Yeti 1.4tsi 4x4 L&K with poor mpg?

[mcwhiskers]

All,

 

Took delivery of a lovely Yeti 1.4tsi 4x4 L&K on a 2yr PCH deal.  Loving the car.

 

Apart from the mpg.

 

Getting c32mp on a mix of driving - managed to squeeze 36mpg on a 200 mile 95% + motorway trek and didnt go over 60mph the whole way.

Previously had a 2.0tdi Touran - 50mpg normal average and 65mpg for an equivalent long stretch.

The new Yeti has still only done 2.5k

 

Am I expecting too much?

 

 

 

[jimbob2405]

I also took delivery of my 1.4tsi L&K at the beginning of the month. I was told not to expect more than about 36mpg at best.

 

I've covered about 550 miles so far and on my first tank i averaged about 32mpg, however on the second tank im now seeing 36.7avg and its slowly climbing. I've heard that some people have seen MPG increases after about 4k miles. Im coming from a very thirsty 2.4 petrol volvo so im happy with anything over 30mpg. 

 

Im mainly driving a 15 mile country lane and B road commute, so plenty of gear changes and hills thrown in. Not really going over 60mph but consistently averaging 36-37mpg. 

[Nobbi1977]

I have just ordered the same 1.4 L&K and was told on another forum that was what I should expect the MPG to be.

 

If they did L&K in 2wd I would have had one but the lease deal was to good to pass up with all that kit on it.

Edited 14 February, 2017 by Nobbi1977

[Ryeman]

The brakes kill economy.

[GreenlineIIEstate]

I have done about 8k miles now in mine and it's averaging low 30s with most journeys around school run times.

 

Strangely it managed 26mpg towing my 6 berth caravan from North Devon back to Manchester a few months back.

[Gerrycan]

That is pretty poor really especially for the longer run at moderate speed.

Your display is not accidentally set to US gallons instead of Imperial gallons is it?

 

Admittedly my car is a lighter 2WD Octavia but with the same engine I'd expect about 55mpg on the longer drive you describe, so you should have got 45mpg or so.

Edited 14 February, 2017 by Gerrycan

[bigjohn]

 

A Friend of mine has a new model Audi A4 1.4tsi (Lovely car) which I presume has the same engine(EA211) - likewise when new only just did over 30mpg. Now it's run in - mpg 50+ on a run

 

I have a barge of a Superb with the previous gen 1.4  tsi (EA111) which has averaged around 46mpg in my ownership - athough I've only owned from 14k miles, not new

 

The DSG gearbox, 4x4 and Yeti aerodynamics could be hitting the economy though

 

[AllanDJ]

The figures quoted are very much what I would expect real mpg would be from this car, I'm under no illusions that it could be anything like my current car which is quite aerodynamic, as the Yeti sits much higher which will have a major impact on mpg and that is before you factor in the difference between petrol and diesel and 4 wheel drive versus 2 wheel drive. The Octavia rarely goes below 50mpg and can do well over 60 mpg on a longer run but that is only the variable cost of "owning" that car, add on the high monthly payments on my soon to be ended PCP and even with the much reduced mpg, my new PCH Yeti will be far cheaper to run per mile than the diesel Octavia. 

[Ootohere]

bigjohn,

Is it not a 6 speed manual & not a DSG which is the issue.

http://nextgreencar.com show them as 'Real MPG 32 mpg'. 

Edited 14 February, 2017 by Offski

[jimbob2405]

Its a 6 speed manual. The 1.4tsi L&K only comes with the manual I believe. Have heard that DSG boxes are generally a tad more thirsty than manuals anyway?

 

Real MPG 32mpg sounds a bit low to me. If im getting 36 after just 500 miles of driving then surely it wont go backwards from there? Also how could they advertise the MPG Combined as being 40-42 if it was actually down in the low 30's?

[Ootohere]

A DSG and a 1.4tsi can be pretty economical and can get the best efficiency by being the economic gear at the rpm that suits the speeds being done, 

and 60 mph might not be the most efficient speed if slightly faster might be where there is a sweet spot and it is nearer 70 mph.

But then when you have the vehicle you can try different ways to get the best economy.

 

They do not advertise a MPG if people drive them on a road, just publish the results of EU testing in a temperature controlled building on a rolling road, 

no claims of being 'Real World'.

