Skoda Yeti?

Sodapop1

Hi all,

Hoping to upgrade soon, I have a 09 Audi A3 1.9 diesel. I do very little mileage, but I do travel for work sometimes and I need decent boot space for equipment. I want something with easy access to get in and out of, back problems are playing havoc in the a3. Has anyone any review of the yeti? Looking for a 1.2 petrol model, thanks in advance

ba_barabus

We've got one. It's a 1.2T with a 6 speed manual. It's our seçond. They've been great. Never caused any bother. My preference would be for a DSG model in a future one to improve fuel economy. Ours currently gives 42mpg, it's as good as it gets. It's very comfortable, loads of space, access and comfort is great. I couldn't recommend one highly enough.

Sodapop1

ba_barabus wrote: »

We've got one. It's a 1.2T with a 6 speed manual. It's our seçond. They've been great. Never caused any bother. My preference would be for a DSG model in a future one to improve fuel economy. Ours currently gives 42mpg, it's as good as it gets. It's very comfortable, loads of space, access and comfort is great. I couldn't recommend one highly enough.

Thanks so much, I do craft markets throughout the year and I need room for stock and a tent and maybe my embroidery machine on occasion, I just want to find the best use of space for me, and the A3 is deffo causing problems for me getting in and out of, it will be the new year before I go about buying but I wanted to try and get feedback between now and then, thanks so much again

terrydel

Boot looks tiny without the seats down, is that the case?

ba_barabus

Sodapop1 wrote: »

Thanks so much, I do craft markets throughout the year and I need room for stock and a tent and maybe my embroidery machine on occasion, I just want to find the best use of space for me, and the A3 is deffo causing problems for me getting in and out of, it will be the new year before I go about buying but I wanted to try and get feedback between now and then, thanks so much again

My mother who generally uses the Yeti paints a lot and does flower arranging. Space has never been an issue.

As regards boot size, it's as big as a Golf to me but with a more usable shape. Seats down it's huge. Bigger boots are available .

jmreire

ba_barabus wrote: »

We've got one. It's a 1.2T with a 6 speed manual. It's our seçond. They've been great. Never caused any bother. My preference would be for a DSG model in a future one to improve fuel economy. Ours currently gives 42mpg, it's as good as it gets. It's very comfortable, loads of space, access and comfort is great. I couldn't recommend one highly enough.

Generally speaking, automatic's are not more economical fuel wise than manual's, but maybe the DSG box will be different...I'm sure that some one here on the forum will have experience of both and can offer a more definite opinion.

vatvatie

Thoughts on the VW id3, anyone?

bazz26

It already has a seperate thread in the EV forum:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057979167

ba_barabus

jmreire wrote: »

Generally speaking, automatic's are not more economical fuel wise than manual's, but maybe the DSG box will be different...I'm sure that some one here on the forum will have experience of both and can offer a more definite opinion.

That hasn't been the case for a very long time.

bazz26

Just be careful with the early versions of the 1.2 TSi engine as these had a timing chain which is well known for stretching and need replacing. They switched to a more reliable timing belt at some stage but I'm not sure what year that was.

jmreire

ba_barabus wrote: »

That hasn't been the case for a very long time.

Does that apply only to the DSG box? Or to oil driven one's too? I drive an automatic ( 722.6 Transmission ) and its definitely harder than the same car with manual transmission. I know that there are many variables in fuel consumption, speed, driving style, condition of the engine, road conditions etc. I'm very happy to hear that automatics have become lighter on fuel than their manual counterpart's. ( and especially in V A G models)

ba_barabus

jmreire wrote: »

Does that apply only to the DSG box? Or to oil driven one's too? I drive an automatic ( 722.6 Transmission ) and its definitely harder than the same car with manual transmission. I know that there are many variables in fuel consumption, speed, driving style, condition of the engine, road conditions etc. I'm very happy to hear that automatics have become lighter on fuel than their manual counterpart's. ( and especially in V A G models)

Generally speaking the DSG box is better as it has a wider range of gears and ratios, it's quicker to shift and can be set for economy. Same goes for cars like the Prius using the CVT system.

I'm assuming here as I'm not a gearbox expert but what you're referring to is a torque converter gearbox.

jmreire

ba_barabus wrote: »

Generally speaking the DSG box is better as it has a wider range of gears and ratios, it's quicker to shift and can be set for economy. Same goes for cars like the Prius using the CVT system.

I'm assuming here as I'm not a gearbox expert but what you're referring to is a torque converter gearbox.

