BMW or Skoda

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Hi all,

I'm trying to weigh up the pros and cons of two vehicles I have short listed (Still at the early stages of the buying cycle so still open to suggestions).

The first is the BMW 116d 5 door.

The second is the Skoda Yeti Urban 170BHP 4x4.

Both are priced around the same but the extras are somewhat different. With the Yeti the alloys are larger (not very important), has a much larger boot, panoramic sunroof, roof bars, and it's 4x4 The l/100 is slightly higher than my ford at the moment and significantly higher than the BMW. The tax will also be slightly higher than the BMW.

The OH happens to prefer the BMW as it's a sportier looking car, however, the boot is a little small for my liking. It is a very sexy looking car in my opinion.

Does anybody have any opinions on either of these motors? What would you recommend?

Anan1

Have you driven both? Do you need AWD? How does each fulfill your needs?

Matthewjohn

What specs are they? But if you don't mind the looks definitely the Yeti.

RedDeadMarshal

Carmen Cuddly Papier-mache wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm trying to weigh up the pros and cons of two vehicles I have short listed (Still at the early stages of the buying cycle so still open to suggestions).

The first is the BMW 116d 5 door.

The second is the Skoda Yeti Urban 170BHP 4x4.

Both are priced around the same but the extras are somewhat different. With the Yeti the alloys are larger (not very important), has a much larger boot, panoramic sunroof, roof bars, and it's 4x4 The l/100 is slightly higher than my ford at the moment and significantly higher than the BMW. The tax will also be slightly higher than the BMW.

The OH happens to prefer the BMW as it's a sportier looking car, however, the boot is a little small for my liking. It is a very sexy looking car in my opinion.

Does anybody have any opinions on either of these motors? What would you recommend?

what year is the bmw?

kona

Yeti is very nice place to be in the leather version . Drives great too

JohnBoy26

kona wrote: »

Yeti is very nice place to be in the leather version . Drives great too

I have to agree with this. They have a very nice interior that has a high quality feel about it imo.

Eric Cartman

Im not gone on the 1 series, especially in a 116d guise , but Id have it over a yeti

kaimera

Helicopter on the roof.

Yeti.

listermint

Yeti is an ugly looking heap (exterior)

It cant but put up against the 116 for looks.



Drive them both OP, the internet cant really assist in the feeling you get yourself when you say in you head "yes this feels right"

spank_inferno

regarding the Yeti.
I thought that the "urban" edition was only available with the 110 ps diesel or the 105 PS petrol?

Anyway, if it is the 170ps 4x4 I would go for that over the 116.

Though the Yeti has a somewhat small boot, its a great drive and the engine performes excellently & delivers 50+ mpg easily.


.... having said that, I think you have already made up your mind!



.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Anan1 wrote: »

Have you driven both? Do you need AWD? How does each fulfill your needs?

AWD is not essential but in places I frequent it's a bonus. I would also imagine it would be better to pull a load (not a very heavy load) with an AWD than a hatchback.

RedDeadMarshal wrote: »

what year is the bmw?

It's a 2013, same as the Yeti.

The finance option on the Yeti is a pretty big factor also.

The BMW is a much nicer looking car, definitely, but it's not a deciding factor.

I wanted to know if anybody had any real trouble with either car as well?

From the replies it's just a matter of preference and I don't get the impression either choice would be a bad one.

Matt Simis

Could you not stretch to a more interesting/proper BMW? A bottom of the ladder 1 series is very Irish.

The Yeti has its purpose, which is not at all the same as a 1series. You either need that [fairly softcore] utility or you dont. I wouldnt think there is much logic putting value in the towing ability of a Yeti anyway.. towing prowess is based on engine power, chassis, weight and gearbox. The fact one is RWD and one [semi]AWD* isnt much difference, though I wouldnt think a 1 series is a great tow car either.

As direct comparison this matchup makes little sense.. which is better a Touareg or Mini Clubman?


*Yeti is a Haldex system, which is an electronic 90% FWD system with AWD on demand. Its rear drive shafts are not actually designed for continuous or high drive loads. An Audi Q7 (or Touareg or some A4's etc) use permanent, mechanical TorSen AWD systems.

