# 2.0 reviews?



## loopless (Oct 4, 2007)

Anyone see an instrumented review of the 2.0?

https://www.cars.com/articles/2018-...spin-does-it-really-need-a-v-6-1420698468737/

The above was all I could find.. looks like decent performance with much better fuel economy. 
I wonder why VW is being so weird about the 2.0? Do they have a massive pile of VR6 engines they need to sell? 
Ps they should stick that Atlas 2.0 engine in the Tiguan rather than the anemic 184hp Miller cycle.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

loopless said:


> ......wonder why VW is being so weird about the 2.0? Do they have a massive pile of VR6 engines they need to sell?....


Folks that think they need an SUV also thing they need a V6 engine.


----------



## AudiVW guy (Feb 7, 2006)

loopless said:


> Anyone see an instrumented review of the 2.0?
> 
> https://www.cars.com/articles/2018-...spin-does-it-really-need-a-v-6-1420698468737/
> 
> ...


4 banger engines get tired over time and turbos crack or go.. 
i will stick to the v6


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

AudiVW guy said:


> 4 banger engines get tired over time and turbos crack or go..
> i will stick to the v6


Tired over time? Care to give us explanation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

AudiVW guy said:


> 4 banger engines get tired over time and turbos crack or go.....


Well, that seems backed up with a lot of technical knowledge......


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

AudiVW guy said:


> 4 banger engines get tired over time and turbos crack or go..
> i will stick to the v6


:laugh:  :what:  :screwy: :facepalm: My 197k mile APR tuned mk4 gli on the original long block would disagree as well as countless VW friends with "4 banger" engines. Idiots like you need to stop ejaculating their fake news all across the interwebs.


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

loopless said:


> Anyone see an instrumented review of the 2.0?
> 
> https://www.cars.com/articles/2018-...spin-does-it-really-need-a-v-6-1420698468737/
> 
> ...


The VR6 is already woefully underpowered for this vehicle. The 2.0t stock is awful from a performance perspective. Sure, it'll get you where you need to be and give slightly improved gas mileage. However, the mqb tune from APR is promising. If you aren't into software upgrades, then the VR is the way to go. :thumbup:


----------



## brian81 (Apr 19, 2007)

VR6OOM said:


> :laugh:  :what:  :screwy: :facepalm: My 197k mile APR tuned mk4 gli on the original long block would disagree as well as countless VW friends with "4 banger" engines. Idiots like you need to stop ejaculating their fake news all across the interwebs.



What he said! :thumbup::beer:

My '98 Passat (new 02.99) only has 131k on it, and runs strong with APR software BMC intake, and Supersprint exhaust. It burns about a cup of oil between 5000 mile changes, and will end up in an '92 924 when my son finishes school (without a rebuild).


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

brian81 said:


> What he said! :thumbup::beer:
> 
> My '98 Passat (new 02.99) only has 131k on it, and runs strong with APR software BMC intake, and Supersprint exhaust. It burns about a cup of oil between 5000 mile changes, and will end up in an '92 924 when my son finishes school (without a rebuild).


I know lady that travels a lot for work with her 2000 B5 1.8T. Car has 407k. 
Interestingly guy who said that engines are getting “tired “ is nowhere to be found. Probably waiting for someone to explain him ICE in 140 characters or less. In the meantime he is playing GTA and acquiring additional knowledge. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

You guys crack me up. I’ve yet to see any compelling arguments backed with any definitive data for and against the 2.0T vs the VR6. They are both good engines. People need to stop getting so offended by others opinions and try to see others viewpoints.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aleksl (Oct 16, 2002)

VR6OOM said:


> The VR6 is already woefully underpowered for this vehicle. The 2.0t stock is awful from a performance perspective. Sure, it'll get you where you need to be and give slightly improved gas mileage. However, the mqb tune from APR is promising. If you aren't into software upgrades, then the VR is the way to go. :thumbup:


Have you seen any 0-60 test for the 2.0t Atlas yet? I haven't. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the 2.0t will actually be faster than the VR6 Atlas. 

