Skoda Yeti first Pictures, discussion.

**phaeton** · 22-06-2009, 01:26 PM

Yeah off topic those Captivas are actually are a good drive.

**Transporter** · 22-06-2009, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by mrgolf

Fixed it for you.

All soft roaders should be banned. Dangerous pieces of crap. Hope this one doesnt make it to our shores. Leave the 4wds for the farmers. they dont belong in cities.

/rant. Not targeting anyone, just the cars.

Why don't we ban also vans, trucks, buses...?

It is the driver behind the wheel who is dangerous not the vehicle.

**mrgolf** · 22-06-2009, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by brad

Because?

Maybe I could ask that all the passenger vehicles stay off dirt roads - you're holding me up.

First things first. I dont drive on dirt roads.

Because the vast majority of people who buy SUVs/ Urban Assault Vehicles buy them 'to see over traffic' making it more difficult for the average driver to see. Secondly because most people who buy them do so because it is a bit of a trend and they never use them to go off road at all. Look at the base model Territory which is RWD, not AWD. They are slightly better on dirt roads than a conventional car, but a 4wd they aint. Having used real 4wds in the bush, they are complete show pony's. The Forester was OK cos it wasnt ridiculoulsy high, but the new one is as bad as the rest.

Thirdly, if a soft roader t-bones a conventional city car, the consequences for occupants of the car are dire. This is selfishness on the part of the UAV owner. Especially since a lot put bull bars on their UAVs making them even worse.

Fourthly, a soft roader creates more pollution than a conventional car capacity to capacity, and have a bigger impact on roads in terms of wear and tear.

Fifthly, they arent safer for anyone. They dont handle like a conventional car and can be a lot less stable. They may be bigger than a conventional car and have more mass, as they are less stable, they are slightly more likely to be in an accident. And as pointed out earlier, they are at an awkward height and a lot have bull bars so are more dangerous for normal motorists.

Finally, they are no bigger than a conventional car in terms of interior space. There just isnt a reason to own one that is valid unless you actually go off bitumen (qualification for you, Brad) Unfortunately, a large proportion dont. Hence the Hyundai Tuscon 'City'.

A good family friend was t-boned by a 4wd and died. If the collision had been with a conventional car, he would probably be alive today. In fact, if it were a conventional car, it may not have lost control in the first place. Far fetched but an element of truth.

and, no busses and trucks shouldnt be banned cos they have a purpose.

**mrgolf** · 22-06-2009, 06:57 PM

Oh, and the Yeti should also be banned cos it aint pretty.

**Transporter** · 22-06-2009, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by mrgolf

Oh, and the Yeti should also be banned cos it aint pretty.

Maybe... it will be man's car only.

**Buller_Scott** · 30-03-2011, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by mrgolf

First things first. I dont drive on dirt roads.

Because the vast majority of people who buy SUVs/ Urban Assault Vehicles buy them 'to see over traffic' making it more difficult for the average driver to see. Secondly because most people who buy them do so because it is a bit of a trend and they never use them to go off road at all. Look at the base model Territory which is RWD, not AWD. They are slightly better on dirt roads than a conventional car, but a 4wd they aint. Having used real 4wds in the bush, they are complete show pony's. The Forester was OK cos it wasnt ridiculoulsy high, but the new one is as bad as the rest.

Thirdly, if a soft roader t-bones a conventional city car, the consequences for occupants of the car are dire. This is selfishness on the part of the UAV owner. Especially since a lot put bull bars on their UAVs making them even worse.

Fourthly, a soft roader creates more pollution than a conventional car capacity to capacity, and have a bigger impact on roads in terms of wear and tear.

Fifthly, they arent safer for anyone. They dont handle like a conventional car and can be a lot less stable. They may be bigger than a conventional car and have more mass, as they are less stable, they are slightly more likely to be in an accident. And as pointed out earlier, they are at an awkward height and a lot have bull bars so are more dangerous for normal motorists.

