Has any owner measured the drivers seat height compared to  the original Yeti? Couple of road tests mentioned that the drivers seat height was low and the driver didn’t get the raised height that many SUV/Crossover owners prefer. One indicated that of the three VAG small crossovers - VW T-Cross, Seat Arona and Skoda Kamiq - that only the T-Cross had a properly elevated driving height while the Arona and Kamiq were more tall hatchback rather than SUV/Crossover. All other aspects of reviews were excellent so wondered how owners compared driving height with other small crossovers? 

To me driving a Mini Countryman feels more like a Yeti than the cars you mention.

In all of them the seat pumps up. 

Not all have the same distance from floor to sill height, or seat height when down. But then they do not have 180mm ground clearance.

 

Maybe try a T-Roc.

 

 

Edited 17 December, 20196 yr by Roottootemoot

I have found some info, the seat height of the Arona is 612-666mm, the T-Cross 635-678, T-Roc 648-691, Yeti 646-699. Nothing on the Kamiq as yet. By comparison the Volvo CX40 is 688-750 and the Vitara 682-726.

It is clear that the latest crop of small SUV/Crossovers are of reduced height, probably to reduce drag and thus improve MPG.

Hatchback seat heights are Golf 544-618 and Scala 566-616 so only 50mm lower than Arona at max height, that’s less than 2”. Hardly worth paying several £’000’s for 2" is it?

31 minutes ago, Expatman said:

I have found some info, the seat height of the Arona is 612-666mm, the T-Cross 635-678, T-Roc 648-691, Yeti 646-699. Nothing on the Kamiq as yet. By comparison the Volvo CX40 is 688-750 and the Vitara 682-726.

It is clear that the latest crop of small SUV/Crossovers are of reduced height, probably to reduce drag and thus improve MPG.

Hatchback seat heights are Golf 544-618 and Scala 566-616 so only 50mm lower than Arona at max height, that’s less than 2”. Hardly worth paying several £’000’s for 2" is it?

Some folks would be very happy with an extra 2" or 50mm if you are European or young. Jumping in our Karoq after my Vrs (electric seats) feels like you have stepped into a Range Rover the seat feels so high in comparison. Great view over the average hatchback roof however.

16 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

Some folks would be very happy with an extra 2" or 50mm if you are European or young. Jumping in our Karoq after my Vrs (electric seats) feels like you have stepped into a Range Rover the seat feels so high in comparison. Great view over the average hatchback roof however.

It’s all a matter of choice, personally being senior with a dodgy back I find it much easier to slide into a taller SUV rather than stoop down into a regular hatchback. My problem with the latest batch of small SUV/Crossovers is that they have all reduced the driving elevation to bring them more into line with high hatchbacks rather than true SUV/Crossovers. The seat height of the Yeti even raised to the max provides massive headroom because the Yeti is 1691mm tall compared with the Arona at 1552 and Kamiq at 1531, that’s a significant 160mm lower than the Yeti - over 6” - and that makes getting in and out less easy.

I have an Audi A3 hatchback which is not overly low but would now like something higher. I got into (or failed to almost) an Audi A4 saloon the other day. I don't get in cars as a passenger very often and I hit my head on the top of the door frame. The amount I had to crouch with my dodgy knees to get my head inside was staggering. When i got back to my A3 I checked and it was easier but I had obviously found a knack getting in the right hand door and my seat adjustment was optimum for me (right back). So I guess the seat height and the top of the door height could be something worth checking for older people like me with somewhat restricted flexibility.

If you're looking for a seat height to match the Yeti you need to be looking at a Karoq / Kodiaq.

 

The Kamiq is more of a regular 5-door hatchback.

On 22/12/2019 at 19:48, silver1011 said:

If you're looking for a seat height to match the Yeti you need to be looking at a Karoq / Kodiaq.

 

The Kamiq is more of a regular 5-door hatchback.

