Facelifted Skoda has the Same new 

engine, is lighter and they do not change the EU Test Results and do not reduce the Emissions figure so the VED stays the same.

Kidology.

Vorsprung Durch Technik

 

PS

re post #21.

My 2003 Volvo is £290 VED,

a 6 month newer one with the same engine has been given as lower Emissions has the £490 VED.

(My car has a newer bigger engine in now, same £290 VED though.  *£315 on Monthly DD to the DVLA)

It also sits on the Wider Tyres the same as those that were an Option on the Different Models.

 

As to the Skodas and Wheels, good to buy the car as it comes with the wheels that has the lower VED.

Because you undo 20 Bolts and those new wheels / tyres can be sold, 

and maybe an extra £200 maybe less has the Wheels / Tyres you want on the car, and the VED 

does not change, the Insurance Company need telling if it came on Steel Wheels and you are fitting Alloys,

but none of it is difficult or even that expensive. Maybe cheaper than Skoda UK Options

or where they do not offer or allow the option.

Skoda : Simply Clever. or just Simply Difficult.

Edited 17 June, 201511 yr by goneoffSKi

The clutch biting point is interesting. I had my Roomster serviced and had a Yeti as a courtesy car. Going back to the Roomster I found the clutch biting point to be at the top of its travel (been like it since new) compared with the Yeti. Also the steering on the Roomster is heavier compared to the Yeti so much so that I went into the dealer's reception to complain. They said the models vary in clutch pedal biting point and mine was normal.

^^^^ sounds like 'the brush off' to me.