I'm in the market for a petrol powered Yeti for occasional camping trips with the other half.  Big draw for me is the ability to remove the rear seats and throw in me and the other halfs mountain bikes and camping gear and disappear to Wales or Cornwall for a long weekend once a month (I live in Kent).

I've been looking at 2012-2014 models (although I prefer the looks of the MK1's if I'm honest!) and just wonder what peoples experiences are with the engines.  The 1.2TSi is by far and away the most readily available, but I wonder whether it might be a little underpowered for what I want (although it's regularly described as "adequate, unless you're going to fill it with people and drive up a lot of hills").  The 1.8 sounds amazing, if a little expensive on both tax and fuel.  The 1.4 seems to be the sweet spot.  I'll be looking to spend between £9 and £11k which would appear to get me a relatively low mileage, well specced example across all three engines.

 

Interested in the experiences of everyone, although ultimately of course, I'll need to drive one to really make the decision!

Don't touch the 1.8, serious issues, which is a pity.

 

Same goes for early 1.2's unless documented proof of rectification works. Others will be able to give you more detail on this.

 

As said, 1.4 would be the ideal one but only available in top of the range L&K spec. which may put them outside your budget. Having said that I see you have already checked this out. That would be my choice for petrol.

Edited 10 October, 20178 yr by VAGCF

I don't think the boot is as big as you think. We take the seats out for our summer holidays in France with the caravan. It swallows the awning, lots of odd gear and more wine boxes than I will admit too on the return journey. Problem is the bikes. Yes if you take the wheels off you may generate the room you need but you will have to pack carefully. Unless something is going on the roof or back of the car you need something longer inside with the same internal height as the Yeti. I had a VW Touran for 10 years and it was enormous inside. It was also a very good drive as like the Yeti was/is based on the Golf underpinnings.

 

Colin

Edited 10 October, 20178 yr by eribaMotters

2 hours ago, VAGCF said:

Don't touch the 1.8, serious issues, which is a pity.

 

Same goes for early 1.2's unless documented proof of rectification works. Others will be able to give you more detail on this.

 

As said, 1.4 would be the ideal one but only available in top of the range L&K spec. which may put them outside your budget. Having said that I see you have already checked this out. That would be my choice for petrol.

 

Thanks VAGCF.. I've seen 1.4's in both Elegance and SE trim, but all of those were Mk1s - is the L&K only on the Mk2?  Appreciate the advice re the problems with 1.2s and 1.8s!  Definitely a shame re the 1.8 as I'd seriously considered one.

 

1 hour ago, eribaMotters said:

I don't think the boot is as big as you think. We take the seats out for our summer holidays in France with the caravan. It swallows the awning, lots of odd gear and more wine boxes than I will admit too on the return journey. Problem is the bikes. Yes if you take the wheels off you may generate the room you need but you will have to pack carefully. Unless something is going on the roof or back of the car you need something longer inside with the same internal height as the Yeti. I had a VW Touran for 10 years and it was enormous inside. It was also a very good drive as like the Yeti was/is based on the Golf underpinnings.

 

Colin

Thanks Colin.  I've read that the only other car that has a shorter boot than the Yeti is the Fabia hatchback!  Saying that, I've seen plenty of pictures of people fitting their MTBs in the back sans front wheel.  Isn't there also an option for a Skoda fitted interior bike rack for a Yeti (not that I'd use it, but it shows that it's doable)

I currently drive a Mk2 Audi TT and (believe it or not!) can fit a single bike in there with the seats folded down minus the front wheel.  I would hope, therefore, I could do it in the more luggage friendly Yeti.  In all honesty, I had looked at getting an old Touran as a second car precisely because of it's van-like dimensions, but the cost effectiveness of doing that (particularly with the likely do-over of diesels in the up coming budget) made me rethink.  And besides, the Yeti has oodles more character than the dishwater dull VW, at least in my opinion.

I did look at a number of other options for this, including things like Octy Estate, Subaru Outback and even the VW Tiguan, but everything always seemed to point me back to the Skoda as the ideal "do more or less everything without it costing a fortune" car.

A Skoda Fabia Mk2 estate has plenty boot space. Same thing applies with 1.2TSI and timing chains, you want a 2012 on.

Mk3 Fabia Estates from 2015 are available at reasonable prices.

The later 1.2 TSI is more refined and no chain but belt

1 hour ago, Headinawayoffski said:

A Skoda Fabia Mk2 estate has plenty boot space. Same thing applies with 1.2TSI and timing chains, you want a 2012 on.

Mk3 Fabia Estates from 2015 are available at reasonable prices.

 

It's not so much about boot space in terms of volume.  The thing with the Yeti is its HEIGHT.  As I've already said, I can fit a single MTB lying on its side with the front wheel removed in my Audi TT.  If I can't do that in the Yeti, then there's a serious problem!  However, I DO know that it's possible to put an MTB with the front wheel off upright and therefore fit another one along side it and still leave plenty of room for other luggage.