Still looking! Tried a T-Cross and it is a very nice car with elevated driving position similar to Yeti, HOWEVER, the inside is c**p. All hard plastics and can’t even spec leather or heated windscreen or power drivers seat. Got to keep the Yeti going for some years yet.

I find my Kamiq with a "booster" cushion is fine.

On 17/12/2019 at 22:23, Expatman said:

I have found some info, the seat height of the Arona is 612-666mm, the T-Cross 635-678, T-Roc 648-691, Yeti 646-699. Nothing on the Kamiq as yet. By comparison the Volvo CX40 is 688-750 and the Vitara 682-726.

It is clear that the latest crop of small SUV/Crossovers are of reduced height, probably to reduce drag and thus improve MPG.

Hatchback seat heights are Golf 544-618 and Scala 566-616 so only 50mm lower than Arona at max height, that’s less than 2”. Hardly worth paying several £’000’s for 2" is it?

 

My experience is that the measurement of the door aperture vs the position of the seat is one of the poorest areas of design with nearly all mainstream manufacturers, particularly relevant is the measurement between the top of the seat squab and the roof line in the door aperture, additionally all manufacturers seem to have pushed forward the rear pillar of front doors with most now removing three door hatch back from their line up. Smacking the side of head as you try to enter the car is unforgivable on a "family" car when you're under 6 foot, it was for this reason I ruled out getting an Audi A3 (last model not the latest version just out). I care little about the obsession with a raised driving position, which leads to a higher centre of gravity raising everything up to accommodate this - worsens handling and fuel economy. However, most hatch backs now have low driving positions low roof lines, the Scala I had as a courtesy car felt like you were falling down into the diver's seat.

 

However, just raising the seat for that SUV experience is not the answer, I found getting into the passenger seat of friend's Volvo XC60 a ridiculous challenge given the size and height of the car, as IMO the seat is way too high up vs the roofline.

 

Given that the Kamiq is significantly cheaper than a lot of standard hatchbacks on the market let alone other crossovers the argument about paying £'000s more is a moot point. This is a much better argument against the Ford Puma - if a sporty ride is you top priority buy a Fiesta ST!  I find the Kamiq a perfect companion, easy to get in and out of, a slightly raised driving position in a car with loads of space, good handling, great fuel economy and decent performance. It's refined, quiet, and has great levels of tech as standard, yes it no sports car but that is not what I bought it for.

I agree the Kamiq is just the car for you. Our problem is that my wife has a bad back which is exacerbated by cars she has to stoop down to get into or climb up to get out. The seat height of the Yeti is just right because she can just 'slide' onto the seats - no stooping or climbing! Actually the T Cross is fine for seat height, it's just such a drop in facilities and cabin quality to the Yeti that it's like going back ten years - no heated windscreen, no power memory seats, no soft touch dashboard, no leather interior etc. Fortunately my Yeti is less than 4 years old so I can keep for a few years yet, but the choice now is poor.

3 hours ago, Expatman said:

I agree the Kamiq is just the car for you. Our problem is that my wife has a bad back which is exacerbated by cars she has to stoop down to get into or climb up to get out. The seat height of the Yeti is just right because she can just 'slide' onto the seats - no stooping or climbing! Actually the T Cross is fine for seat height, it's just such a drop in facilities and cabin quality to the Yeti that it's like going back ten years - no heated windscreen, no power memory seats, no soft touch dashboard, no leather interior etc. Fortunately my Yeti is less than 4 years old so I can keep for a few years yet, but the choice now is poor.

The Kamiq Does have leather, heated windscreen, soft touch dashboard, electric seats set by user profile, An all new up to date chassis all new brakes suspension electronics and driver aids

I've been following this thread with interest as the Kamiq is on my list when the time comes to change my Fabia and I prefer a higher driving position. Does anyone know what the actual difference is between the T-Cross and the Kamiq to give the increased driving height. My understanding is that they are both built on the same platform. So, is it a different seat frame, a higher floor or is the whole car higher? Anyone Know?