2.0t Atlas is a whopping 500 lbs lighter. 
This same engine in the Audi Q7 puts down much faster times than the VR6 Atlas while weighing actually more than the VR6 Atlas. The power ratings are slightly higher in the Audi but still I think once we see some actual tests the 2.0t Atlas will be faster.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

aleksl said:


> Have you seen any 0-60 test for the 2.0t Atlas yet? I haven't. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the 2.0t will actually be faster than the VR6 Atlas.
> 
> 2.0t Atlas is a whopping 500 lbs lighter.
> This same engine in the Audi Q7 puts down much faster times than the VR6 Atlas while weighing actually more than the VR6 Atlas. The power ratings are slightly higher in the Audi but still I think once we see some actual tests the 2.0t Atlas will be faster.


No it is not 500lbs lighter. Where did you get that number? That means that in S version 2.0T is weighing below 4,000lbs! It is impossible! There is no doubt that 2.0T is lighter, but 500lbs? 
That is NOT same engine in Q7. In Q7 2.0T develops 276lb-ft and it is paired to ZF transmission (this is the most important distinction) which is much quicker and more aggressive then Aisin in Atlas. New Q7 2.0T actually weighs 6lbs less then Atlas SEL Premium. 
Now where 2.0T will for sure perform better then VR6 is high altitude. Here in Colorado Springs there is no doubt 2.0T will outperform VR6.


----------



## GavinD (Jun 19, 2014)

0macman0 said:


> You guys crack me up. I’ve yet to see any compelling arguments backed with any definitive data for and against the 2.0T vs the VR6. They are both good engines. People need to stop getting so offended by others opinions and try to see others viewpoints.


It's all about the towing.

The VR6 is rated to tow 5000lbs, the 2.0T is only rated to pull 2000lbs.


----------



## Eye Candy White (Nov 9, 2006)

VW will be buying back my wife's 2015 GSW TDI this spring and we'll 100% replace it with an Atlas or Tiguan (likely Atlas).

If we go Atlas, there is zero question about which engine we'll get - 2.0T. As others have said, I have no doubt that it'll actually outperform the V6 in everyday driving, and with a simple tune (hoping APR does a warrantied tune on the Atlas 2.0T) it's a no-brainer. Even with a low torque tune from APR on the MQB chassis, it's going to destroy the V6 on performance and efficiency.

VW failed at engine selection for this car (and the Tiguan). Tiguan should have come with a non-efficiency cycled 1.8T as the base and 2.0T as an upgrade (the one in the Atlas now), and the Atlas with 2.0T base and available 3.0T upgrade.

opcorn:


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Eye Candy White said:


> VW will be buying back my wife's 2015 GSW TDI this spring and we'll 100% replace it with an Atlas or Tiguan (likely Atlas).
> 
> If we go Atlas, there is zero question about which engine we'll get - 2.0T. As others have said, I have no doubt that it'll actually outperform the V6 in everyday driving, and with a simple tune (hoping APR does a warrantied tune on the Atlas 2.0T) it's a no-brainer. Even with a low torque tune from APR on the MQB chassis, it's going to destroy the V6 on performance and efficiency.
> 
> ...


You might see changes. VW just dropped prices if Tiguan. Apparently they are nit happy with sale numbers. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ribbit (Jun 4, 2012)

Atlas would be the bomb with the 3.0 TDI. They can now pass emissions tests,so why not use a real engine in the big platform. I would bet my TREG with TDI would pull 2 Atlas' all over the place in a tow contest. LOL


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

ribbit said:


> Atlas would be the bomb with the 3.0 TDI. They can now pass emissions tests,so why not use a real engine in the big platform. I would bet my TREG with TDI would pull 2 Atlas' all over the place in a tow contest. LOL


The engines in the atlas are real. I’ve seen them in real life....

As much as I am a diesel fan, VW screwed that up

Not to mention, 3.0 TDI feels fast thanks to diesel low end grunt, but isn’t actually fast. The Q7 TDI is pretty slow. Slower than the VR6 even.

HP and TQ and equally important, and the TDI doesn’t have much HP.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

ribbit said:


> Atlas would be the bomb with the 3.0 TDI. They can now pass emissions tests,so why not use a real engine in the big platform. I would bet my TREG with TDI would pull 2 Atlas' all over the place in a tow contest. LOL


It is SCR issue. Too expensive to put that on Atlas without obvious benefit to them. Also, cannot remember 3.0 tdi in transverse application. If VW planned tdi for Atlas, and it did it is 2.0 tdi. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> The engines in the atlas are real. I’ve seen them in real life....
> 
> As much as I am a diesel fan, VW screwed that up
> 
> ...


