Hello all, 

I am more and more inclined to order a new Yeti but I have troubles deciding which engine to go for. In Europe we have 1.2 TSI 110 bhp/175Nm and 1.4 TSI 125 hp/200Nm, both of them 2WD. Until last week I was decided on the 1.2 because it has decent performance and the difference to the 1.4 didn't justify. But this year the prices are much closer, for the 1.4 I would pay 400 pounds extra which I can afford. And the official fuel consumption is around 5% higher which I don't mind.  I don't know which one is better for me. So if you have the patience to read the following driving conditions and make a recommendation I would be grateful.

 

In the last 3 years I drove around 7000 miles/year. I live in a small city a few miles from one side to another. I try to avoid to drive during the week, and when I do the traffic jams are measured in minutes. Most of the miles are on the highway at cruising speeds around 70/75 mph or national roads 55 mph. 

I am worried that the smaller engine will work too much to keep this speed. Also the area is very hilly. I now have a 1.2 85bhp Hyundai I20 and on some roads I have to be in the 2nd gear to be able to climb at 20-25 mph. 

 

And apparently this 1.4  125 bhp front wheel drive is sold only around here and can't find any review on it but I read people are ok with the 1.2 one. I also want the engine to be as silent as possible. Lots of times I come from the airport at midnight after a 3 hours flight with my head dizzy from the sound of the jet engine and I have to endure another 2 hours in my current small car with my engine at 3500 revs on the highway and poor sound isolation

 

Thanks for reading the long post and enjoy your YETIs  

I would take into consideration the resale issue ie which would be the easiest to sell second hand or attract the best px deal.

3500 rpm???...you would be doing around 150 mph in the 1.2.

 

I can't imagine the 1.4 125ps being mechanically different than the current 150ps or earlier 140ps. Maybe just downtuned for your country...or they have it set to give exact emission figures.

Edited 10 January, 201610 yr by DonjSZ5

Hi, Alexul,

First,  let me say I have no experience of the 1.4 engine,  so cannot comment on that.  I have a 1.2 DSG Elegance and I am delighted with it in every respect except one,  which I will come to in a moment.  It is very quiet,  and cruises all day at 70mph without a problem (the top gear of the 7 speed DSG box is very high so its not over-revving).  Acceleration is fine for me,  though I'm no "boy racer"... the low gears in the 7 speed DSG box are VERY low,  engaging only for a couple of seconds each,  giving very good lower-speed response for a 1.2 engine (albeit a turbocharged one).  I would say the 1.2 would suit your usage vary well, manual or auto.

 

Now to the downside...fuel consumption.  Having previously had a 1.6 Greenline Yeti (manual diesel) which returned an mpg which frequently pushed 60 and averaged in the mid 50s,  the 1.2 seems very thirsty by comparison...I'm getting mid forties mpg at best after 8000 miles from new,  and it seems like I'm always filling it up compared with the diesel.

The 1.4 engine will obviously cruise at 70mph even more easily than the 1.2,  and you will have better acceleration.  However,  if it consumes 5% more fuel than the 1.2,  that would be a deal breaker for me,  as I'm perfectly satisfied with the performance of the 1.2.

I would thoroughly recommend the DSG gearbox over the manual.  I changed Yetis because,  for medical reasons, I needed an automatic car.  I'd have gone for another diesel on the grounds of fuel economy,  but all the diesel DSGs available in the UK are 4wheel drive,  and I don't want or need that... far too expensive and a lot more to go wrong! (and I live in a very flat part of the country).  I am astonished at how smooth the gear changes are in the DSG...you only know its changing gear because the needle on the rev counter drops as it goes up through the box.... and if you want a sporty drive,  or to use it as a manual gearbox,  you have the options.  I'd go for the DSG every time now,  even if I didn't have a wonky clutch leg!  Fuel consumption on the DSG is comparable with the manual (or even slightly better if the manufacturers figures can be believed.... a big step forward over the older torque-converter type transmissions.

 

At the end of the day the decision must be yours,  and the best way is to drive both engines and see if you can tell the difference!  Personally,  I'd stick with the 1.2 and go for the luxury of the DSG transmission.  Happy hunting! 

Thanks for all your responses. 

@Donj. I was mentioning my current engine which having only 85 ps have to keep it running at over 3000 revs. I know, not a smart choice to buy a city car in order to spend most of time on the highway. But it was my first car and I need it one fast and cheap. That is why now I don't want to make the same mistake and since I hardly have any idea about cars and engines I try to ask as much as possible.

