# 2021.5 Atlas 2.0t 4motion owner reviews



## Col-Buddy-Greenleaf (Jun 27, 2007)

Has anyone bought/ leased a 2021.5 Atlas with 2.0t engine and 4motion? Curious for feedback on how it drives, observed gas mileage, etc.


----------



## Alpinweiss2 (Jan 9, 2017)

My 2021 (not 2021.5) Atlas SE has the 2.0T engine with 4-Motion. I factory-ordered my Atlas as soon as this combination became available. BUT, I live at approximately 6000 feet above sea level, so my experience will be different than most other people on this forum.

At this altitude, the 2.0T engine is substantially faster than the 3.6 VR6 engine. The turbocharger maintains nearly 100% power, whereas the naturally aspirated engine loses about 3% per 1000 feet of elevation. On mountain passes around 10,000 ft., the VR6 loses about 30%, and really becomes lethargic. On my 2.0T, I seem to average about 25 mpg around town and about 28 mpg on the highway (75+ mph).

At elevations closer to sea level, the engine choice becomes more complicated. The 2.0T is VERY slightly faster, but the difference is not as pronounced as at high altitude. The 2.0T gets better mileage (about 20-25%). But the VR6 is capable of towing 5000 lbs. (2.0T can only tow 2000 lbs.). To my ear, the VR6 has more pleasing harmonics.

My advice? Drive an Atlas with each engine back-to-back. See which one you prefer. Incidentally, the 2.0T engine (EA888) is also used by Audi.

After the test drive, please put your feedback here in this forum.

🍺


----------



## greggmischenko (Mar 21, 2011)

Similar to Alpinweiss2, I also have 2021 (not 2021.5) 2.0T, but I live close to sea level (<500ft elevation). I test drove a couple of V6 Atlas models and one 2.0T before deciding to lease the 2.0T. The V6 seemed so sluggish driving around town and from a stop that it was just annoying to drive. Granted, my past 6 cars have all been 4 or 5 cylinder turbocharged models (Volvo, Saab, Audi, VW) so I was very used to the feel of driving a small turbo engine. While the V6 does probably sound better from outside and have a bit more passing power on the highway, I didn't hear much difference inside the car on the test drives and the 2.0T has the ECU upgrade option which makes it considerably more powerful than the V6 in all aspects (and at a much lower cost than the price premium for the V6).

Fuel Economy: I've only had my Atlas since September so it's been mostly cold weather driving and added time idling/warming up. I've averaged around 22mpg in mixed driving through the winter. Now, on the couple of longer drives/trips on the highway, if I set the cruise control to 70, I can reach 30+mpg (over 200 miles driving each way on the trip). Add in some in-town driving at my destination and my round trip average was between 27mpg and 28mpg.

From what I read before I got my Atlas, the V6 struggles in the real world to meet its EPA fuel economy ratings, while the 2.0T seems to consistently exceed them. My wife has a 2019 Tiguan 2.0T and that also exceeded the EPA ratings during our first year and a half of ownership, so I felt confident that the Atlas would too (I know the Tiguan has completely different engine than the Atlas, but it seemed that the new generation of VW Turbo engines/powertrains are designed more for fuel economy than outright performance/fun to drive like they were 5, 10, 15 years ago).

Objectively, unless you need the higher towing capacity, I can't think of a single reason to choose the V6 over the 2.0T. Maybe there's a case to be made that the V6 could last longer or have lower maintenance costs in the long run, but it's still too early to say for sure. Turbocharged engines have been around for decades (especially from Audi/VW) and with regular maintenance they should last to 200k+ miles with no major issues. And you pay a premium for the V6, offsetting potential future maintenance costs.

Subjectively, there are a few reasons: sound; dislike/distrust of turbocharged engines; allegiance to past ownership of a VR6 engine...but that's about all I can think of.


----------



## Veedubgti (Mar 5, 2001)

According to VW literature on their website, the 2.0T requires premium fuel and the VR6 requires regular. That is also something to consider, IMO.


----------



## Alpinweiss2 (Jan 9, 2017)

Veedubgti said:


> According to VW literature on their website, the 2.0T requires premium fuel and the VR6 requires regular. That is also something to consider, IMO.


Yes, you make a good point. I use exclusively premium fuel (Top Tier) in my 2.0T Atlas. I also use premium fuel in our other turbocharged cars (Tiguan, Passat, etc.).