Finally, they are no bigger than a conventional car in terms of interior space. There just isnt a reason to own one that is valid unless you actually go off bitumen (qualification for you, Brad) Unfortunately, a large proportion dont. Hence the Hyundai Tuscon 'City'.

A good family friend was t-boned by a 4wd and died. If the collision had been with a conventional car, he would probably be alive today. In fact, if it were a conventional car, it may not have lost control in the first place. Far fetched but an element of truth.

and, no busses and trucks shouldnt be banned cos they have a purpose.

nah... not to be offensive, but those arguments are about as strong as the anti-towbar "dammit my car's f***ed up but yours is okay because i ran into your towbar and its not fair" argument.

1. by definition, the only way one could "see over other cars" is if their car is taller than other cars. that argument makes out like if all the cars on the roads were sedans, everyone would be able to see over every other person's car. not so.

2. if you have difficulty operating a vehicle in tame cities like those in australia, just because there are a few cars on the road that have AWD and are the same height as a VW transporter or a Hyundai i-Load (which i dont see anyone complaining about, funnily...), then get the f*** off the road - you're a danger to other motorists, whether you're driving a hummer or a smart car.

3. if a soft roader t-bones a conventional car... you're saying that at the same impact speed, a vw tiguan will be more deadly than a commodore which weighs what- 150 / 200kg's more? also, you say "a lot" of people put bull bars on. at least in melbourne, the number of soft roaders with bull bars, even nudge bars, seems practically nonexistent. the percentage of soft roaders with bullbars that i see on the road, is practically nonexistent.

4. pollution - a tiguan 147 produces 205g/km of CO2. which is less than a commodore omega (218 ). one cant simply say "yeah, but if you halve the capacity of the commodore you get 109, which makes the tiguan worse", because you're not cutting a commodore in half. bottom line, 10 tiguan 147 tsi's will produce less CO2 than 10 commodore omegas. with the smaller engines that will be made available, the argument will be even stronger in the Yeti's case.

additionally, now that fiat group is starting to implement Multi-Air technology, given time, it'd be nice to think that we'll see more multi air in cars like AWD fiat multipla's, renault kangoo's, and indeed the yeti. emissions what, commodore/ falcon/ focus/ mazda 3/ camry? (incidentally, the current 1.2tsi Yeti produces roughly the same CO2 emissions as a camry hybrid... get some multi air on that, and you get the picture...)

5. every time someone says "well, they'd probably all be alive if it was a falcon that hit them, instead of a forester", that seems awfully like 0% fact, and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% conjecture. i cant really add any more to that. one could just as easily say "if the car that hit them was a 1.2tsi Yeti, instead of a commodore with king springs superlows in the front and ultralows in the back, then they'd all still be alive today".

yeah. please understand that i respond not to have a go at you whatsoever, but to express my personal rebuttal to the whole "SUV's are bad for you" argument, which i think is pretty feeble at best. none of what i said is directed at yourself, just the arguments in your post.

i drive to the snow (buller) for 30+ day trips a year. the convenience of awd is something i'd enjoy, given that australian national parks staff dont know what happens when slush falls out of the sky, so they force you to put wheel chains on your car even though it doesnt actually snow enough here to bog even my fwd polo.

add to that the sure footedness of awd in heavy rain on interstate drives (i go to sydney often enough, and i dont fly, i drive), and the fact that i like to go "greenlaning" with relatives, i reckon the Yeti, which is essentially a boxy, jacked-up golf, would definitely be in my ideal garage (as well as as a skoda superb wagon, a 288gto, a current-in-japan yaris RS, and this with this tuning kit).

cheers,

scotty (occasional log-onner)

**Gti Dave** · 30-03-2011, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Buller_Scott

nah... not to be offensive, but those arguments are about as strong as the anti-towbar "dammit my car's f***ed up but yours is okay because i ran into your towbar and its not fair" argument.

1. by definition, the only way one could "see over other cars" is if their car is taller than other cars. that argument makes out like if all the cars on the roads were sedans, everyone would be able to see over every other person's car. not so.