To be honest, if a normal estate was feasible, I'd probably be looking an Octavia.  For reference, I've just measured my bike from the top of the saddle to the floor and it comes in at about 985mm.  Length from the back of the rear tyre to the front most part of the brake disk (the longest it would be with the front wheel off) is about 1460mm.

Rear headroom in a Fabia is listed at 963mm, which like most what you might call "normal" cars (i.e. non SUV based) is just a gnats not tall enough.

I have no problem putting my bike in, on its side and don’t need to take the front wheel off, just turn the handlebars through 90 degrees .

Just now, kenfowler3966 said:

I have no problem putting my bike in, on its side and don’t need to take the front wheel off, just turn the handlebars through 90 degrees .

Good!

Except I want to fit two in.

I have a 1.2 mk1 and it's regularly used for driving around wales with 2 mountain bikes with camping gear. If just 1 bike I can chuck it in upright with both wheels on. 

Plenty pictures in Google Images even some with bikes in a Yeti from Briskoda threads.

I liked a Roomster for moving bikes around because of the sliding rear doors for use when camping and using a tunnel tent, 

but to have more room for bikes and gear and sleeping in went with an Alhambra.

 

 

We travelled to France to meet the new 2015 Skoda Fabia Combi!.mhtml

Edited 10 October, 20178 yr by Headinawayoffski

To be fair, the question was never about whether or not I'd get two bikes in a Yeti (the top picture was one of the first I found that lead me to that conclusion anyway!), it was about the most suitable engine size.

Sounds as if it is the 1.4, so that's one I'll go for.

Thanks for the contributions

 

You're lucky that that is the furthest off topic we went! 

 

Just one last point as regards the space for bikes. If you do go for an L&K bear in mind that they have panoramic sun roofs as standard which does reduce the useable height. This probably isn't in the area where the bikes will stand but worth checking out.

2 hours ago, SteelRat said:

Sounds as if it is the 1.4, so that's one I'll go for.

 

 

 

The 16v EA111 1.4tsi tugs my Superb barge along surprisingly well and it's very quiet. (The EA111 1.2tsi is 8valve)

 

Edited 10 October, 20178 yr by bigjohn

2 hours ago, VAGCF said:

You're lucky that that is the furthest off topic we went! 

 

Just one last point as regards the space for bikes. If you do go for an L&K bear in mind that they have panoramic sun roofs as standard which does reduce the useable height. This probably isn't in the area where the bikes will stand but worth checking out.

Useful info, thank you.  Funnily enough I was looking at a 1.4 Elegance that had a panoramic roof and whilst I wouldn't say it was on the "must haves" list, I thought it might be a "nice to have".  I think I'm just going to have to shove the bike in the TT when I go and look at one and ask them if they'd mind me sizing it up!

 

 

1 hour ago, bigjohn said:

 

The 16v EA111 1.4tsi tugs my Superb barge along surprisingly well and it's very quiet. (The EA111 1.2tsi is 8valve)

 

Thanks John.  I'd heard the 1.2TSi was equally "Surprising" too (ooh the windscreen logos from the 80s rally days heh).  Being completely honest, part of what spawned the question was that my TT was reversed into by a bloke in a van the other week.  No major damage, but the loaner I have is a Vauxhall Corsa.  It's nothing short of a gutless POS.  When I was looking at the "official" figures for both it and the 1.2TSi Yeti, they both come in at around the 11 second mark for the 0-60.  Couple this with the wording in some of the reviews I've read about it being "fine for shopping trips, but if you want to put luggage and people in it, it's a little breathless", did make me wonder if it was the sensible option.

Having said all of that, I'd also read that despite the displacement of the newer Skoda petrols, they do tend to punch above their weight; the 1.4 in the Superb happened to be mentioned as an example in that regard.  So much so that I understand the size of the engine isn't generally highlighted in the specs, only the 120 odd horsepower it produces.  Beyond actually driving one and seeing for myself, I figured the best place to ask was the good Briskies!

There are several members here who have toured Europe with 1.2's and have reported no problems.

I think the only answer is, as you say, test drive one.

Now there are 3 cylinder 1.0TSI's that perform better than the 1.2TSI's 4 cylinders that they have replaced, and that give better delivery of torque where it is needed 

and propel large vehicles economically even at the Revenue Weights, not just at Kerb Weights.

Thanks again for all the responses.  Just one further question on the 1.2s.  The older lump appears to have an output of 104bhp.  From 2015, it's showing as 108bhp with better economy figures too.  Are these the ones that had the cam belts rather than chains fitted and likely to be the preferred option from a reliability stand point?  There are a couple of 108 1.2's that are at the top end of my price range and if they do have the better engines in them, I'll definitely give them a look.