🍺


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

The 2.0T is the only one with tuning currently available if you have any plans to modify it. However, the VR6 with an intake and exhaust makes for a nice sounding SUV. 

Outside of the engines I found the OEM suspension to be terribly soft, too much nose lift on acceleration and nose dive on braking, floaty at speed. I purchased coilovers to fix that problem and made the vehicle much better to drive. 

You pretty much have to buy an OBD-11 or other tool to make the infotainment usable while driving since everything is blocked at speed, super annoying. Same with the auto stop/start, it drove me nuts so I had to disable it. 

Not sure why VW provides a trailer hitch with no plug, but that's solved for under $15 with the Pollak unit from amazon.


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

Alpinweiss2 said:


> Yes, that is a good point. I use exclusively premium fuel (Top Tier) in my 2.0T Atlas. I also use premium fuel in our other turbocharged cars (Tiguan, Passat, etc.).
> 
> 🍺


I've pretty much only used premium in the VR6, while you can run them on regular just fine you don't get full power. Its a 12.0:1 compression engine after all, if you log timing it pulls timing on regular vs premium at higher RPM's. Granted not everyone rev's out their family hauler, but since I modified mine it's a small price to pay for the additional power.


----------



## Reihenmotor5 (Dec 1, 2006)

How much power do you see being lost on regular compared to premium?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

Reihenmotor5 said:


> How much power do you see being lost on regular compared to premium?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Whatever a few degrees of timing is worth, 3 degrees of timing can easily be 20+whp.


----------



## gti_addict (Nov 22, 2000)

Veedubgti said:


> According to VW literature on their website, the 2.0T requires premium fuel and the VR6 requires regular. That is also something to consider, IMO.


The owner's manual lists the fuel requirements as "AKI 87 or higher" for both engines. I just checked my 2.0t owners manual and that's what it says. You will obviously get more power from premium or 91 AKI but it's not "required".


----------



## The Road Warrior (May 23, 2006)

skydaman said:


> Whatever a few degrees of timing is worth, 3 degrees of timing can easily be 20+whp.


I don’t know, I’m always skeptical of this sort of thing. 

I haven’t run premium in our VR6 Atlas but the manual on my 1.8T Sportwagen says the same thing. The 1.8 and 2.0 are extremely similar.

I ran 87 since new but certain people on the forums SWEAR by butt dyno performance gains from using premium. I tried it for maybe 3 months. Ran Mobil 93 exclusively. 

I couldn’t tell the difference. There were times when I thought I could feel the gains but I’m pretty sure it was a placebo. The main problem is that I haven’t seen any dynos, of say, the same car (or two cars that are the same and the only verifiable is fuel octane). If you have some evidence, please post it, I’d actually like to see it. I feel like the difference would be pretty minimal if any at all. The main problem is that If you don’t perform the same tests on the same day at the same time weather/temp conditions are probably enough to skew the results either way, especially if they’re minimal to begin with.

Where I live 93 is almost a dollar more per gallon than 87. It’s just not worth it. Again, run whatever makes you happy. Follow the manual. If it calls for premium, use premium. I just feel like it’s not worth the up-charge if it’s not required.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

gti_addict said:


> The owner's manual lists the fuel requirements as "AKI 87 or higher" for both engines. I just checked my 2.0t owners manual and that's what it says. You will obviously get more power from premium or 91 AKI but it's not "required".


When I looked it had an asterisk and said stated power achieved with premium fuel, so yes not required but recommended. 



The Road Warrior said:


> I don’t know, I’m always skeptical of this sort of thing.
> 
> I haven’t run premium in our VR6 Atlas but the manual on my 1.8T Sportwagen says the same thing. The 1.8 and 2.0 are extremely similar.
> 
> ...


$1 a gal more is steep, here its more like 25 cents vs 91 which would be as low as I would go. Common sense says a 12:1 engine shouldn't be run on 87, but thats what OEM safeguards are for, they pull timing to keep things happy. Me and my friend have logged timing pull in our Atlas's and they show a difference even vs 91 octane. Perhaps a small part of peoples poor MPG in the VR6 Atlas is running crappy fuel, who knows. If you arent revving the engine out then you probably wont feel much of a difference, majority of the timing pull is over 4500RPM.


----------



## Col-Buddy-Greenleaf (Jun 27, 2007)

skydaman said:


> The 2.0T is the only one with tuning currently available if you have any plans to modify it. However, the VR6 with an intake and exhaust makes for a nice sounding SUV.
> 
> Outside of the engines I found the OEM suspension to be terribly soft, too much nose lift on acceleration and nose dive on braking, floaty at speed. I purchased coilovers to fix that problem and made the vehicle much better to drive.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the feedback! Which coilovers did you go with? Did you lower or raise it?


