Hi All,

 

Thinking about changing my 2007 1.9tdi (non DPF) Octavia to maybe a Yeti ... either the 1.6tdi or the more powerful 2.0tdi (4x4) model.

I understand that both Yeti models have the dreaded DPF, whereas my current Octavia doesn't ... 

 

I'm also tempted by the 4x4 Yeti ..

Apart from the general increase in Road Fund Licence (currently £140 to £200 per year), any other thoughts or considerations that I perhaps need to be aware of ?  On the 4x4 model, is it a Haldex based system / if so does this need regular servicing ?

Are the DPF's as bad as I've read ?

All thoughts and comments appreciated !

The Yeti is good car very practical 

 

Haldex needs servicing (think it is every 38000 miles).  The 4x4 gear thus adds maintenance cost and running cost and tyre cost (as Haldex requires all tread depths to be similar).  Unless you are going off road or towing isn’t required.  Much cheaper to fit appropriate tyres

 

All DPFs require appropriate driving style to keep them clean, and eventually at high mileage often need ash removed manually 

 

Had a Yeti for 2 years on a lease 1.2 tsi (110) DSG. and was brilliant.  Would have kept it but didn’t need a car that big these days.  Some years ago also had a mk2 Octavia estate L&K 2.0 FSi auto which was in some ways even better (only got rid of it due to car tax jumped as was 201g/km CO2) so difficult call as to which is better.

How many miles a year do you do and what's your typical journeys?

My car is only £140 a year, registered after April 2017. Try and find one of these which had a lot of extras included as standard for the last few months of production 

6 hours ago, SurreyJohn said:

Haldex requires all tread depths to be similar

 

You sure about that?  The standard spare wheel for the Yeti is significantly smaller than the OE wheels & tyres* but the Haldex copes with it (just as well, since there's no way to switch it off if you do put the spare on).  True you're supposed to stay under 50mph with the spare fitted but AFAIK that's true for all cars where the spare is undersized - it's about basic controllability of a vehicle with one wheel smaller than the rest, nothing to do with the Haldex (see also this post on the seminal Briskoda Yeti spare tyre size thread - the first of many).  My understanding is that the Haldex is designed to deal with a difference of up to 4% in rolling circumference between wheels on the vehicle.  On the UK OE wheels & tyres the difference between new (~8mm of tread) and legal limit (1.6mm of tread) is barely 2%.

 

The owner's manual doesn't seem to say diddly squat about this.  Not that I would hold it up as a totally, 100% reliable guide to all aspects of Yeti ownership, care and maintenance - but usually it's the clarity/comprehensibility of the advice that is problematic: if it doesn't even try to offer advice then that would seem to suggest that there's no useful advice that can be given.

 

* The 195/60R16 spare is 0.7" smaller in diameter than the 225/50R17 UK OE wheel and tyre.  That's ~18mm difference, or ~28% more than the 12.8mm difference between a new tyre with 8mm tread and one on the legal limit with 1.6mm.

1 hour ago, kenfowler3966 said:

My car is only £140 a year, registered after April 2017. Try and find one of these which had a lot of extras included as standard for the last few months of production 

+1

7 hours ago, SurreyJohn said:

The Yeti is good car very practical 

 

Haldex needs servicing (think it is every 38000 miles).  The 4x4 gear thus adds maintenance cost and running cost and tyre cost (as Haldex requires all tread depths to be similar).  Unless you are going off road or towing isn’t required.  Much cheaper to fit appropriate tyres

 

All DPFs require appropriate driving style to keep them clean, and eventually at high mileage often need ash removed manually 

 

Had a Yeti for 2 years on a lease 1.2 tsi (110) DSG. and was brilliant.  Would have kept it but didn’t need a car that big these days.  Some years ago also had a mk2 Octavia estate L&K 2.0 FSi auto which was in some ways even better (only got rid of it due to car tax jumped as was 201g/km CO2) so difficult call as to which is better.

 

How many more times does this false story have to be told?? 
I have found no such advice from Skoda or Haldex.
Please stop saying it.

