New Car Help

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
Snizzlepops

Snizzlepops

Active Member
Me and the OH went through the list of suggestions briefly over the weekend and we narrowed it down to a few, and it's fair to say that the Octavia is the running favourite for me atm - so thanks for all those suggestions! I saw one pull up whilst out on a walk at the w/end and it was good looking beast!

@RichardAThackery - loving the pictures! A well used car^_^

And I cant find who posted it but Honest John was a great suggestion-Thanks :okay:
 

Drago

Legendary Member
[QUOTE 4164868, member: 45"]I don't think the OP mentioned driving through mud in the list of requirements.[/QUOTE]Which make the Yeti a poor choice - you're paying extra for perceived off road ability you don't need, and which doesn't really exist.
 

vickster

Squire
Which make the Yeti a poor choice - you're paying extra for perceived off road ability you don't need, and which doesn't really exist.
My parents have a Yeti. They are under no illusions that it's an off roader. But it is easy for them to get into, has good visibility, is voluminous and comfortable

I don't think anyone here has claimed it's a Land Rover competitor. Looks far better though!
 

Drago

Legendary Member
No one here has, but a quick Google will find a country full of idiots who think they have some off road ability.

If a Skoda badge, slightly elevated seating position and lots of space is what one desires then the Roomster is cheaper, mainly because it isn't saddled with unnecessary and ineffective AWD twaddle.
 

vickster

Squire
They preferred the Yeti and were able to get one locally with the spec they wanted. Price wasn't the first consideration.

I'm not sure what your issue is other than you don't seem to like the Yeti which is your prerogative
 

Drago

Legendary Member
They preferred the Yeti and were able to get one locally with the spec they wanted. Price wasn't the first consideration.

I'm not sure what your issue is other than you don't seem to like the Yeti which is your prerogative

I've got a downer in general on soft roader that are so soft they have no dirt ability at all. Qashqai AWD versions, Yeti AWD, that sort of thing. Not only do manufacturers have the gall to palm them off on a gullible public, but huge swathes of people clamour to buy them. Why?

The one I towed recently was at an SAR callout, another team member vehicle. A few cars had parked on a soft verge and sunk, but the Yeti was then only one that couldn't free itself. An old Pug 106, a Mondeo and a very tired looking Laguna all managed a few feet of off roading where the Yeti failed (and it was the AWD one, I asked) which begs the question as to why they bothered in the first place? The penalties of extra weight, poorer handling an higher running costs clearly aren't compensated for by Bear Grylls like wilderness ability, so I genuinely would like to know - what is the point?
 

KneesUp

Guru
I towed a stuck Yeti out of the mud a few weeks back.
Was it the AWD version? And did it have the entirely inappropriate 'sporty' tyres I imagine they come with fitted?
 

Drago

Legendary Member
Was it the AWD version? And did it have the entirely inappropriate 'sporty' tyres I imagine they come with fitted?
Very good question my friend, especially about the tyres, and one you'll regret having asked!

A true 4wd system is either permanently locked, or can be manually selected to lock all 4 wheels, so each wheel receives constant power from the engine. On off road oriented vehicles it's usually a 50:50 distribution, but in sporty road cars it may be biased to the rear.

Some cars, like modern Defenders, have a centre diff so are left in 4wd all the time. Others, like my mighty Kia of Manliness, do not have a centre diff so you would only engage it when off road.

A true 4wd will almost certainly have diff locks, or electronic simulation of diff locks - again, my Kia has the electronic faux sort. Some full on 4wd vehicles will also have a low range.

Now here is where it gets interesting...

Awd systems normally only power the front wheels, engaging the rears only when the front loses grip. This mechanically simple, requiring only a TorSen diff or Haldex unit somewhere in the centre of the drive train.

But there's a big problem - you only get power to the rear when the fronts have lost their grip, and even on moderate off road such as a slimy unpaved track that is too late.

Now, you mention the thorny issue of tyres. On a 4wd car you will indeed vastly improve off road performance with specialist rubber. I run Yokohama ATS IIs on mine, which are also fairly civilised on the road.

However, on an AWD vehicle such as a Yeti or a NedFlander this doesn't work. You rely on the front wheels losing grip to engage the rear axle, but AT or MT tyres means the fronts won't slip and you never get drive to the rear wheels. So beefy tyres do nothing to improve an AWD cars chances off road, and may even make things worse. This is why Freelanders are crap off road, yet a quiet and unassuming Subaru Forester are little monsters off the beaten track.

So if it says AWD on the tin then it doesn't matter how meaty or rugged it looks, or what plastic faux lower body protection it sports, it inappropriate for anything but road use. The situation doesn't help that a lot of manufacturer s label such offerings as "4x4", when in the strictest technical sense they are not. AWD doesn't even help much on the snow, although with clever electronic management - such as in the XC 90 - it can be made to work well on the snow, but the systems required to do so cost money and tend to end up in the more expensive motors.
 
Last edited:

swee'pea99

Squire
[QUOTE 4166891, member: 45"]I don't think there are any claims being made in that respect.

Nobody buys a 1.2, 2WD Yeti expecting off road capability.

You're well aware that the majority of cars with 4WD aren't bought for that capability.[/QUOTE]
"Four wheel drive is sooo important when you're going down to Sainsburys." - Alexei Sayle
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
in reply to Drago- you mention that some of the magic trickery ones don't engage the rear wheels until the fronts lose grip - as if this is a problem. But surely, if the fronts still have grip then you don't need to engage the rear anyway.

Also a traditional mechanical 3 diff system like on a 110 - if one wheel slips, then all the drive goes to that one wheel - unless you lock the centre diff (or indeed the front or back diffs on vehicles so equipped)
 

Drago

Legendary Member
in reply to Drago- you mention that some of the magic trickery ones don't engage the rear wheels until the fronts lose grip - as if this is a problem. But surely, if the fronts still have grip then you don't need to engage the rear anyway.

That's correct, but not desirable. With AWD you're only ever powering the front or rear, never both properly simultaneously. With 4wd you're spreading the drive load evenly across the axles, making it less likely that one will slip, and if one did you're still better off because the other is already engaged and already has grip. This is why you don't see a Qashqai winning trophies at a Punch Challenge weekend, and why Fiennes wouldn't use a Yeti on a circumpolar expedition.

Indeed, the 110 is pretty elderly and as standard came only with centre diff lock. While that's very effective, newer stuff from the last decade also has cross axle locking, or simulation thereof.
 
Top Bottom