----------



## Phil37 (Jul 5, 2015)

I've test driven the VR6 4Motion, the 2.0 TSI FWD and the 2.0 TSI 4Motion. I like the 2.0 TSI 4Motion most. I like the VR6 4Motion as well, but I don't tow anything and that seems to be the only advantage. I like that the 2.0 TSI comes in basic S trim for both the FWD and 4Motion. With a VR6 4Motion, the entry model is the SE with technology which is about $10,000 or so more vs. a 2.0 TSI 4Motion S. I'm planning on adding a 2.0 TSI 4Motion Atlas S this year.


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

Col-Buddy-Greenleaf said:


> Thanks for the feedback! Which coilovers did you go with? Did you lower or raise it?


I purchased these: VW ATLAS 18+ INNOVATIVE SERIES - SCALE suspension.com

I lowered it, but some have stayed close to stock height and I believe one guy raised his for winter driving.


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

Phil37 said:


> I've test driven the VR6 4Motion, the 2.0 TSI FWD and the 2.0 TSI 4Motion. I like the 2.0 TSI 4Motion most. I like the VR6 4Motion as well, but I don't tow anything and that seems to be the only advantage. I like that the 2.0 TSI comes in basic S trim for both the FWD and 4Motion. With a VR6 4Motion, the entry model is the SE with technology which is about $10,000 or so more vs. a 2.0 TSI 4Motion S. I'm planning on adding a 2.0 TSI 4Motion Atlas S this year.


When I was looking it seemed like the higher models received better discounts so it was only a $10k spread from the cheapest 2.0T S on the lot to a 3.6 4motion SEL-P. I believe one catch is you can't get the captains chairs on the S trim, believe at least SE is required if you want them. A few other options are like that as well, they kinda force you to move up a trim to get them.


----------



## Veedubgti (Mar 5, 2001)

gti_addict said:


> The owner's manual lists the fuel requirements as "AKI 87 or higher" for both engines. I just checked my 2.0t owners manual and that's what it says. You will obviously get more power from premium or 91 AKI but it's not "required".


Can you show me this, please? Ideally a picture of the label on your fuel filler door. I'd really like to consider a 2.0T Atlas, but if 91 is required, the wife will never go for it. If she can run her 87 on a 2.0T, safely, the VR6 can pound sand.


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

Veedubgti said:


> Can you show me this, please? Ideally a picture of the label on your fuel filler door. I'd really like to consider a 2.0T Atlas, but if 91 is required, the wife will never go for it. If she can run her 87 on a 2.0T, safely, the VR6 can pound sand.



















Although not sure who buys a new vehicle and cares about the 15 cent difference of 87 vs 91.


----------



## mtbsteve (Dec 6, 2011)

Veedubgti said:


> Can you show me this, please? Ideally a picture of the label on your fuel filler door. I'd really like to consider a 2.0T Atlas, but if 91 is required, the wife will never go for it. If she can run her 87 on a 2.0T, safely, the VR6 can pound sand.


The fuel filler door should have this info but I can't locate any pictures. VW and Mazda are the two major mfgs that I am aware of that typically state that 87 is ok but to get the rated hp/torque and mpgs, you need to use premium. 

Here is a screenshot from the 2021 Atlas brochure. You can use 87 but you won't get the advertised power or mpgs. Mazda at least lists (from what I remember) the numbers for both grades of fuel.


----------



## mtbsteve (Dec 6, 2011)

skydaman said:


> View attachment 83143
> View attachment 83144
> 
> 
> Although not sure who buys a new vehicle and cares about the 15 cent difference of 87 vs 91.


In the old days..., the difference always seemed to be a $0.10 per gallon difference as you went from 87 to 89 to 91 or 93.

Here is a gas station a town away that I go to often, a much larger spread. At this price delta, you could be looking at a $650 - $850 difference @ 15k miles per year. For many people, that price difference over 5-6 years is equal to an extra year of car payments, or around $60 if you split the difference above per month. I can't imagine many "non-enthusiasts" would want to spend that much on something they can't really tell the difference on which is why they tune it to allow 87 rather than lose customers that only want to spend 87 octane money on each fill up.


----------



## The Road Warrior (May 23, 2006)

Yeah, in the Midwest it’s the same. 93 is almost a buck more and 91 being in between.