Edited 1 August, 20196 yr by Llanigraham

19 minutes ago, Llanigraham said:

 

How many more times does this false story have to be told?? 
I have found no such advice from Skoda or Haldex.
Please stop saying it.

 

I've heard it from a Skoda salesman, but I think its an old wives tale and will until someone explains in technical detail why it would be true.

 

But how many miles do you drive a year? Unless it's 15k+ then look at petrol then no problems with DPF etc.

Unless, of course, you really need 4wd.

Thanks for all the replies so far, much appreciated ..

 

Annual mileage is usually no more than maybe 6,000 to 8,000, so maybe I should be looking at Petrol, or the Greenline Diesel variants ?

 

I've got no real need for the 4x4 model, just fancied the option. Once the extra running costs (tax, servicing etc) are taken into account it's clearly more expensive than a non 4x4 model

My Yeti is up for sale

 

I love it but I just don’t use it now I’m not commuting to work 

 

Black Edition 4x4

I would not have another greenline. Mine was brilliant and did more than 60mpg average, but it was underpowered and overgeared with a load. It was also ruined by the emmission fix downgrade with all the future reliability issues it causes.

2 hours ago, Cornish_Lad said:

Thanks for all the replies so far, much appreciated ..

 

Annual mileage is usually no more than maybe 6,000 to 8,000, so maybe I should be looking at Petrol, or the Greenline Diesel variants ?

 

I've got no real need for the 4x4 model, just fancied the option. Once the extra running costs (tax, servicing etc) are taken into account it's clearly more expensive than a non 4x4 model

Seriously if you are only doing 6-8k per annum you really don’t want a diesel of any description or any model. You should be looking at petrol, have you tried the 1.2 Tsi? Surprisingly sprightly and much more economic in the long term than a diesel with all the incumbent emission kit, DPF, adblue, increasing driving restrictions etc. etc. You might also find a 1.4 Tsi, a bit quicker but thirstier.

18 hours ago, Expatman said:

But how many miles do you drive a year? Unless it's 15k+ then look at petrol then no problems with DPF etc.

Unless, of course, you really need 4wd.

 

Or get a petrol 4x4 even. 

 

Edited 2 August, 20196 yr by juan27

15 hours ago, Cornish_Lad said:

Thanks for all the replies so far, much appreciated ..

 

Annual mileage is usually no more than maybe 6,000 to 8,000, so maybe I should be looking at Petrol, or the Greenline Diesel variants ?

 

I've got no real need for the 4x4 model, just fancied the option. Once the extra running costs (tax, servicing etc) are taken into account it's clearly more expensive than a non 4x4 model

 

If you get an April 17 onwards car road tax is the same for 4x4 as FWD.  Servicing is really just the Haldex and that's not every year. 

Edited 2 August, 20196 yr by juan27

18 hours ago, Cornish_Lad said:

Thanks for all the replies so far, much appreciated ..

 

Annual mileage is usually no more than maybe 6,000 to 8,000, so maybe I should be looking at Petrol, or the Greenline Diesel variants ?

 

I've got no real need for the 4x4 model, just fancied the option. Once the extra running costs (tax, servicing etc) are taken into account it's clearly more expensive than a non 4x4 model

We have run diesels for several years, mostly in the 5-8k per year range and most with DPF's (Renault, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volvo and Skoda) ... never once had a DPF issue with any of them, so whilst I agree with some of the comments, I don't agree with doom and gloom "low mileage" diesel use will kill your DPF etc ... I've done it for at least the last 17 years and had no issues (my better half only does 4-5 miles daily during the week, but I hammer it at weekends) ... I suppose it is how its used in those low miles, if the DPF can regen then I dont see the problem, but its not a blanket situation. Have a think on what the pattern of your usage is and make your decision.

 

Hope it helps

Edited 2 August, 20196 yr by TruckbusUK
correction

No problems with wifes previous Fabia 1.6tdi either. That did only 14k in 5 years.

As long as you do at least one reasonable length trip every couple of weeks it seems to be enough. A trip to York at 25miles each way every other week or so kept her car healthy. We have only just changed it because number 2 cost centre has left York uni and these trips have stopped, and its all local for her now, a few miles each. Not worth the risk with the diesel so she now has a petrol citigo.