 

 @Zarniwoop: Very helpfull feedback. Indeed I was also convinced the 1.2 is a good engine. Now I am trying to figure out if the extra price will give me some real additional benefits. I wish I could test at least one of them in real life conditions. When I asked the dealer about it he said he has to ask for an used car from the importer because he can not give me a new car without registration and he has no idea when that will be possible. I will try to go to a bigger garage, maybe they have one on stock. Regarding the DSG7 I was also very enthusiast at first but got disappointed after reading a lot of negative reviews: pricey to maintain, had some recalls in the past and not so reliable on the long run so didn't take it into consideration. Apparently the DSG6 is very good though. For how long did you have the car?

 

Regarding the fuel, I didn't know Google can do the conversion for me. Well, on mixed use the technical sheet says that the 1.2 should do 42 mpg and the 1.4 40 mpg(using Google conversion). The same 2mpg difference applies also on the highway 49mpg vs 47. I expect the numbers to be different in reality but the difference between them to be the same.  

 

I didn't think about resale value. Considering that most people around here drive something between 1.4-2.0 I guess the bigger the better? 

Edited 10 January, 201610 yr by Alexul

If you're having to rev the engine harder for power quite often then it'll be less economical than a less stressed, larger engine.

 

Think of it like the Top Gear test where a Prius was driven flat out while being followed by a BMW M3 going the same speed around a track, the BMW worked out more economical when driven like that. If all your driving was town center the smaller engine would be better, but over hilly backroads a bit more power should mean the engine doesn't have to work as hard.

I've had mine from new,  about 9 months and 8000 miles.  No problems at all in that time.  There were some problems with earlier DSG7's,  which had been filled with synthetic oil which did not suit the mechatronic units,  so were recalled for repair and change to mineral oil. As far as I know there is no such problem on later units.   I'm not aware of the high maintenance costs you mention..indeed no maintenance is prescribed in the servicing schedules for the 2WD transmission.  Of course,  the more complex the engineering the more chance there is of something going wrong,  so you would expect to hear of more problems with DSG than manual,  but  manual clutches and gearboxes have also been known to fail.  (That is why I haven't gone for 4WD which would be nice to have,  but which I don't actually need.... too much to go wrong,  and besides its a lot more initial cost.)

Are you thinking to buy new or used?   You get 3 years warranty with new,  and this can be extended to 5 years.  If you can afford new,  this gives more peace of mind.

Edited 10 January, 201610 yr by Zarniwoop

I would take into consideration the resale issue ie which would be the easiest to sell second hand or attract the best px deal.

 

Yes and no - is engine choice dependent on the next owners wishes?  I am sure the 1.4 (which you say you can afford) will offer the more relaxing drive and more option at higher speed.

I would opt for the 1.4 with prices being so close. Particularly as you live somewhere hilly. I suspect real world fuel consumption will be identical and having that extra torque will make a significant difference (more than the extra bhp).

That said, I don't know if there are any other factors in your country that may influence your choice financially such as tax incentives for a 1.2 over a 1.4 or a significantly different cost of insurance.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It will be a new one. On mainland they offer only 2 years. But until March they offer an extension of 2 years for free. Most of the cars sold are with only 2 years. Except for the Asian: Hyundai, Toyota, Suzuki they give 5 years. And Kia is with 7. Also the specs and trims are completely different by country So I have to spend time reading reviews in French and google translate German. There is no Elegance version, in France they have Active, Style and Monte Carlo. In Belgium they have Active, Ambition, Style and L&K and so on for each country. Not to mentions that sometimes even basic things like boot space are different. The French version of Yeti has 510L, the German one 405L and on UK sites it's in between with 416L.

 

I do find the cars in UK to have better specifications and conditions.  

 

I have not ruled out completely the DSG but taken out of the must have list although it is a nice to have if recent buyers are happy with it. 

Hi Alexul.  I have a 1.4 Manual (122 PS or 90 kW) Yeti Elegance which is coming up to 4 years old.  With mixed driving it has averaged 41 mpg (based on what fuel I put in) which I am very happy with.  This is a very smooth and quiet engine with good torque, and the manual gearchange is light and easy.  At anything over 40 mph you can leave it in 6th gear unless it is very hilly. I find using 98 octane fuel improves mpg by about 3 to 5%, these engines seem to benefit from it. In my opinion it was worth the extra cost over the 1.2 even if the fuel consumption is perhaps 5% worse.

 

In the UK for some strange reason the 1.4 model was never well promoted, and demonstrator cars were invariably 1.2 litre models.  The 1.4 was later dropped from the range, but a higher powered 1.4 has recently reappeared to replace the 1.8 petrol. However it is only available here in the most expensive trim level.

