Has anyone tried the new 150 TDi yet?

[Llanigraham]

Yes it may feel "quick", that I do not argue with, but experience of far too many years says that most people wouldn't know how long 0.8 seconds is, and is therefore meaningless.

[prodata]

Yes it may feel "quick", that I do not argue with, but experience of far too many years says that most people wouldn't know how long 0.8 seconds is, and is therefore meaningless.

The point of the 0-60 time is surely that it provides a standard benchmark by which you can compare performance between models. Few of us will ever bother to do 0-60 in the absolute minimum time, but there will be a correlation between 0-60 and eg 40-60. OK of course it's not exactly the same thing but few cars with a faster 0-60 won't also have a (roughly) equivalent faster 40-60 time. A 0.8 sec 0-60 is about 10% faster and so this will translate approximately into an overtaking urge that's at least 10% greater - a difference that is definitely perceptible and potentially helpful for safe overtakes.

[clv101]

Haven't tried the 170 Yeti. My 150 TDI replaced a Mk1 Fabia VRS and the performance is similar. Yesterday I did 180 mile motorway trip, 60.0 mpg on maxidot, happy with that.

[Jimrod]

Haven't tried the 170 Yeti. My 150 TDI replaced a Mk1 Fabia VRS and the performance is similar. Yesterday I did 180 mile motorway trip, 60.0 mpg on maxidot, happy with that.

 

That's pretty good going! I know I'll drop a bit for the DSG but I've missed it since changing my Scirocco for a Seat Exeo...

I've had a look at the government figures for all versions of the 140/170/150 2.0 tdi and it's interesting to see the big gains on the new 150 are in the "Urban" figures - the older versions are all around 37mpg urban while the new unit shows 44mpg+ with the 4x4 DSG. While that's no-doubt thanks to Stop/Start fudgery it does give a bit of confidence as those base figures are generally nearer what you'll see in daily use.

 

My Exeo says 37 urban and 67(!) extra urban - in reality on my 13 mile commute which is 2/3rds dual carriageway I see around 40-42mpg at best. If the Yeti can do better I'll be happy enough, I'm guessing with the brick-like aerodynamics I'll have to stick religiously to the 70mph limit though! 

[clv101]

My impression is that over 60mph, efficiency drops a lot, more than on more 'normal' cars.

[lfc958]

Dont let the 'Brown ' interior put you off, the pics do not do it any justice, I wasn't sure when i was looking to order, but saw one in a local dealer & it certainly did not put me off, & have not had any derogatory comments from passengers about it.

 

I personally think that 0-60 times are for those that want to race away from lights & replace tyres every 6 months, for day to day use, the most useful info is 30-50, or 50-70 for overtaking. 

Even the mpg figures quoted are not exactly reliable.

 

Engines now are being completely strangled,due to emissions constraints, My PD lump in my Fabia vRS, had same tourque as the FL2 Octy vrs, but the octy felt lame & gutless,  Our MX5 is a 1,8 normally aspirated petrol engine, Yeti turbo 1.8 petrol,  the engine in the 5 feels a lot better, more punchy. Everything is down to economy & emissions, it has taken away all the fun out of driving. :(

When it come to having to get rid of the yeti ( eventually) I personally think we will be better buying a pedal car  

[VAGCF]

I currently drive the 140 4x4 and when I replace it, it will (probably) be with the 150 4x4. Probably won't even bother going for a test drive since I know it will be adequate for my needs. I gave up performance car driving long ago.

 

As for the 0.8 second difference in 0 - 60 times, they are meaningless to the majority of users. Very few people actually use that type of acceleration and, as said previously, most people couldn't measure 0.8 seconds. To be honest I am much more interested in the 40 to 60 time as that is what I seem to use more than anything, and in 4th the 140 is more than adequate, and can easily embarrass other cars. 

 

If you're sticking with a Yeti you won't have any choice though will you! Assuming you won't be considering the 110PS.

 

And you'd better not leave it too long or else the current shape will have been dropped!

Edited 15 September, 2015 by VAGCF

[Ryeman]

Yeah I'm sure it's the same engine, I think all the VW diesels are a little "meh", a bit bland really (the boss's new 3.0d BMW 5-Series is lovely! ). But most other new affordable crossover-type cars seem to be being fitted with ever lower powered engines sadly. The adblue thing is bugging, knowing it's a stopgap measure that probably won't exist a year or two from now is frustrating!

You could put a 'box' on a 140 and get your 170 comfortably.

My 'economy' box is very noticeably more powerful but I'm not sure it's more economical.

[Jimrod]

You could put a 'box' on a 140 and get your 170 comfortably.

My 'economy' box is very noticeably more powerful but I'm not sure it's more economical.

 

I had a remapped Fiat Grande Punto (up to 184bhp and 295lb/ft) and that was probably the fastest car I've owned, more oomph than my subsequent BMW 530i and 2.0tsi Scirocco for sure - it could slam you back in your seat if you put your foot down at 70mph! (not that you would of course ) accompanied by a fair amount of black smoke sadly! But as a lease car I'd be pretty dubious of modding it even though I've got a Bluefin place about 10 mins away.

 

LFC's right that the modern diesels lack a bit of "grunt" but it's more in the method than the emissions - the PD diesels (like my Punto) could really punch hard but the more modern Common Rail units tend to be about smoother delivery, I can't say I really like the 170 in my Seat but it felt a bit nicer with the DSG box in the Yeti I thought. The lack of power low down was my issue, those PD diesels seemed to be able to pull you around a roundabout at 15mph in 4th but the CR engines seem gutless at low revs.

 

 

One thing going for the new 150 tdi - even though economy figures will be based on stop/start which is crap with the DSG from what I've heard so will most likely be turned off, you do get another tech thrown in - regenerative braking, and based on my ridiculous stop + start every hundred yards traffic light run out of Swindon every morning that may well help!

Edited 16 September, 2015 by Jimrod

[Ryeman]

^^^ I know what you mean about the latest stop/start tech.......I've been pulling my hair out with a C4 Picasso overriding my choices as to how I go about driving.......it defaults to frustration and you have to remember to 'deactivate' it each time the engine stops (either by design or interruption) aaaarrrggghhhh!!!

Good thing I don't carry a hammer!

[Ryeman]

I see the next Tiguan gets a 176KW diesel as the top engine.....~240ps!

[jeep]

If the 150 engine was still 'tight' I would suggest the performance will seem brisker by the time it has also done 17,000 miles like the 170.

[bilun777]

We've just come back from some Brisk touring up in Scotland in our 150 TDI manual.

1500 miles and the Yeti is on 3500 from new now.

It's pleasantly torguey between 1500/3000 rpm,which covers just about any driving.

It returned a genuine 50 mpg as well.

My old 170 TDI was a bit quicker at high RPM,but how often are you driving about at 4000rpm?

The 170 only managed around 43mpg as a best figure as well.

As for adblue,I'd completely forgotten it's even fitted.

If I have to top it up before it's first service that's no big deal.

The 150 TDI is the best compromise for me in the 4 Yetis I've owned.