Hello. Please be gentle as I've only just arrived (just arriving) at the Skoda party. I've done all the research on SUVs and I am about to plump for a 2015 Yeti 2wd 110 ps diesel.  Need something more upright than current ageing Mondeo and will be doing motorway miles with a family - and the Yeti ticks all the boxes. However I'm confused by the spec levels. I could probably make do with the SE but like the look of the Elegance (with leather etc). However there also appears to be a bunch of SE L models from 2015 which seems to have most if not all of the Elegance bells and whistles. Can't find any sensible explanation of the difference between the Elegance and the SE L spec - but the latter seem to be a couple of hundred pounds cheaper than the Elegance versions.

Secondly there appears to be differing info as to what CO2 / tax band the 2015 110 ps diesel is in - some say 119g/km and some over 130g/km. Obviously makes a big difference to yearly tax cost.

There also seems to be another 2016 spec of SEL Drive but the 2015 models don't seem to have this option. So very confused.

Appreciate any help with this. Thanks in advance.

Edited 19 September, 20178 yr by Watoop

SE L replaced Elegance. They've virtually identical.

Thanks Zib. Do you know if the SE L models are therefore newer (better) than the Elegance, because there still seem to be 2015 Elegance versions around too? This might explain why there seems to be different CO2 levels - did the SE L get a newer version of the diesel engine in 2015?

Yes, the change was mid 2015 when they introduced the Euro 6 diesels at the same time if I remember correctly.  Confusingly, this was a little after the facelift model was introduced, so you can find both Elegance and SE L face lifted models.

Brilliant - thanks for clearing that up. I'll be giving the Elegance the swerve then and going for the SE L.

SE L replaced the Elegance in May 2015 and will use  Adblue from a tank in the boot floor being a Euro 6 engine, Elegance of that year was a Euro 5 engine with no Adblue.

Thanks Urrell. That is interesting (things were simpler when I bought a diesel 7 years ago). A quick search of Adblue suggests quite a few issues on this forum. Putting aside the pollution argument, is it less hassle to get the previous Euro 5 engine (and just pay the extra tax)?

Adblue would not put me off but I'm happy with my January 2015 1.6 TDI Elegance Greenline and it's £30 a year road tax together with 55 - 65 mpg.

Don't get a euro 5 EA 189 diesel that has had the update!!!!!!  2ltr

12 hours ago, skoda1982 said:

Don't get a euro 5 EA 189 diesel that has had the update!!!!!!  2ltr

 

Why not? I've got one and it's done thousands of miles since the update without a blip.

20 minutes ago, WFM said:

 

Why not? I've got one and it's done thousands of miles since the update without a blip.

Then you're one of the lucky owners - many have had problems since having the 'emissions' upgrade applied to their VAG cars.  Two friends have sold their cars as they felt that they had been ruined by the upgrade - noisy and rough tick-over, reduced low rev torgue and lower mpg. 

4 hours ago, philbes said:

Then you're one of the lucky owners - many have had problems since having the 'emissions' upgrade applied to their VAG cars.  Two friends have sold their cars as they felt that they had been ruined by the upgrade - noisy and rough tick-over, reduced low rev torgue and lower mpg. 

 

That is my point, I don't feel lucky. All the figures I have read suggest that the majority is with those who have suffered no issue and the minority is those who have. I've said before that I have every sympathy with those who have had issues but I strongly disagree with bending reality and making it look like all EA189 fixes cause issues. We have a duty to report reality and all the information I have read, not on here, suggests that although a significant number of people have had issues after the fix, that significant number is a minority of those that have been fixed.

 

I did not own the Yeti before the fix but I can detect no power issues, the tick over is as steady as a rock, it pulls like a train all through the gears and the power band. The only thing I cannot comment on is the MPG but, over the last 4 months I have averaged at least 42.5 MPG round the doors. 