We have two 1.2 DSG Yetis on the front. My wife's replaced a 1.9 l diesel Doblo, mine a 1.9 l Octavian estate. The Yeti is better in nearly all areas, certainly has more than enough acceleration and cruise at the legal limit with no problems . They are a little heavy on fuel, but both very low mileage, so that should change.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1.2 vs 1.4: I think the extra oomph of the 1.4 would be useful on dual carriageways. My 1.2 only really struggled a bit on the odd steep slope on the A303 with a full load. On the M40 it's fine (enough) although the Stokenchurch cutting / hill is a bit of a test. Elsewhere its fine.

 

Manual vs DSG: If you like changing gears then don't bother with the auto. But if you are often flying in late at night, a bit of extra convenience is good (and probable safer!). Also for a small / low torque (vs the diesels anyway) engine, changing gears is going to be more frequent and a DSG more convenient. 

 

Note the 1.2 110PS and 1.4 125PS TSi's seem a little understressed compared to the more recent opposition. I see the 2016 Civic 1.0 turbo is >120PS. Maybe in a year or so these engines will be updated to keep them competitive. Meanwhile I'd certainly suggest the 1.4 is a better fit especially as a manual and for motorways. I'd have gone for the 1.4 (especially 140PS version) if it had been available with DSG... 

I reluctantly "settled" for the 1.2TSI when I bought mine because I wanted petrol, didn't want or need 4x4 and at that time the additional purchase cost plus higher road tax finally decided me against the 1.4TSI (which in any case were in very short supply and I couldn't find a demonstrator to see if the extra engine capacity made the extra costs worthwhile for my driving - around 8,000 miles per year). I've now had it two and a half years and I have never had any regrets. It's laden down with a spare wheel and sunroof but even with that extra weight four adults and a large dog I've never found it genuinely lacking in power - I've yet to come a cross a hill where I've felt the engine was struggling. I've got the manual gearbox and find it light and positive and would probably choose manual again because I've got an illogical and completely irrational fear of automatic gearboxes going wrong. (I think it probably stems from an old Volvo 265, the only car I've ever owned that was an automatic and it was one of those "if it can go wrong it will go wrong" cars; the novelty of working on a car all weekend every weekend can wear thin after a while).

 

If I was buying now and the costs (purchase, road tax) were very similar and mpg was around the same in honesty I'd probably go for the 1.4 engine but as much as anything because I'm of an age where I still remember a time when the smallest engined car in a manufacturer's range was inevitably underpowered. But I think this is seldom the case these days - it's not that many years ago the output from the 1.2TSI engine would have been seen as something special.

 

I'm sure whatever spec. you decide on you will be happy with your Yeti. There are thousands of posts on this Forum but very few from unhappy owners which must say something about the car.

The FWD 1.2 's relative lightness is a factor to consider if you don't actually need 4WD also........it doesn't need a 'big' engine.

My first Yeti Elegance was a 1.2 tsi turbo much to my surpise I noticed during the initial test drive that this engine performed quite well compared to my previous Opel Corsa 1.4.

 

After 4 years I replaced the 1.2 and went for the facelift Yeti 1.4tsi, this engine has just more power you sometimes miss when overtaking on the high way and you just need a bit more power.

 

On the otherhand the 1.2 tsi was much cheaper on fuel consumption, compared to the 1.2tsi.

 

Soundwise the 1.4 engine make less sound than the 1.2.

 

During the summer holidays in the South of England the 1.2 had no problems at all with the different road conditions, vursus flat surface driving in Holland.

 

So personally I would recommend the 1.4 tsi, but at the end of the day you need to balance out what your requirments and expectations are.

 

rgds.

Edited 11 January, 201610 yr by Polypenko

Thank you all for your responses. They are very valuable coming from so many different users. I am maybe 80% decided on the 1.4 engine. After running several simulations the yearly costs for taxes and insurance the difference between the 2 is maximum 120 pounds if going for the most expensive insurer, around 8-10 extra pounds/month. I believe it is manageable. 

I am not that much of a speeder but I like to travel for the weekends and I spent a lot of time on German highways where people are usually doing at least 80 mph and I was in situations where I had to overtake trucks which are still limited to 55 and by the time I was finished there was already some Audi, Mercedes flashing me behind. 

 

It is very interesting the pricing policy change they did, at least the BENELUX dealer, after 1st of January. The 1.2 version got a small increase in price and the 1.4 forward drive got cheaper. I didn't check the 4x4 versions but I think they want to sell more bigger engines than smaller ones. 

It's also worth bearing in mind that, in the UK at least, the only 1.4 TSi variant currently available is the 150PS. The rest of Europe seems to have the option of less powerful 1.4 units. So it's worth checking that any comments about 1.4's made here relate to the unit that you're looking at.