EDIT: The Yeti used 4th Gen Haldex, which is actually pretty swish and the rear diff can drive the rear wheels 100%.. though I would be surprised if its implemented and rigged up as such in the Yeti. But the diff/system could do it:
http://freepdfhosting.com/5a206fa055.pdf

kona

spank_inferno wrote: »

Though the Yeti has a somewhat small boot, its a great drive and the engine performes excellently & delivers 50+ mpg
.

The 170 didn't get near 50 on the motorway , it was quite poor tbh, having said that it was being driven hard but not that hard. Was high 30s.

Cee-Jay-Cee

The 1 series are for all intensive purposes 'girls cars' I'd take the yeti over one of them any day

spank_inferno

You are correct, the AWD yeti doesn't matter much with regard to its towing stats.

However they are still impressive.

Braked, the Yeti can tow 2 tonnes.
unbraked its 750 Kgs.

There are few small hatchbacks that can compete with that.

spank_inferno

kona wrote: »

The 170 didn't get near 50 on the motorway , it was quite poor tbh, having said that it was being driven hard but not that hard. Was high 30s.

Our daily is Dundrum & Sandyford -> M11 -> Rathnew / Wicklow Town.

keeping at speed limits its high 40's or low 50's

Best average run (while driving like a nun!) was 56MPG

Having said that, the 116 because its not shaped like a shed, should peform much better.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Matt Simis wrote: »

Could you not stretch to a more interesting/proper BMW? A bottom of the ladder 1 series is very Irish.

The Yeti has its purpose, which is not at all the same as a 1series. You either need that [fairly softcore] utility or you dont. I wouldnt think there is much logic putting value in the towing ability of a Yeti anyway.. towing prowess is based on engine power, chassis, weight and gearbox. The fact one is RWD and one [semi]AWD isnt much difference, though I wouldnt think a 1 series is a great tow car either.

As direct comparison this matchup makes little sense.. which is better a Touareg or Mini Clubman?

I would have personally went for a 3 series, but the OH doesn't like it and I couldn't afford a 5 series.

I have only ever towed with a FWD and it was fine, I don't think I would like to tow with a RWD vehicle.

I have compared a lot of cars, Seat, Toyota, Merc, Kia, Ford etc etc, and these are the two cars that I have come down to. I completely agree that they are such an odd pair to compare

kona

spank_inferno wrote: »

Our daily is Dundrum & Sandyford -> M11 -> Rathnew / Wicklow Town.

keeping at speed limits its high 40's.

Best average run (while driving like a nun!) was 56MPG

Dublin to Clare high 30s. Could have been an unknown issue with a egr or something but that's what it got.
I only remember because I was suprised, I expected 40s maybe 50s.

rocky

You know your design team f'ed up when a 1 series is much more attractive than your car...

Matt Simis

Carmen Cuddly Papier-mache wrote: »

I would have personally went for a 3 series, but the OH doesn't like it and I couldn't afford a 5 series.

I have only ever towed with a FWD and it was fine, I don't think I would like to tow with a RWD vehicle.

What about a 120d?
Not following why you wouldnt want to tow with a RWD.. when towing on a FWD you are loosing some of its required weight placement from the front wheels (allowing even more understeer and lack of traction), on the RWD you would be gaining even better traction than it already offers over FWD. You do get that FWD is pants right?

I've towed with AWD (Audi Allroad, so Torsen) and RWD, both were fine.


Wiki backs me up on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_layout

In a vehicle, the weight shifts back during acceleration, giving more traction to the rear wheels. This is one of the main reasons nearly all racing cars are rear-wheel drive. However, since front-wheel-drive cars have the weight of the engine over the driving wheels, the problem only applies in extreme conditions such as attempting to accelerate up a wet hill or attempting to beat another RWD car off the line.
In some towing situations, front-wheel-drive cars can be at a traction disadvantage since there will be less weight on the driving wheels. Because of this, the weight that the vehicle is rated to safely tow is likely to be less than that of a rear-wheel-drive or four-wheel-drive vehicle of the same size and power.

RWD nearly always offers much superior turning circles and always offers superior steering feeling, both of which would be handy when towing. Honestly, I really think you have that one backwards.

spank_inferno

Is the 116 RWD or FWD
I had heard that they were moving to FWD for the lower end models.

*edit* - Wiki confirms they are RWD

WRT the yeti, when its pulling away from stationary 80% of the torque is sent to the rear wheels, after a few seconds it reverts to its standard bias (96% front, 4% rear).