(And that is a surprisingly good car which doesnt feel any more cramped in the front than the Fabia, and very cheap to pick up a pre-registered one at the moment)

I agree with TruckbusUK and kenfowler3966: the key is the profile of your mileage, not the mileage per se.  Only ever using the car for 3 mile trips to the shops and back probably won't be good for a DPF.  Short commutes during the week (or even no use during the week at all) with longer runs more or less every weekend: much less likely to be a problem - as I can vouch for based on my own experience of doing ~5,000-6,000 miles per year in diesel Yetis since 2010 with zero DPF problems.

 

That said, another factor which may be worth considering is that low mileage annual may mean that it takes longer to reach the break even point between the money saved by the better fuel consumption of a diesel vs the usually higher cost of a diesel vs petrol version of the same vehicle.  If financial considerations like that aren't a major factor in your choice of vehicle then this isn't likely to be particularly relevant.  (And the reported/alleged fall in value of diesels on the used car market since the "scandal" may also have reduced the length of the break-even period.)

 

On 01/08/2019 at 06:06, SurreyJohn said:

Unless you are going off road or towing isn’t required.  Much cheaper to fit appropriate tyres

 

What are 'appropriate tyres for' towing?

 

But seriously, that comment smacks a bit of the "surrey tractor" trope of the 4x4 that's never taken off-road.  Ever since the original Audi Quattro hit the streets it's been pretty well known that intelligent 4WD (as opposed to the literally agricultural Ferguson system on the earlier Jensen FF) provides material benefits in grip and roadholding on paved roads.  It's not just for heading off on to loose or slippery stuff.  If you scan the threads on here about what happens when a Haldex does fail, it's clear that most of those who have suffered issues first spot a problem when driving on ordinary roads, usually because the front wheels lose traction and the TCS activates in circumstances when, by previous experience, they know that a properly-functioning Haldex should already have engaged to transfer torque to the rear and the TCS wouldn't even have noticed a problem.

The reality is that diesels are now in the "bad" category and inevitably will be subject to increasing regulations and limitations on urban use. Prices will suffer and diesels more difficult to sell. Not saying it's fair or deserved - just the way it will be.

Never tried them .......but they must call them all season for some reason!

Its not really the economy that makes me prefer diesels; I just like the way they drive. The 1.6tdi Fabia with 100ps was a really fast and capable car that was fun to drive. It could leave my 105ps Greenline Yeti far behind, and was much better than the 60ps petrol fabias.

 

Restrictions have to be based on facts and actual emmission levels, otherwise they will be challenged in the courts, and a Euro 6 diesel is just as good as a current petrol car, yet emits less co2!

3 hours ago, kenfowler3966 said:

Its not really the economy that makes me prefer diesels; I just like the way they drive. The 1.6tdi Fabia with 100ps was a really fast and capable car that was fun to drive. It could leave my 105ps Greenline Yeti far behind, and was much better than the 60ps petrol fabias.

 

Restrictions have to be based on facts and actual emmission levels, otherwise they will be challenged in the courts, and a Euro 6 diesel is just as good as a current petrol car, yet emits less co2!

 

Agree with this, there is loads of "internet crap" being spewed out there on the demonisation of diesel cars, but truth told ... its just that crap spread by experts in the "I know it all category" ... Euro6 and further (if it happens) cant be outlawed by a blanket ban as they produce less co2 and nxo2 than equivalent petrol cars ... euro5/4/3 etc will be singled out and picked on, as Ken says it will end up in court being challenged .. same with the electric car nonsense ... electric save for being around town is just not there yet and will not be for a while ... I'm just back from Lucca in Tuscany and I did the journey on 2.5 tanks 'ish of diesel (1380 miles) .... and did it in less than 24 hrs driving with 2 overnight stops (inc the ferry) .... not many if any electric cars can do that .... I'm sure diesel and petrol will be around for longer than you think.

 

Grumpy typing over ! .... long live Johnny Polar Bear. 😛

Edited 3 August, 20196 yr by TruckbusUK
typo