Nobody drives anyplace inside on a rolling road do they?

http://skoda.co.uk/pages/fuel-consumption-statement.aspx

Edited 15 February, 2017 by Offski

[Gerrycan]

There is no way with the 1.4tsi characteristics and gearing that you will get better economy at 70mph than at 60 mph.

Best steady speed economy on a flat road with a standard top gear for this class of vehicle is generally about 40mph. Performance vehicles may well be different though.

As a broad generalisation for any vehicle, I have found that the claimed  combined consumption is pretty close to what you get at a steady 70mph, so 40+mpg from this Yeti in that scenario is not an unreasonable expectation.

My exceptions have been:

a) a Hyundai Santa Fe mk1 with 2.6L v6 which was much worse than claimed, but this was during a period when Hyundai were discovered and admitted they lied about consumption.

b ) my 1.9pd Octavia which was far better than the official Australian consumption figures although close to the European figures. I never could understand that disparity and I never had a tank that went near the 6.1L/100 published in this market.

 

Yes the official consumption tests are highly idealised and very artificial but 'real life' is too inconsistent to conduct real on-road testing. The calculation of the resistance applied by the rollers are supposed to be a reasonable reflection of the vehicle weight and total aero drag to provide a consistent and viable comparison between vehicles.

My main complaint with the current test is that it is so short that it does not include things like  the effects of a DPF regen for diesels or what the effect of the operation of the aircon is in hot climes. It also favours automatics as it does not allow a manual to use higher than 5th gear in the 120kph phase, and it is not executed by an independent body.

Aircons are hugely more efficient than they used to be but they still have an effect and how does the electric operated version in the economy designed Prius compare to standard engine powered units in other cars? Much less how it affects the range of EVs?

 

The test is still valid for comparison purposes and the regime far stiffer than imposed by the Japanese (for example).

Any new test regime will still be conducted on rollers in a controlled environment, just to different parameters.

 

As I mentioned before, if the Yeti options are anything like the Octavia then there are a number of switchable  consumption display options available including L/100km, km/L, Imperial mpg and US mpg.  US gallons are smaller than Imperial gallons so consumption appears worse than it is. Not likely but worth checking.

Edited 15 February, 2017 by Gerrycan

[Ootohere]

Location location location, the OP is in Scotland but could be driving anyplace, and where have you seen a British Yeti showing US MPG of 37.2 litres? 

Using Fuelly & Brim to Brim filling is the best way to see the real MPG. (remembering to use Fuelly in Imperial Gallons)

http://fuelly.com 

There is a 2016 Yeti L&K 6 speed manual on there.

 

We know the theories, and faster means using more fuel, but fortunately those posting here have a vehicle and are considering fuel use.

So easy enough next time they are out driving, maybe through an average speed camera area to do it at 70 mph, then again at 60 mph and see the indicated fuel use.

 

Very few drive distances on flat roads without ups and downs, or all ups and no downs, and getting a heavy or even light vehicle up hills uses fuel, going down uses much less obviously, but again we know that.

 

I use a 23 mile stretch of 70 mph Speed cameras from Perth to Stirling to check out vehicles which i travel a few times a week and going in both directions in all weathers and know what i achieve driving a 1.4 TSI /DSG at the different speeds, 

This is in a Fabia & a Twin Charger but the 72 mph @ 2,400 rpm gives better economy than 60 mph.

Not just happens in a Fabia but also in a big heavier car like my Alhambra,

(heavier than a Yeti 4x4 But then the 1.4TSI 150ps DSG in a Alhambra is pretty rubbish)

So a 150ps TDI / DSG but then it has 'Coasting Function' which seems to improve the Big house size vehicles economy once cruising.

 

In the 3-4 years since i posted this below i started getting the 50+MPG at 70mph on the 23 mile route,

that is just getting used to where to get up to speed quickly and then take advantage of the momentum, (and Momentum 99ron)

the first post showed what a much lighter 1.4tsi than the Yeti 4x4 gets in MPG.

Average over 65,000 miles has been 37 mpg.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/261562-450-miles-in-a-vrs-45-mpg

 

 

 

Edited 15 February, 2017 by Offski

[Ryeman]

Use momentum 

Don't use your brakes

Lowest safe speed

If it really matters, use the HGV lane particularly with a headwind.