V Eight

I'm now on my second Yeti Urban 110bhp 2wd - will be going for a third why??.....the panoramic roof, class piece of equipment - the black and silver alloys 17" - seats are removable - looks different/unusual - everything does what its supposed to.......it feels good to own it.....looks great in silver and grey................and so on...

biko

The yeti looks like a contender.

These guys took one from Liverpool to Paris, on one tank of petrol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UNUTo-Lr10

Watch this, for the apparent reason..
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT62a94Pkdk

galwaytt

kona wrote: »

Dublin to Clare high 30s. Could have been an unknown issue with a egr or something but that's what it got.
I only remember because I was suprised, I expected 40s maybe 50s.

Something wrong there tbh. My old 2.2 Saab is better than that tbh...

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Matt Simis wrote: »

What about a 120d?
Not following why you wouldnt want to tow with a RWD.. when towing on a FWD you are loosing some of its required weight placement from the front wheels (allowing even more understeer and lack of traction), on the RWD you would be gaining even better traction than it already offers over FWD. You do get that FWD is pants right?

I've towed with AWD (Audi Allroad, so Torsen) and RWD, both were fine.


Wiki backs me up on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_layout


RWD nearly always offers much superior turning circles and always offers superior steering feeling, both of which would be handy when towing. Honestly, I really think you have that one backwards.

Because a 120d starts at 34K as oppose to the 116d starting at 29K. It's a pretty big jump.

Yea, I am wrong. I was just thinking of all those poor RWD in the snow over the past years. Not nice at all.

Matt Simis

Carmen Cuddly Papier-mache wrote: »

Yea, I am wrong. I was just thinking of all those poor RWD in the snow over the past years. Not nice at all.

Just the people with the wrong/bald tyres. No problems when prepared in RWD.

spank_inferno

spank_inferno wrote: »

You are correct, the AWD yeti doesn't matter much with regard to its towing stats.

Stats dont cover everything. Try pulling a decent load up a slippery incline or any sort of incline on gravel from a standing start. You will be sitting there spinning wheels and going nowhere in a 2wd.

Also having AWD is a big advantage when slowing down with a load. You will notice that most modern tractors automatically engage 4wd when you press the breaks for this very reason.

spank_inferno

Fair enough....

so depending on the OPs towing needs, its another plus for the Yeti.

Matt Simis

Mya Large Self-control wrote: »

Stats dont cover everything. Try pulling a decent load up a slippery incline or any sort of incline on gravel from a standing start. You will be sitting there spinning wheels and going nowhere in a 2wd.

Hold there..
You mean in a FWD 2WD (which isnt a factor of this thread at all, its AWD or RWD), clearly that wouldnt happen on a RWD as on an incline even more of the weight swifts to the driving wheels, on top of the weight you are towing. In an AWD in that situation the rear wheels will be doing most of the work, the front wheels suffer the same problem as a FWD..

He also said he isnt pulling much of a load anyhow.

Eamonn121

BMW :-)

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

Hold there..
You mean in a FWD 2WD (which isnt a factor of this thread at all, its AWD or RWD), clearly that wouldnt happen on a RWD as on an incline even more of the weight swifts to the driving wheels, on top of the weight you are towing. In an AWD in that situation the rear wheels will be doing most of the work, the front wheels suffer the same problem as a FWD..

He also said he isnt pulling much of a load anyhow.

Trust me I've done enough towing with all sorts of vehicles, the rwd will be a bit better than the fwd but not a whole lot. The awd will be far superior.

Dubl07

Yeti. BMW is anodyne - for people who've come into money and have no driving skills or manners. They vie with Volvo drivers as the worst road users on the island.

dharn

Bit of a generalization there:eek:

bmm

Have you looked at a Kia Cee'd or Kia Karens . I like the 7 year parts and labour warranty.

I've no connection with Kia btw, just had a look at a few new one's in the range yesterday. Mainly because of the warranty. 7 years!!! And the warranty continues when the car is sold on.

dharn

You have to keep your kia serviced at main dealer for 7 years by which time they have robbed you

colm_mcm

dharn wrote: »

You have to keep your kia serviced at main dealer for 7 years by which time they have robbed you

Do you know how much they charge for servicing?

dharn

I have heard anything up to 500

nitna bitna

comparing a BMW to a skoda??

