Just done a 120m trip each way on A and B roads in varying traffic (1.2 TSi DSG).

 

- 49.6mpg on the way there which I think is fabulous for an unaerodynamic car with 100,000m on the clock.

- 36.7mpg on the way back, same route, 10 minutes quicker.

 

My point / question is that under light throttle loads the small engine is great on economy, but it suffers a lot more than a bigger engine with more torque as soon as you start needing to make use of the close spread gears to either go a bit quicker or deal with headwinds & inclines.

 

Maybe a remap would even things out - what are your experiences ?

Aero is everything and not using your brakes is just as important.

With a strong headwind the truck lane is attractive I find.

I find the same with my 1.6 TDI Greenline, gentle driving gives about 65+ mpg, pushing on brings it down to around 55.
Also a tail or headwind makes a hell of a difference.

I have kept an accurate check on MPG over 22,000 miles and averaged 44.5 MPG. It can vary significantly depending on weather and road conditions, a Yeti is aerodynamically challenged so driving into a stiff breeze will have an effect on MPG. In your case 49.6MPG is almost unbelievable and conditions and driving conditions must have been hugely favourable in your outward journey, counterbalanced by negative conditions - head wind and driving more briskly - on the return journey. The ‘average’ you achieved on the total journey was 43.15 MPG so that’s within the good range reported by other 1.2 Tsi DSG drivers.

I suggest you monitor your MPG over a few thousand miles using a brimful-to-brimful basis and not that reported by the on car computer, that way you will get a true view of MPG and it’s variability based on driving and weather conditions.

I reckon that a 130bhp remap would definitely make this engine more economical because it does a good job of masking its outright lack of torque by shifting quickly down the gears. I reckon that with 20% more torque it would hold higher gears whatever the conditions and be more consistent in its economy.

My 1.4tsi Superb mk2 is also rather sensitive to load, speed, wind, hills etc - much more so than the diesel Superb mk1 I had before. I've had late 30's on a run when fully laden (people and stuff!) and negotiating some steep French autoroutes - I've also had mid 50's when cruising two up through Austrian valleys.

 

I really can't imagine a re-map would improve that and you also have to consider the gearbox that  would be pushed beyond its limits (just) if you re-mapped to 130ps

 

1 hour ago, bigjohn said:

My 1.4tsi Superb mk2 is also rather sensitive to load, speed, wind, hills etc - much more so than the diesel Superb mk1 I had before. I've had late 30's on a run when fully laden (people and stuff!) and negotiating some steep French autoroutes - I've also had mid 50's when cruising two up through Austrian valleys.

 

I really can't imagine a re-map would improve that and you also have to consider the gearbox that  would be pushed beyond its limits (just) if you re-mapped to 130ps

 

Exactly and when the gearbox fails don’t expect any contribution from Skoda so start saving the £’000’s you will need to repair it. Seriously though if you find the 1.2 Tsi undertorqued you would be much better off exchanging it for a much higher torqued version - a diesel.

8 minutes ago, Expatman said:

Exactly and when the gearbox fails don’t expect any contribution from Skoda so start saving the £’000’s you will need to repair it. Seriously though if you find the 1.2 Tsi undertorqued you would be much better off exchanging it for a much higher torqued version - a diesel.

 

Depends on the type of day to day driving involved - I avoided a diesel on my last car change as a work colleague on the same commute as me was having DPF problems (miles and miles of very slow moving traffic!).

 

Overall I like the petrol experience - it's really quiet, fairly economical (not quite as good as my previous diesel but not far off!) and reasonably tourquey (again not quite as good as the previous diesel) but I'd forgotten about the zap of a petrol as the revs rise (on my previous diesel it was all over a bit after 4k revs - the petrol is just getting going)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Er... my thread was just above throttle sensitivity to mpg, and from experience of running or owning a lot of cars, I think it would help with a bit more torque (within tolerances).

 

Both the other cars I own at the moment have proper, quality ECU remaps (one Prodrive, one Revo) and neither affect longevity because they don't chase component threatening figures. They definitely add to the driving experience in the low and mid-range, which is where I think my current Yeti would benefit. (We've had 4 company Yetis between us - 2 diesel, 2 petrol, plus 1 of each that we've bought ourselves)

 

Anyone running a remapped 1.2 with DSG got experiences to share ?

On 19/10/2019 at 19:38, Prezafab said:

I reckon that a 130bhp remap would definitely make this engine more economical because it does a good job of masking its outright lack of torque by shifting quickly down the gears. I reckon that with 20% more torque it would hold higher gears whatever the conditions and be more consistent in its economy.