 

https://whatcar.com/news/new-skoda-kamiq-vs-volkswagen-t-cross/n20855

 

 

 

Edited 30 November, 20205 yr by e-Roottoot

Ok so the T-Cross is 53mm higher, about 2 inches. But, all other things being equal, that would just mean 2in extra headroom.

 

You need to step into them.

The platforms are the same and if the suspension and tyre circumference were then the floor is.

 

But then the sill height is different, floor to sill, then floor to seat base with the seats at the lowest in both cars being compared.

The rake of the screen / A pillars are different as is the vehicles roof heights.

 

There really is no way of seeing what suits without getting your bum on the seats in the cars.

1 hour ago, JXS said:

I've been following this thread with interest as the Kamiq is on my list when the time comes to change my Fabia and I prefer a higher driving position. Does anyone know what the actual difference is between the T-Cross and the Kamiq to give the increased driving height. My understanding is that they are both built on the same platform. So, is it a different seat frame, a higher floor or is the whole car higher? Anyone Know?

 

I have found some info, the seat height (seat edge to ground) of the Arona is 612-666mm, the T-Cross 635-678, T-Roc 648-691, Kamiq 589-639. While the Yeti is 646-699mm. So the Kamiq clearly has the lowest seating position of all the VAG smaller crossovers.  The T-Roc is closest to the Yeti, followed by the T-Cross, Arona and then the Kamiq. The Kamiq seat is lower by 16mm at its  highest elevation compared to the Yeti seat at its lowest setting and 60mm at its highest setting. The Kamiq is 160mm lower overall than the Yeti so the door aperture is that much lower and therefore entering and exiting is more restricted.

Basically the Kamiq is a high riding hatchback. 

Thanks Expatman, that's exactly the information I was after. So the T_Cross seat is higher than the Kamiq by 46mm at the lowest setting and 39mm at the highest setting, so about 1.5 inches higher at the highest setting. The overall car height just gives you more headroom it is basically the design of the seat that accounts for the difference in driving height.

 

e-Roottoot - thanks for your info too, obviously I will be trying them out when the time comes but I was just curious as to what accounted for the difference.

The term Crossover means nothing as the Kamiq is not available as FWD & AWD, it is just a slightly higher car than a Scala or Fabia, and the Scala is available with a 10 mm ride height difference in some markets.

 

A high seating position can be nice, but then tall people can need a high top to the windscreen so that they can see out, or they might well need the seat low.

Thankfully Skoda have a choice of models to suit many, just not the drive train choice in each of the models where the Karoq is the smallest vehicle they do that has AWD as an option.

Edited 1 December, 20205 yr by e-Roottoot

e-Root spot on, none of the Crossovers in this segment have 4WD or AWD (that I am aware of) they're all high riding hatchbacks, only in the segment above (the small SUV, Karoq, Ateca, Q3 etc) offer AWD/4WD and then only for the top end models not entry models. I bought the Kamiq for the space and refinement and standard tech.

 

JXS - the Kamiq has the lowest driving position out of the three VAG comparable products but is better than the T-Cross and way better than the Arona, although the Arona handles really well. The T-Cross interior is very disappointing both in terms of materials used (given its a VW), and has drab grey interior colour schemes - unless you go for a high spec model in which case replace drab interior with the word gaudy! The Arona's interior is "basic" with no real feel good factor about it unless you go for FR trim but then FR comes with sports suspension and it ruins the ride quality.

 

The extra 2 inches in height for the T-Cross does not translate into extra headroom as the seat is more than two inches higher (than the Kamiq) so negates the extra height of the vehicle. As for other comments as to comparisons with the T-Roc if you want a DSG gearbox you have to go for SE trim and opt for the 1.5l engine - with a starting price of £26.6k before metallic paint etc it's way more expensive and has a cheaper interior and suffers from the same drab/gaudy interior colour scheme alternatives as the T-Cross. 