My wife and I (non-pandemic) each put like 30+k mi on our vehicles each year. That adds up.

I remember when 10 cents separated the grades but it’s been a really really long time. Maybe it’s state taxes? Who knows. 

I’ll also argue that while the manual says “advertised numbers achieved using premium fuel” it’s just a disclaimer and it doesn’t say that you won’t get those numbers on regular. They’re just telling you what they used. 

I get the ability to advance and pull timing but I can’t see it being more than a few (5 or less) hp either way. It would be nice if there was more data on stock vs stock. 

And yes, I know there are tunes that require premium fuel. That’s a different thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Veedubgti (Mar 5, 2001)

This is straight from VW's website. Key word....REQUIREMENT.


----------



## gti_addict (Nov 22, 2000)

I understand that the builder on VW.com now says that, funny a few weeks ago it displayed all of the tech specs and listed "Regular Unleaded".

You can also pull up the owner's manual from VW that says exactly the same as I've been saying, feel free to input your VIN and see for yourselves.






Volkswagen Owners Manuals | Official VW Digital Resources


Quickly view PDF versions of your owners manual for VW model years 2012 and newer by entering your 17-digit Vehicle Identification Number (VIN).




www.vwserviceandparts.com





But take a look at the fuel door and it's another story. I know some have been saying the same thing about tuning the 2.0t "it requires premium" but even APR's Plus tune is 87 and you can get a Stage 1 tune in 87, 91, 93 etc.

But what do I know?

















Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Reihenmotor5 (Dec 1, 2006)

Since some docs say that numbers were achieved on premium, maybe this is the key we’re overlooking since the ECU can compensate over time depending on the rating. 










The min statement above the 87. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alpinweiss2 (Jan 9, 2017)

Sometimes there is a difference on vehicles designated for use at high altitude. But the fuel door on my Atlas 2.0T AWD is similar to others on this thread.










🍺


----------



## Alpinweiss2 (Jan 9, 2017)

One other thing to put into the mix. Around here, regular gasoline is posted as 86 octane (sometimes 85), and premium is posted as 91 octane. I think this is a Rocky Mountain region thing. So technically, regular gasoline does not meet the minimum octane requirement.

🍺


----------



## Veedubgti (Mar 5, 2001)

gti_addict said:


>


Thank you for posting that! As far as I'm concerned, the fuel door governs any literature on vw.com.


----------



## krebsy75 (Jul 20, 2017)

We run 87 top tier or 91 non top tier. We replaced a 19 VR6 with the 2.0T and don’t miss the old motor one bit. We did add the factory towing package for $1,500 which hurt a little. Unfortunately VW doesn’t make it cost effective to equip the 2.0T with it. 

The VR6 is not a upgrade over the 2.0T. The engines are essentially interchangeable. Due to market perception in the US VW elected to equip the Atlas with the VR6 to achieve the 5K row rating. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Col-Buddy-Greenleaf (Jun 27, 2007)

krebsy75 said:


> We run 87 top tier or 91 non top tier. We replaced a 19 VR6 with the 2.0T and don’t miss the old motor one bit. We did add the factory towing package for $1,500 which hurt a little. Unfortunately VW doesn’t make it cost effective to equip the 2.0T with it.
> 
> The VR6 is not a upgrade over the 2.0T. The engines are essentially interchangeable. Due to market perception in the US VW elected to equip the Atlas with the VR6 to achieve the 5K row rating.
> 
> ...


It seems the towing rating is based on the fact that the vr6 has consistent torque at very low RPM (sub 1000).


----------



## greggmischenko (Mar 21, 2011)

Veedubgti said:


> This is straight from VW's website. Key word....REQUIREMENT.
> View attachment 83186





gti_addict said:


> I understand that the builder on VW.com now says that, funny a few weeks ago it displayed all of the tech specs and listed "Regular Unleaded".
> 
> You can also pull up the owner's manual from VW that says exactly the same as I've been saying, feel free to input your VIN and see for yourselves.
> 
> ...





Veedubgti said:


> Thank you for posting that! As far as I'm concerned, *the fuel door governs any literature on vw.com.*


----------



## mtbsteve (Dec 6, 2011)

There seems to be some confusion regarding 87 AKI vs 91 RON. 
87 AKI is the same as 91 RON, basically 87 octane in the US is equal to 91 RON in Germany. Just a different notation, that is all.