I highly doubt VR6 in Q7 is faster then TDI. for that weight that Q7 is packing, torque is much more important. But who knows VW screwed tdi not now but in 1998. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aleksl (Oct 16, 2002)

edyvw said:


> No it is not 500lbs lighter. Where did you get that number? That means that in S version 2.0T is weighing below 4,000lbs! It is impossible! There is no doubt that 2.0T is lighter, but 500lbs?
> That is NOT same engine in Q7. In Q7 2.0T develops 276lb-ft and it is paired to ZF transmission (this is the most important distinction) which is much quicker and more aggressive then Aisin in Atlas. New Q7 2.0T actually weighs 6lbs less then Atlas SEL Premium.
> Now where 2.0T will for sure perform better then VR6 is high altitude. Here in Colorado Springs there is no doubt 2.0T will outperform VR6.


I found the VR6 curb weight on C&D site at 4,728 lbs. 2.0T is listed at 4,222lbs. 

https://www.caranddriver.com/volkswagen/atlas


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

aleksl said:


> I found the VR6 curb weight on C&D site at 4,728 lbs. 2.0T is listed at 4,222lbs.
> 
> https://www.caranddriver.com/volkswagen/atlas


That is SEL Premium AWD. There is difference between equipment packages plus AWD (AWD accounts for 160lbs). I think launch edition with AWD was 4502lbs. 
So, subtract 160lbs from 4502lbs and you get 4342lbs. That is approximately difference in engine weight. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aleksl (Oct 16, 2002)

edyvw said:


> That is SEL Premium AWD. There is difference between equipment packages plus AWD (AWD accounts for 160lbs). I think launch edition with AWD was 4502lbs.
> So, subtract 160lbs from 4502lbs and you get 4342lbs. That is approximately difference in engine weight.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wasn't talking about engine weight differences. I was comparing the actual cars. I think I see where the disconnect is here. 

Up in Canada we can only get FWD with 2.0T and 4motion only with VR6. I went on the USA site and I guess there are FWD VR6 Atlas models? We can spec the 2.0T in more than just base model, but like I said the VR6 is only mated to 4motion here.


----------



## OZ.IN.USA (Jan 29, 2011)

AudiVW guy said:


> 4 banger engines get tired over time and turbos crack or go..
> i will stick to the v6


My bone-stock from the factory 15 year old, 150,000 mile 1.8T and turbo disagree with your "scientific data".

Back to the 1980s with you!


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

Go look it up 8.4 0-60 vs 7.9 0-60 buddy.

Saying torque is more important is a blanket statement and nothing more than an opinion. They HP and torque are both important and affect performance is different ways.

Peak numbers don’t mean garbage either. It’s area under the curve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

aleksl said:


> I wasn't talking about engine weight differences. I was comparing the actual cars. I think I see where the disconnect is here.
> 
> Up in Canada we can only get FWD with 2.0T and 4motion only with VR6. I went on the USA site and I guess there are FWD VR6 Atlas models? We can spec the 2.0T in more than just base model, but like I said the VR6 is only mated to 4motion here.


Yes, USA models can be only FWD in VR6 configuration. I guess you can say there is 500lbs difference between base 2.0T and top model. However, 2.0T FWD with all bells and whistles will be heavier then 4.222lbs. 4,222lbs that Car &Driver listed is USA version, which is S model. So if you can equip that in Canada with all goodies, add to top model some 200lbs. That is approximately how much weight various stuff adds. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

.


----------



## autostrophic (Aug 23, 2011)

edyvw said:


> No it is not 500lbs lighter. Where did you get that number? That means that in S version 2.0T is weighing below 4,000lbs! It is impossible! There is no doubt that 2.0T is lighter, but 500lbs?
> That is NOT same engine in Q7. In Q7 2.0T develops 276lb-ft and it is paired to ZF transmission (this is the most important distinction) which is much quicker and more aggressive then Aisin in Atlas. New Q7 2.0T actually weighs 6lbs less then Atlas SEL Premium.
> Now where 2.0T will for sure perform better then VR6 is high altitude. Here in Colorado Springs there is no doubt 2.0T will outperform VR6.