So why would they give people extra warranty after the fix if nothing happens

 

Our local VW dealer told me that a number of people have walked away when told that all VAG diesels that require 'the fix' have been done before being put on sale.  A Seat dealer also told me that he has received phone calls asking if he has any 'non-fixed' used cars for sale.  I was interested in a petrol car but trading in a non-fixed Octavia vRS CR.

The fix is pointless to an owner.

It doesn't reduce real world nox emissions.

It burns extra fuel to dispose of the extra soot produced.

Extra soot will hasten demise of throttle valves egr and dpf.

It definitely affected my leased Greenline which was done two weeks before handing back. Many noisy and smelly regens every 200 miles or so, noisier engine, less low down torque, and the constant worry that it could break down.

If you are ok so far it is because your valve etc were in good enough condition to cope at the moment. 

A two year extra warranty would not persuade me to buy a fixed car because it may last that long and fail expensively in year 3.

 

This is a political excercise so any car can go onto a test rig and not cheat, not something being done to improve car safety and reliability for owners.

A friend of mine who works for Ford diesel powertrain design knows 2 of the Bosch engineers that worked on the "fix" for VAG.

Interestingly neither of them would recommend buying a "fixed" car.

21 hours ago, skoda1982 said:

So why would they give people extra warranty after the fix if nothing happens

 

 

Because, as I said, some issues have been attributed to the fix and VW Group are responding to that but to say all or a majority of fixed cars are faulty is incorrect and gives a wrong impression.

Edited 21 September, 20178 yr by WFM

4 hours ago, kenfowler3966 said:

The fix is pointless to an owner.

It doesn't reduce real world nox emissions.

It burns extra fuel to dispose of the extra soot produced.

Extra soot will hasten demise of throttle valves egr and dpf.

It definitely affected my leased Greenline which was done two weeks before handing back. Many noisy and smelly regens every 200 miles or so, noisier engine, less low down torque, and the constant worry that it could break down.

If you are ok so far it is because your valve etc were in good enough condition to cope at the moment. 

A two year extra warranty would not persuade me to buy a fixed car because it may last that long and fail expensively in year 3.

 

This is a political excercise so any car can go onto a test rig and not cheat, not something being done to improve car safety and reliability for owners.

 

I agree with some of your comments and points but I do believe that this attitude of every car that is fixed is fated to fail is nonsense, VW Group would go bankrupt if most of the cars they fixed failed at a later date. Even outside the 2 year warranty, if the car fails and it can be linked to the fix you would have cause for a claim and VAG know this. To get caught cheating then get caught again making a balls of the fix would be terminal, even for a large company like VAG.

 

I also think that saying that my valve etc were in good condition before the fix is a guess and only your opinion, burning more fuel does not equate to terminal problems for an engine. My 170bhp 2 litre diesel is essentially the same engine, albeit larger in some areas as a smaller diesel that burns less fuel, this does not mean that my engine will soot up, eat the EGR or fail sooner. The comparison is too simplistic.

 

It is certain that VAG dropped a huge gaff, some cars have definitely been altered for the worse by the fix, some have totally failed due to the fix BUT MOST of the vehicles that have had the fix are fine, they will perform similarly as they did before the fix, they may burn more fuel and their torque and power graphs may be altered but they are not dud motors because of it.

I don't disagree with any of your points, my main point is why take any avoidable risk when you don't need to. I certainly wouldn't and excluded the option to buy my company Greenline and run as my own car purely because the fix had to be done before it went back to the lease company. Up to the fix issue, I had intended to buy my otherwise good 3 year old car and run it until I retire in about 4 years. Its performance after the fix , and the lack of confidence I then had about its future reliability, confirmed that I had made the right decision regarding that car.

 

My wifes Fabia diesel will not be touched for the same reason.

 

I feel sorry for the owners in Germany where the fix is mandatory and cars which are not done are going to have to be taken off the road as a consequence.

 

Whatever happens it will have knocked down the value of affected cars whether fixed or not.

 

Your car may well go on to do a huge mileage without an issue, indeed from what I have read the 170 engine may be more resilient to the fix.