Just now, SteelRat said:

Thanks again for all the responses.  Just one further question on the 1.2s.  The older lump appears to have an output of 104bhp.  From 2015, it's showing as 108bhp with better economy figures too.  Are these the ones that had the cam belts rather than chains fitted and likely to be the preferred option from a reliability stand point?  There are a couple of 108 1.2's that are at the top end of my price range and if they do have the better engines in them, I'll definitely give them a look.

 

Yes the 110ps engines is the later EA211 engine 

 

To identify when you are looking under the bonnet of a 1.2:-

• If it's the older cam chain EA111 1.2 8v (or 1.4 16v) you will see an oil filter at the top left of the engine and the turbo/exhaust is a the front of the engine bay (between engine and front of the car)
• If it's the later belt cam engine the oil filter is at the bottom of the engine and the turbo/ehaust is at the rear of the engine bay (between engine & bulkhead)

 

 

13 minutes ago, SteelRat said:

Thanks again for all the responses.  Just one further question on the 1.2s.  The older lump appears to have an output of 104bhp.  From 2015, it's showing as 108bhp with better economy figures too.  Are these the ones that had the cam belts rather than chains fitted and likely to be the preferred option from a reliability stand point?  There are a couple of 108 1.2's that are at the top end of my price range and if they do have the better engines in them, I'll definitely give them a look.

I have had both engines in Yeti's. First 5 years in the chain driven one then got a new Yeti with belt in March. Never had a problem with either but the new engine is definitely more economical (averaging over 44 MPG) and "smoother" with more power. Generally drive 2 up and even loaded with luggage the power is adequate and it certainly doesn't feel underpowered. I guess if you really require head jerking acceleration at high speed then you might be better off with a bigger engine.

You don't have a problem with the chain version until it fails suddenly and destroys the engine without warning!

1 hour ago, kenfowler3966 said:

You don't have a problem with the chain version until it fails suddenly and destroys the engine without warning!

Maybe I was lucky then! Think it's important to change the oil regularly as well, max 10,000 miles between changes.

3 hours ago, Expatman said:

Maybe I was lucky then! Think it's important to change the oil regularly as well, max 10,000 miles between changes.

 

There were some chain/tensioner issues with early EA111 engines but regular oil changes are cruitial for any engine , especially one with a cam chain. Long life servicing has a lot to answer for with many manufacturers inc BMW etc..

 

In addition with the EA111 the correct oil filter and correct fitment is cruitial and these engines should not be turned backwards (if parking in gear on a hill leaving in gear select a gear that would turn the engine in the correct direction if you rolled down the hill - ie 1st gear with front pointing down hill or reverse with the rear pointing down the hill)

 

When I bought my EA111 1.4tsi Superb at 14k miles /14months, I had it changed to 10k servicing

Edited 11 October, 20178 yr by bigjohn

23 hours ago, Expatman said:

I have had both engines in Yeti's. First 5 years in the chain driven one then got a new Yeti with belt in March. Never had a problem with either but the new engine is definitely more economical (averaging over 44 MPG) and "smoother" with more power. Generally drive 2 up and even loaded with luggage the power is adequate and it certainly doesn't feel underpowered. I guess if you really require head jerking acceleration at high speed then you might be better off with a bigger engine.

For most of us we aren't looking for high performance but the easy, less hard working drive that a bigger/more powerful engine gives us and often better fuel economy.

 

Hence why I went for a 2.0 diesel even though my annual mileage on purely financial terms doesn't warrant it. 

 

If I go for a Karoq when I change (fully retiring and going petrol) I'm pleased to see that the 1.5 TSI is being offered otherwise I'd definitely be looking elsewhere.

 

Lets face it many would have gone for the 1.4 in the later Yeti if it had been available below L&K spec.

23 hours ago, Expatman said:

I guess if you really require head jerking acceleration at high speed then you might be better off with a bigger engine.

7 minutes ago, VAGCF said:

For most of us we aren't looking for high performance but the easy, less hard working drive that a bigger/more powerful engine gives us and often better fuel economy.

 

Lets face it many would have gone for the 1.4 in the later Yeti if it had been available below L&K spec.

 

Absolutely this.

I'm not after "head jerking acceleration" - apart from anything else, certainly here in Kent, with the way traffic is, there aren't that many opportunities to use it anyway.  However, what I would like is something that can over take safely, doesn't scream its guts out at motorway speeds and is capable of comfortably lugging two adults, two mountain bikes and a long weekends worth of camping gear without stressing it, me or it's fuel economy to any great degree.  The only reason I'm not going for a 140bhp diesel (really love the look of the Mk1 Adventure) is only because of the financial implications that are likely to be enforced after this Novembers budget on all diesels (DPF issues / my usual weekly mileage not really being suitable for one notwithstanding of course)

From what I've seen, the Mk1 1.4 is most likely to tick those boxes, but the wording in the reviews of the 1.2's I've read isn't really sufficient to convince me it would be suitable (even without the reliability question of the cam chain), however what you guys are telling me about the newer one, it's definitely worth a test drive!