Yes, all oil driven transmision's us torque converter's. CVT use expanding / reducing pully's, and the DSG boxes use a twin shaft system,( basically 2 box's working in tandem, developed for racing car's ) But I don't have much experience driving them, and never knew what they were like fuel consumption wise. Good to hear that though.

ba_barabus

jmreire wrote: »

Yes, all oil driven transmision's us torque converter's. CVT use expanding / reducing pully's, and the DSG boxes use a twin shaft system,( basically 2 box's working in tandem, developed for racing car's ) But I don't have much experience driving them, and never knew what they were like fuel consumption wise. Good to hear that though.

It's all relative of course, if you drive it like a race car it'll drink like one too

Rusky rusky

jmreire wrote: »

Generally speaking, automatic's are not more economical fuel wise than manual's, but maybe the DSG box will be different...I'm sure that some one here on the forum will have experience of both and can offer a more definite opinion.

DSG def not more economical than manual. We have two cars in the house (1.0 tsi golf and 1.2 tsi polo)

Sodapop1

bazz26 wrote: »

Just be careful with the early versions of the 1.2 TSi engine as these had a timing chain which is well known for stretching and need replacing. They switched to a more reliable timing belt at some stage but I'm not sure what year that was.

I’d be hoping to get a 2017 model, but I’ve been looking and they seem to be thin on the ground, I see lots of diesels but very few petrols, my mechanic will help me find one I hope

ba_barabus

Sodapop1 wrote: »

I’d be hoping to get a 2017 model, but I’ve been looking and they seem to be thin on the ground, I see lots of diesels but very few petrols, my mechanic will help me find one I hope

They're incredibly thin on the ground. We had to place special orders to get ours in 2013 and 2016 and resist pressure to order diesels at the time to cover 10 k kms a year.

Importing isn't a great option as they are sought after in the UK.

Casati

jmreire wrote: »

Does that apply only to the DSG box? Or to oil driven one's too? I drive an automatic ( 722.6 Transmission ) and its definitely harder than the same car with manual transmission. I know that there are many variables in fuel consumption, speed, driving style, condition of the engine, road conditions etc. I'm very happy to hear that automatics have become lighter on fuel than their manual counterpart's. ( and especially in V A G models)

Father has a 1.2 DSG and it’s quite hard on fuel, you’d struggle to see 7 l/ 100km on a long on main roads, driving 120kmph motorway it will be worse Around town it’s worse again. I’m more used to diesels but think it’s fairly poor and have experience of the 1.2 TSI manual in other cars as being way more economical. Despite what the salesman says a manual driven property has always been more economical than an auto version for me - though I’ve heard BMW auto’s are terrifically economical so maybe anything with a ZF is an exception.

Having said that the Yeti 1.2 DSG is a brilliant all round car and you won’t regret buying one

jmreire

Casati wrote: »

Father has a 1.2 DSG and it’s quite hard on fuel, you’d struggle to see 7 l/ 100km on a long on main roads, driving 120kmph motorway it will be worse Around town it’s worse again. I’m more used to diesels but think it’s fairly poor and have experience of the 1.2 TSI manual in other cars as being way more economical. Despite what the salesman says a manual driven property has always been more economical than an auto version for me - though I’ve heard BMW auto’s are terrifically economical so maybe anything with a ZF is an exception.

Having said that the Yeti 1.2 DSG is a brilliant all round car and you won’t regret buying one

That's why I queried it earlier on...my experience has only been with oil-driven transmission's ( fitted with torque Converter's ) and they have always been heavier on fuel that their manual counterpart's. So I was interested in how the newer designed transmission's fare out fuel wise. Of course there are so many variables in this, driving style, road condition's, Motorway V City and Town driving etc. So good to hear a few different opinion's.

ba_barabus

Casati wrote: »

Father has a 1.2 DSG and it’s quite hard on fuel, you’d struggle to see 7 l/ 100km on a long on main roads, driving 120kmph motorway it will be worse Around town it’s worse again. I’m more used to diesels but think it’s fairly poor and have experience of the 1.2 TSI manual in other cars as being way more economical. Despite what the salesman says a manual driven property has always been more economical than an auto version for me - though I’ve heard BMW auto’s are terrifically economical so maybe anything with a ZF is an exception.

Having said that the Yeti 1.2 DSG is a brilliant all round car and you won’t regret buying one

Not much difference to what we're getting from the manual in the Yeti then.