As far as I know it’s exactly the same EA888 gen 3 in both Atlas and Q7 2.0.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

autostrophic said:


> As far as I know it’s exactly the same EA888 gen 3 in both Atlas and Q7 2.0.


The same engine in a transverse and longitudinal vehicle? Can't be identical.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

autostrophic said:


> As far as I know it’s exactly the same EA888 gen 3 in both Atlas and Q7 2.0.


Power is different as far as I know. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## autostrophic (Aug 23, 2011)

edyvw said:


> Power is different as far as I know.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes because it's a different factory tune..


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

autostrophic said:


> Yes because it's a different factory tune..


And they sit 90 degrees from each other.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

autostrophic said:


> Yes because it's a different factory tune..


So, do not understand your point? No one said here that those are two different engines. 
So, care to explain?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

Who cares? They are obviously extremely similar mechanically and one is making more power than the other due to tunes and other minor mechanical differences. 

I hope you guys figure out which one of you is correct......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## autostrophic (Aug 23, 2011)

edyvw said:


> So, do not understand your point? No one said here that those are two different engines.
> So, care to explain?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lol dude you said it yourself, you said they’re not the same engines. What do you want me to explain?


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> Who cares? They are obviously extremely similar mechanically and one is making more power than the other due to tunes and other minor mechanical differences.
> 
> I hope you guys figure out which one of you is correct......
> 
> ...


That is my point. Not sure where he read that anyone said it is not EA888. 
It is tune nothing else when it comes to engine. Transmission on other hand is different story. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

edyvw said:


> That is my point. Not sure where he read that anyone said it is not EA888.
> It is tune nothing else when it comes to engine. Transmission on other hand is different story.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If that’s your point, you are not getting my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ribbit (Jun 4, 2012)

Isn't the real issue for the 2.0 that it is a small power plant for a 7 passenger 4500 lb vehicle? If you add the full complement of passengers, I would hate to have to merge into a California freeway . It needs an advanced V-6 or a TDI V-6 to be a perfect car. I might actually buy one to replace my Treg. I have a Alltrack with the TSI 1.8 that works just fine,but it is midget compared to the Atlas.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

ribbit said:


> .....needs an advanced V-6 or a TDI V-6 to be a perfect car.....


What "advanced" V-6 would fit in the transverse MQB if not the VR6?


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

ribbit said:


> Isn't the real issue for the 2.0 that it is a small power plant for a 7 passenger 4500 lb vehicle? If you add the full complement of passengers, I would hate to have to merge into a California freeway . It needs an advanced V-6 or a TDI V-6 to be a perfect car. I might actually buy one to replace my Treg. I have a Alltrack with the TSI 1.8 that works just fine,but it is midget compared to the Atlas.


VR6 is not any better. If you can wait a bit for updated engine. That is what I will do. I am pretty set on Atlas, but not with these engine options. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

ribbit said:


> Isn't the real issue for the 2.0 that it is a small power plant for a 7 passenger 4500 lb vehicle? If you add the full complement of passengers, I would hate to have to merge into a California freeway . It needs an advanced V-6 or a TDI V-6 to be a perfect car. I might actually buy one to replace my Treg. I have a Alltrack with the TSI 1.8 that works just fine,but it is midget compared to the Atlas.


The VR6 is more than adequate for a vehicle this size


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Atlas123 (Sep 18, 2017)

0macman0 said:


> The VR6 is more than adequate for a vehicle this size


I would call it adequate for most, but leaves something to be desired for those who enjoy a sportier drive, ride with extra passengers or cargo, or do a lot of highway passing. For its power, it’s also not very economical with fuel.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Atlas123 said:


> I would call it adequate for most, but leaves something to be desired for those who enjoy a sportier drive, ride with extra passengers or cargo, or do a lot of highway passing. For its power, it’s also not very economical with fuel.