 

2 hours ago, Kiero1 said:

e-Root spot on, none of the Crossovers in this segment have 4WD or AWD (that I am aware of) they're all high riding hatchbacks, only in the segment above (the small SUV, Karoq, Ateca, Q3 etc) offer AWD/4WD and then only for the top end models not entry models. I bought the Kamiq for the space and refinement and standard tech.

 

JXS - the Kamiq has the lowest driving position out of the three VAG comparable products but is better than the T-Cross and way better than the Arona, although the Arona handles really well. The T-Cross interior is very disappointing both in terms of materials used (given its a VW), and has drab grey interior colour schemes - unless you go for a high spec model in which case replace drab interior with the word gaudy! The Arona's interior is "basic" with no real feel good factor about it unless you go for FR trim but then FR comes with sports suspension and it ruins the ride quality.

 

The extra 2 inches in height for the T-Cross does not translate into extra headroom as the seat is more than two inches higher (than the Kamiq) so negates the extra height of the vehicle. As for other comments as to comparisons with the T-Roc if you want a DSG gearbox you have to go for SE trim and opt for the 1.5l engine - with a starting price of £26.6k before metallic paint etc it's way more expensive and has a cheaper interior and suffers from the same drab/gaudy interior colour scheme alternatives as the T-Cross. 

 

You are absolutely right, VAG have down marketed both the T Cross and T Roc. Skoda have chosen too low a seating position (for me) so next car unlikely to be a VAG vehicle. Have time before next purchase so hoping to find something suitable from a different maker.

I have had VAG vehicles for 30+ years but I guess they don't need my business now I'm in my 70's.

 

@Expatman They got your business and others who bought 1 or more Yeti which were excellent for higher seating.

The issue was and is that the Style & Practicality icon did not sell in enough numbers, be that in the UK or globally.

Less than a million produced and sold in the years produced.

Just like the Roomster which also suited many, but many never bought them or even considered looking as they were a bit odd looking.

 

That can be an issue in that unless people open the doors and get in a car that the outside has put them off then they might never know how good they are.

http://carsalesbase.com/europe-skoda-kamiq

 

Edited 1 December, 20205 yr by e-Roottoot

4 minutes ago, e-Roottoot said:

@Expatman They got your business and others who bought 1 or more Yeti which were excellent for higher seating.

The issue was and is that the Style & Practicality icon did not sell in enough numbers, be that in the UK or globally.

Just like the Roomster which also suited many, but many never bought them or even considered looking as they were a bit odd looking.

 

That can be an issue in that unless people open the doors and get in a car that the outside has put them off then they might never know how good they are.

I can see that but for the life of me I can’t understand why the T-Cross is not offered with a better quality interior and the options to upgrade to the same level as the Kamiq. The upgrades could all be up cost options so VW would make money out of it. Modern production lines have no problems incorporating variants so it must be a a business decision - beats me though!!!

Likely something the Board of Management of the VW Group which is the biggest car manufacturer in the world but not the most profitable know.

They do seem to oversee the various senior management signing off some oddities.

1 hour ago, Expatman said:

I can see that but for the life of me I can’t understand why the T-Cross is not offered with a better quality interior and the options to upgrade to the same level as the Kamiq. The upgrades could all be up cost options so VW would make money out of it. Modern production lines have no problems incorporating variants so it must be a a business decision - beats me though!!!

I suspect it is that VW expected the T-Cross to be a young person's car and therefore more important to look good on the outside than have a classy interior. Hence the migraine inducing colour options (see attached)! It's targeted at young families not oldies that can't get in and out of smaller cars. Seems odd to me as all the journalists immediately talk about interior quality so you're on the back foot from the start with the T-Cross and T-Roc. Penny pinching does seem to be the driver here, especially if Skoda can get it right with the interior of the Kamiq.

 

Not sure about the German market but VW got it very wrong as to the target market for the UP GTI, they said it was a young person's introduction to the GTI market and most people on the UK owner's club forum were like me 40+ who wanted to have a second car that was a hoot to drive.

 

 

Untitled 2.pdf