We're getting our 1.2 manual done in december. Really helps the drivability of the car by all accounts.

1 hour ago, Shaunieboy said:

We're getting our 1.2 manual done in december. Really helps the drivability of the car by all accounts.

Great, let us know how you get on.

1 hour ago, Prezafab said:

Great, let us know how you get on.

Willdo. I can state with absolute certainty that the economy of our superb 1.6 greenline 3 improved after a map. It's such a slippery car compared to the yeti, which it basically a box on stilts.

From my experience minor remapping is a well proven way in improving economy by small increases in bhp and lbs/ft, optimising the power/torque curves. Put basically making the most of what you have so that the engine isn't having to work quite so hard to do its numbers. Which as has been said above already does not in any way mechanically trouble any other parts down stream, I don't think anyone here is going crazy and talking about doubling hp here, just a mild massage to improve economy. 

As far as warranty goes what claims exactly is OP going to be making on his 100k yeti if he has it mapped? 

Edited 26 October, 20196 yr by Gmac983

As an example of 'things that make me worry less'... The manual 1.2tsi yeti has the same clutch and flywheel as the 1.4tsi, which produces around the same power as a mapped 1.2tsi. 

 

It's a non-issue until you start upgrading turbos and injectors

^^^as above pretty much 👍

Agreed. My old Audi (V6TDi quattro)had 120k miles on it when I had it Revo'd to 275bhp and a lot of torque. It still does 40-42mpg on the motorway which is the same as it did with 233bhp. It picks up really well low down and gets quickly into high gears. Hope the Yeti is similar.

 

I forget to mention that I bought a banger Octavia 4x4 1.8T estate 150bhp a few years ago with 158k on it which ran perfectly at 220bhp until it sold on at 193k.

Edited 26 October, 20196 yr by Prezafab

As promised, an update after having the Yeti 1.2tsi remapped.

 

Yes! In a nutshell, it was totally worth it. 

105bhp to 128bhp

175nm to 221nm

 

But beyond the figures, the car is simply so much more enjoyable to drive now. Particularly up hills/with a carload. The extra torque has helped a great deal. MPG is up but I'll report back after a few weeks.

 

We used the same company who did my Superb (Big Fish Tuning in Stokesley).

 

 

On 06/12/2019 at 21:21, Shaunieboy said:

As promised, an update after having the Yeti 1.2tsi remapped.

 

Yes! In a nutshell, it was totally worth it. 

105bhp to 128bhp

175nm to 221nm

 

But beyond the figures, the car is simply so much more enjoyable to drive now. Particularly up hills/with a carload. The extra torque has helped a great deal. MPG is up but I'll report back after a few weeks.

 

We used the same company who did my Superb (Big Fish Tuning in Stokesley).

hi, are those numbers dyno proven or just claimed?

rob

 

 

Dyno. Anywhere between 125 - 135bhp seems fairly commonplace after having a mooch about on other tuning sites. 

 

 

What i don't understand is if the engine can reliably give this extra power with reduced fuel consumption, why didn't Skoda sell it like that to start with?

1 hour ago, kenfowler3966 said:

What i don't understand is if the engine can reliably give this extra power with reduced fuel consumption, why didn't Skoda sell it like that to start with?

if you use the extra power the car will burn more fuel, more boost needs more petrol.

rob

6 hours ago, Shaunieboy said:

Dyno. Anywhere between 125 - 135bhp seems fairly commonplace after having a mooch about on other tuning sites. 

 

 

 

can you post the rolling road print out for your car?

rob

7 hours ago, kenfowler3966 said:

What i don't understand is if the engine can reliably give this extra power with reduced fuel consumption, why didn't Skoda sell it like that to start with?

Extra torque Ken. The engine doesn't have to rev as hard to 'get places'. Under normal driving conditions of course.

I'm afraid my other half has 'put it somewhere safe'. I'll have a look when I get chance.

On 13/12/2019 at 07:27, Shaunieboy said:

Extra torque Ken. The engine doesn't have to rev as hard to 'get places'. Under normal driving conditions of course.

the reason Skoda don’t sell it like that is because the emissions would probably be higher (More boost=more fuel) which could also effect the cars tax band, the inbuilt safety margin is obviously going to be compromised as well and it’s Skoda who’d be putting there hands in their pockets to fund any repairs.

rob

Edited 18 December, 20196 yr by Smartbear