Lack of power will result in higher consumption. Considering talk how engine gets more thirsty after oil changes I think even 23mpg is science fiction using oil VW recommends owners to use. 
As my wife said when we went to check Atlas, merging on the HWY: this poor thing is going to have cardiac arrest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

Atlas123 said:


> I would call it adequate for most, but leaves something to be desired for those who enjoy a sportier drive, ride with extra passengers or cargo, or do a lot of highway passing. For its power, it’s also not very economical with fuel.


I enjoy a sporty drive as well, and I find it satisfying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryan E. (Oct 1, 2002)

edyvw said:


> Lack of power will result in higher consumption. Considering talk how engine gets more thirsty after oil changes I think even 23mpg is science fiction using oil VW recommends owners to use.
> As my wife said when we went to check Atlas, merging on the HWY: this poor thing is going to have cardiac arrest
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Good thing the VR6 can take a beating


----------



## ribbit (Jun 4, 2012)

Is anyone old enough to remember the ford Pinto late 50's with a 3 speed tranny? Floor it and wait a while.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

ribbit said:


> Is anyone old enough to remember the ford Pinto late 50's with a 3 speed tranny? Floor it and wait a while.


In 1996 four of us made 1800 mile trip (both ways) in Yugo 55 in Europe. We played European championship in tennis so we had also all equipment with us. It was adequately powered. Got us to destination and brought us back. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CobaltSky (Jan 16, 2018)

AudiVW guy said:


> 4 banger engines get tired over time and turbos crack or go..
> i will stick to the v6


My 2004 1.8T 4Mo 5Spd Passat variant is still kicking ass. Never tell her she's tired.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

I’m offended


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aleksl (Oct 16, 2002)

C&D just put out an Atlas 2.0T instrumented test. Just as I suspected it is quite a bit faster to 60 mph than the VR6 version. 

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2018-volkswagen-atlas-20t-fwd-test-review


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

aleksl said:


> C&D just put out an Atlas 2.0T instrumented test. Just as I suspected it is quite a bit faster to 60 mph than the VR6 version.
> 
> https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2018-volkswagen-atlas-20t-fwd-test-review


But is that a fair comparison as the 3.6 tested had 4Motion (heavier) and one not? The fair comparo is the 2wd 2.0 vs. the 2wd 3.6 same trim level etc.


----------



## aleksl (Oct 16, 2002)

KarstGeo said:


> But is that a fair comparison as the 3.6 tested had 4Motion (heavier) and one not? The fair comparo is the 2wd 2.0 vs. the 2wd 3.6 same trim level etc.


I think the 2.0t would still be at least on par with the 3.6 FWD VR6. I am having a hard time finding a FWD 3.6L test. 

I really think the 2.0t that's in the Q7 is the only engine needed in the Atlas.


----------



## kkress (Sep 11, 2017)

My butt dyno in our 2.0T SEL is telling me the 2.0T that's in there is all that's needed for the Atlas. I'm not towing anything or if I ever do it will be less than 2k lb. But it's plenty of engine for it. It's a louder sound than the VR6, but I'd prefer it over the VR6, even without the lower initial cost and better mpg. We're at 25.1 combined at 1,000 miles, and we have the heavy 20" wheel package. Mostly 10-15 mile drive moving kids around. The tired meter is still reading 0%!


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

aleksl said:


> I think the 2.0t would still be at least on par with the 3.6 FWD VR6. I am having a hard time finding a FWD 3.6L test.
> 
> I really think the 2.0t that's in the Q7 is the only engine needed in the Atlas.


I have no doubt but it would likely not be faster in that comparo...probably darn near the same which speaks volumes about the 2.0.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

kkress said:


> My butt dyno in our 2.0T SEL is telling me the 2.0T that's in there is all that's needed for the Atlas. I'm not towing anything or if I ever do it will be less than 2k lb. But it's plenty of engine for it. It's a louder sound than the VR6, but I'd prefer it over the VR6, even without the lower initial cost and better mpg. We're at 25.1 combined at 1,000 miles, and we have the heavy 20" wheel package. Mostly 10-15 mile drive moving kids around. The tired meter is still reading 0%!


Probably right. I will never tow anything but really wanted the 4Motion so was stuck with the VR. I wish I could have test driven the 2.0.


----------