----------



## greggmischenko (Mar 21, 2011)

mtbsteve said:


> There seems to be some confusion regarding 87 AKI vs 91 RON.
> 87 AKI is the same as 91 RON, basically 87 octane in the US is equal to 91 RON in Germany. Just a different notation, that is all.


I appreciate the additional information, but where is the confusion? VW website says AKI 91, which is 91 octane. But this is not accurate, as the car is designed to run fine on AKI 87 (87 octane), but requires 91 to achieve quoted power figures.

The only confusion I see is that the VW website has incorrect/unclear information regarding the fuel requirement.


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

If the type of fuel a vehicle takes is a big point of contention, don't buy the vehicle.


----------



## mtbsteve (Dec 6, 2011)

greggmischenko said:


> I appreciate the additional information, but where is the confusion? VW website says AKI 91, which is 91 octane. But this is not accurate, as the car is designed to run fine on AKI 87 (87 octane), but requires 91 to achieve quoted power figures.
> 
> The only confusion I see is that the VW website has incorrect/unclear information regarding the fuel requirement.


Not saying you were confused but this discussion seems to come up across various forums.

As for the website, could be an outright mistake that they did not list 87 as the minimum octane or that they are just saying you need 91 AKI to obtain the stated HP/torque values listed, which is true.


----------



## gti_addict (Nov 22, 2000)

mtbsteve said:


> There seems to be some confusion regarding 87 AKI vs 91 RON.
> 87 AKI is the same as 91 RON, basically 87 octane in the US is equal to 91 RON in Germany. Just a different notation, that is all.


Yeah, I've had that argument with friends for decades. Some still can't understand the difference between AKI and RON.

I'm just assuming that VW changed the builder to reflect the octane rating that's required to reach the stated HP. Often websites don't have the most accurate information, the builder on VW.com is nowhere near as detailed as the owner's manual is.

Funny thing is that each vehicle on the builder has varying information, some list "*Regular unleaded (Stated hp and torque achieved with premium unleaded)*" while others show either 87 or 91 AKI.


----------



## Col-Buddy-Greenleaf (Jun 27, 2007)

skydaman said:


> If the type of fuel a vehicle takes is a big point of contention, don't buy the vehicle.


No kidding! I was not expecting a never-ending debate about fuel octane rating and the 2.0t engine.


----------



## azzurro (May 6, 2001)

Alpinweiss2 said:


> At this altitude, the 2.0T engine is substantially faster than the 3.6 VR6 engine.


Funny, I remember trying to explain this to the dealer when I bought my VR6 in Denver a few years ago. The sales guys didn't get it and kept telling me how I NEEDED the extra power from the six-cylinder, LOL. I would have preferred the 2.0T motor, but the only way to get it was to jump from the SEL-P to the base model Q7, which was a little more than I wanted to spend. I like mine fine for getting around town (I've got an R32 turbo if I want to go racing), but I was curious how the other engine performed.


----------



## Alpinweiss2 (Jan 9, 2017)

azzurro said:


> Funny, I remember trying to explain this to the dealer when I bought my VR6 in Denver a few years ago. The sales guys didn't get it and kept telling me how I NEEDED the extra power from the six-cylinder, LOL. I would have preferred the 2.0T motor, but the only way to get it was to jump from the SEL-P to the base model Q7, which was a little more than I wanted to spend. I like mine fine for getting around town (I've got an R32 turbo if I want to go racing), but I was curious how the other engine performed.


Wow, I am surprised there is not more awareness of altitude effects and turbocharging in Denver.

A small side story. About 15 years ago, I was climbing Vail Pass (I-70) in my 3-series BMW with a powerful 6-cylinder engine (naturally aspirated). For people unfamiliar with the area, Vail Pass is west of Denver, and is listed as 10,666 feet above sea level. (Although this is high elevation, there are many passes that are even higher.) Anyway, I had my BMW accelerator floored, and it was struggling in the thin air. In my rear view mirror was approaching another car, which was steadily gaining on me. It passed me at a good rate of speed, and it turned out to be........a Volvo station wagon. Ugghh. I noted on the tailgate a very small T5 emblem; yup it was a turbo.

This started a chain of events that eventually resulted in my purchase of a Passat 2.0T (with 6-speed manual). My wife and I had shopped and considered the various turbo offerings from Audi, Saab, Volvo, and Volkswagen. In a nutshell, a turbocharger makes a stunning difference in high altitude performance. Virtually all of our subsequent cars have had a turbocharger.

🍺


----------