[AllanDJ]

The one thing that you should never, ever believe are the official manufacturers fuel economy figures! Right now, there is no proper road testing under normal driving conditions, they test cars in warm, calm conditions with no strong winds, door seams taped over, paint ultra polished, wing mirrors removed, brakes virtually disconnected and sometimes a few other bits actually removed, usually it will be special drivers who can squeeze every bit of fuel economy out of a car too. These are impossible numbers to actually achieve in real life driving and are tantamount to fraud. There needs to be proper testing under different driving conditions of random cars just picked off the production line, not the cars they select and tweak. It isn't just Skoda, all the big manufacturers are playing games with customers with the fuel consumption figures that they claim.

 

With my current car Skoda claim some remarkable fuel economy figures, for the current 2017 version, they advertise: 64.2 mpg urban/ 83.1 mpg extra urban and 74.3 mpg combined. My current average is in the low 50's mpg running around and if you drive really, really carefully extra urban you can maybe get 65-70 mpg on the maxi dot but 60mpg might be more realistic for most people. Their numbers are completely impossible to achieve, whatever they claim for the Yeti knock it back by about 20% and you will be nearer the mark of what is actually achievable in real life.

[goosander]

My very limited experience (only had it a few days) of the 1.4TSi L&K suggests that an average of 40mpg is probably as good as you will ever see.  I'm expecting about 37/38mpg in my normal mix of driving and that is assuming the computer figures are accurate - they have always been a few mpg optimistic in my other Skodas.  That said it might improve a bit with miles and when it gets a bit warmer.

 

I'll be doing my first long trip in it at the weekend, will be interesting to see what figures you get at motorway speeds.  Suspect the Yeti mpg may temper my right foot somewhat...

[DaveLees]

My !.4 tsi L&K has returned an average of 36.7 over the last 8800 miles.

Edited 15 February, 2017 by DaveLees

[Expatman]

Honest John's web site has a "True MPG" page which is compiled from drivers submitting their true MPG numbers. The True MPG for the 1.4 Tsi 4x4 Yeti is 36.4 MPG, and the range recorded is 31.8 - 41.0. I have found that Honest John's figures are a good guide so with a feather right foot, careful driving in perfect road conditions you might get over 40 but it is more likely that in real driving situations you will be in the 36-37 MPG range and if you have a heavy right foot then more likely to be in the lower 30's. 

Like most cars it will depend on how and where you drive, the Yeti has the aerodynamics of a brick so whereas the 1.4 TSi in an Octavia or Golf might get over 50 MPG we Yeti drivers will get nowhere near that.

If maximising MPG was our aim then we would not be driving Yeti's!!

[Ootohere]

A Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI 150ps DSG 4x4 is not looking like being a vehicle to chose for those that bother about fuel consumption.

[Expatman]

11 minutes ago, Offski said:

A Skoda Kodiaq 1.4 TSI 150ps DSG 4x4 is not looking like being a vehicle to chose for those that bother about fuel consumption.

No, and if buying a Kodiak I would wait for the new 1.5 Tsi engine. Should be more economical than the 1.4 but still thirsty in a large SUV.

[Falmouthboy]

5500 miles in and the 'trip 2' hasn't been reset since new shows 35.9 mpg.  On 'trip 1' an 80 mile trip on the A30 dual carriageway at 60 mph consistently sees 40 mpg,  speed up to 70 mph and it drops to 36 mpg.  Local running is anything between 33 and 38 for no discernible difference in driving style.  I always use Shell Optimax fuel.  Probably improved by about 2 mpg since new.

[Ootohere]

That must be pretty old fuel you buy, they discontinued producing that 98 ron fuel years ago, or is it Shell V-Power Nitro+ ?

[Falmouthboy]

I stand corrected V Power Nitro or whatever the Shell posh petrol is called.

[Sad555]

I remember returning from Cornwall in a 1200cc Ford Anglia just under 50mpg no maxidot ,filling up tank and calculating mpg but cars are so much more economical now 50 years on aren't they?

[bigjohn]

1 hour ago, Sad555 said:

I remember returning from Cornwall in a 1200cc Ford Anglia just under 50mpg no maxidot ,filling up tank and calculating mpg but cars are so much more economical now 50 years on aren't they?

 

I had a 61 Moggy Minor 948 that used to do late 40's on a run and a 76 Datsun 100A could easily do over 50mpg