WTF????

thats like,,,,,,,,

Comparin jennifer aniston to susan boil

Anan1

Mya Large Self-control wrote: »

Also having AWD is a big advantage when slowing down with a load. You will notice that most modern tractors automatically engage 4wd when you press the breaks for this very reason.

Unless your brakes are overheating, AWD will make no difference under braking.

eljono

OP, I was in a similar situation last year. Choice was between a 118d Sport and a Yeti 1.6TDi.

Drove the 118d, good poke and nice handling. Found the cabin a bit claustrophobic though, headroom was poor in the front, not much better in the back and the boot is tiny. Also there were silly things that annoyed me, the electric windows were really loud going up and down and the sat-nav wasn't great.

Drove the Skoda then, even though it couldn't compete with the Beemer on pace, I was impressed with the ride and handling and in the end, the extra space and extras swung it for me i.e Xenon directional lights, heated leather seats, upgraded sound system. Living with it is very easy, it's comfy, reliable so far (25k kms), can throw my bike or furniture in the back and easy to go 5 up.

Anan1

Anan1 wrote: »

Unless your brakes are overheating, AWD will make no difference under braking.

If you are slowing down into a junction using the brakes and engine braking having four driven wheels resisting your load along with the brakes makes a difference.

Why do you think tractors auto engage four wheel drive under braking? Just for the craic?

It takes a lot of pressure off the brakes when you have weight behind you and will help prevent your breaks over heating, prolong you break life and make for more stable and more powerful stopping power especially on slippery roads.

colm_mcm

dharn wrote: »

I have heard anything up to 500

And an indie would never charge €500?

Anan1

Mya Large Self-control wrote: »

If you are slowing down into a junction using the brakes and engine braking having four driven wheels resisting your load along with the brakes makes a difference.

Why do you think tractors auto engage four wheel drive under braking? Just for the craic?

It takes a lot of pressure off the brakes when you have weight behind you and will help prevent your breaks over heating, prolong you break life and make for more stable and more powerful stopping power especially on slippery roads.

Perhaps tractor brakes are subject to fade? In a car, unless your brakes are overheating AWD will make no difference whatsoever under braking.

Roger_007

nitna bitna wrote: »

comparing a BMW to a skoda??

WTF????

thats like,,,,,,,,

Comparin jennifer aniston to susan boil

Have you heard Jennifer Aniston singing?:P

The Clown Man

Are you sure you want it new? You are limiting yourself to a certain type of car if you are looking for only new, and really, it's it worth the first years depreciation?

You say you want a nice looking car with nice interior that can pull. If you like the 1s then I'm guessing an x3 or x5 fits your needs better. You could have a 2010 x3 for the same price and it runs on a 1.9d. But you'll have loads of tow, xdrive 4x4 if ever needed, a great interior, and if you ask a bmw garage to source a sport version, a great looking car with a full bmw warranty.

Take a couple more years off and you have an x5 but with a bigger engine and more tax.

One way or another buying new is an expensive way to get a car. And the higher range cars are just built better.

listermint

I was behind a 131 Yeti there on saturday. And yes the look worse than expected in the flesh. Ugly Ugly Ugly looking thing, and just as with anything of that calibre looks it was being driven by a 70 Year old, who was driving like a 70 year old that shouldnt be on the road.

For me the Yeti should never be purchased by anyone below 60. Its a statement of intent. "stay back" "im liable to do anything on the road"

Roger_007

If you want value for money and reliability, go for the Yeti. If you just want a bit of bling go for the BMW.

listermint

Roger_007 wrote: »

If you want value for money and reliability, go for the Yeti. If you just want a bit of bling go for the BMW.

What about resale ? 116D is bling now is it ? LOL

Roger_007

listermint wrote: »

What about resale ? 116D is bling now is it ? LOL

Look up the reliability stats. BMW don't do too well there, (or do Mercedes for that matter). I would agree that the Yeti is not high in the fashion stakes but it depends what's more important.

For Forks Sake

Has the OP been back on? I'm curious as to the thought process / criteria that resulted in those two cars being the choice?

Anan1

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Has the OP been back on? I'm curious as to the thought process / criteria that resulted in those two cars being the choice?

Me too. They're odd cars to be comparing, really - an AWD Yeti is something I'd happily buy if I needed its particular blend of abilities, but if that were the case then I wouldn't even be considering the BMW.