2. if you have difficulty operating a vehicle in tame cities like those in australia, just because there are a few cars on the road that have AWD and are the same height as a VW transporter or a Hyundai i-Load (which i dont see anyone complaining about, funnily...), then get the f*** off the road - you're a danger to other motorists, whether you're driving a hummer or a smart car.

3. if a soft roader t-bones a conventional car... you're saying that at the same impact speed, a vw tiguan will be more deadly than a commodore which weighs what- 150 / 200kg's more? also, you say "a lot" of people put bull bars on. at least in melbourne, the number of soft roaders with bull bars, even nudge bars, seems practically nonexistent. the percentage of soft roaders with bullbars that i see on the road, is practically nonexistent.

4. pollution - a tiguan 147 produces 205g/km of CO2. which is less than a commodore omega (218 ). one cant simply say "yeah, but if you halve the capacity of the commodore you get 109, which makes the tiguan worse", because you're not cutting a commodore in half. bottom line, 10 tiguan 147 tsi's will produce less CO2 than 10 commodore omegas. with the smaller engines that will be made available, the argument will be even stronger in the Yeti's case.

additionally, now that fiat group is starting to implement Multi-Air technology, given time, it'd be nice to think that we'll see more multi air in cars like AWD fiat multipla's, renault kangoo's, and indeed the yeti. emissions what, commodore/ falcon/ focus/ mazda 3/ camry? (incidentally, the current 1.2tsi Yeti produces roughly the same CO2 emissions as a camry hybrid... get some multi air on that, and you get the picture...)

5. every time someone says "well, they'd probably all be alive if it was a falcon that hit them, instead of a forester", that seems awfully like 0% fact, and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% conjecture. i cant really add any more to that. one could just as easily say "if the car that hit them was a 1.2tsi Yeti, instead of a commodore with king springs superlows in the front and ultralows in the back, then they'd all still be alive today".

yeah. please understand that i respond not to have a go at you whatsoever, but to express my personal rebuttal to the whole "SUV's are bad for you" argument, which i think is pretty feeble at best. none of what i said is directed at yourself, just the arguments in your post.

i drive to the snow (buller) for 30+ day trips a year. the convenience of awd is something i'd enjoy, given that australian national parks dont know what happens when slush falls out of the sky, so they force you to put wheel chains on your car even though it doesnt actually snow enough here to bog even my fwd polo.

add to that the sure footedness of awd in heavy rain on interstate drives (i go to sydney often enough, and i dont fly, i drive), and the fact that i like to go "greenlaning" with relatives, i reckon the Yeti, which is essentially a boxy, jacked-up golf, would definitely be in my ideal garage (as well as as a skoda superb wagon, a 288gto, a current-in-japan yaris RS, and this with this tuning kit).

cheers,

scotty (occasional log-onner)

Well said mate. Couldn't have said it better myself

**bobski** · 30-03-2011, 12:54 PM

I think its easy to confuse soft roaders with the giant land barge type landcruisers/prados/land rovers people get around the city in, but never dirty the wheels. My big issue with those is the people who drive them like sports cars and have no clue how they'll react if a kid runs onto the road... In my mind, they are a silly choice unless you do actually use them for what they are built for, but hey - its their money and choice. And, I do know friends with kids that have bought big 7 seat 4WDs for lack of seating choice in other vehicles (and try picking a practical car having 3 or 4 kids with 2 that need to be in capsules or booster seats).

As for soft roaders, I had an X-Trail for a couple of years and absolutely loved it and I don't begrudge anyone that buys that sort of car, its about a good mix of lifestyle and practicality. We'd go away once or twice a month and go up and down firetrails and beaches finding places to camp that few people ever go. They aren't tanks, but you'd be surprised how far they go with the electronic trickery these days.

**K1W1** · 30-03-2011, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Buller_Scott

nah... not to be offensive, but those arguments are about as strong as the anti-towbar "dammit my car's f***ed up but yours is okay because i ran into your towbar and its not fair" argument.

It's a shame that it's taken nearly two years to get a reply to the original post.