# Random Thoughts.....



## vwbugstuff (Mar 27, 2004)

Some random thoughts here....I'm just thinking out loud; it was announced the other day that the Chattanooga plant will be getting a 5-seater SUV. What do you think the possibility is that it will be a shorter Atlas, and, that it will be the replacement for the Touareg in the US? For reference, 802 Touaregs were sold in the US in the first 3 months of 2017.


----------



## Don® (Oct 11, 2011)

It's probably going to be a variant of the T-Prime, built on the Q7 platform.


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

Don® said:


> It's probably going to be a variant of the T-Prime, built on the Q7 platform.


Doubtful. Why would VW invest in another platform in Chattanooga? I'm sure it will be another MQB SUV. Probably some kind of sport version of the Atlas/Tiguan


----------



## Drive by (Mar 13, 2017)

Hajduk said:


> Doubtful. Why would VW invest in another platform in Chattanooga? I'm sure it will be another MQB SUV. Probably some kind of sport version of the Atlas/Tiguan



My vote would be some sort of blend between the Tiguan/Atlas. And yes, MQB for sure. They'll probably slope the rear down and kill all the useful cargo like everyone else has too. Why has nobody figured out that cargo is one of the real reasons we buy these things? Sure it looks good parked but it makes is fairly useless to live with....:facepalm:

That's one of the reasons that the Acura, Range Rover, Mazda CX-9 and many others got turfed off my list. If I want performance I'll buy a sports car. I have people and stuff, so I must suffer the humiliation of driving a larger SUV (better than my van of course).


----------



## dncoo8 (Apr 15, 2017)

That's exactly what the 5 seater is going to be - a 5 seat "sport" version of the Atlas intended to replace the Touareg. I had this discussion with one of the reps at my Atlas training this week. Also they already have at least a rolling mule, as my service manager and GM said they had one on display at the owner's meeting in Las Vegas earlier this month.


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

I'm hoping it's Edge/Grand Cherokee size. A two row that's bigger than the Tiguan but smaller than the Altas.


----------



## wolfsburgfanatic (May 27, 2002)

It's likely the upcoming T-Roc
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2018-volkswagen-t-roc-first-drive-review/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

*Small fuel tank*

I'm quite surprised and disappointed that the thirsty Atlas has a fuel tank of 18.6 gallons. Compare this to 26.4 gallons for the Touareg with the same engine? They surely could've juggled space somehow to have the same tank size. I'm still going to get 1, just would rather not be going to the gas station all the time.


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

26.4 is a huge tank size in this segment. Even with this MPG range, families won't want to fill up that size tank. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

capclassicv2 said:


> 26.4 is a huge tank size in this segment. Even with this MPG range, families won't want to fill up that size tank.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


Yup. VW would have people complain to JD Power that their car is "too expensive to fill up".


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

capclassicv2 said:


> 26.4 is a huge tank size in this segment. Even with this MPG range, families won't want to fill up that size tank.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


Durango 24.6
Q7 22.5
Tahoe 26.0
Range Rover 27.7
Explorer 18.6
Touareg 24.6
Highlander 19.2


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

GjR32 said:


> Durango 24.6
> Q7 22.5
> Tahoe 26.0
> Range Rover 27.7
> ...


Out of the 3 that actually compete with the Atlas, only the Durango has a 20+ gas tank. The rest are not only in a different segment but also sells to different buyers. But the vehicles that actually do compete with it are within a gallon of it. The Pilot has a 19.5 tank. Santa Fe: 18.8. Pathfinder: 19.5.


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

capclassicv2 said:


> Out of the 3 that actually compete with the Atlas, only the Durango has a 20+ gas tank. The rest are not only in a different segment but also sells to different buyers. But the vehicles that actually do compete with it are within a gallon of it. The Pilot has a 19.5 tank. Santa Fe: 18.8. Pathfinder: 19.5.


You can say what you like. The Atlas has a small tank and should have same size as Touareg with same engine and very similar fuel consumption.


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

GjR32 said:


> You can say what you like. The Atlas has a small tank and should have same size as Touareg with same engine and very similar fuel consumption.


But why? Why should it? It doesn't compete for the same buyer as the Touareg. It's not a replacement vehicle for it either. It has to compete with other crossovers in the 3-row "midsize" crossover market so I don't understand why you think it needs to be bigger.


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

capclassicv2 said:


> But why? Why should it? It doesn't compete for the same buyer as the Touareg. It's not a replacement vehicle for it either. It has to compete with other crossovers in the 3-row "midsize" crossover market so I don't understand why you think it needs to be bigger.


The Atlas has poor fuel consumption and I'd rather not be filling up all the time.


----------



## joelabbott (Mar 27, 2017)

I'm guessing some constraints that factored into tank capacity related to the standardization of the MQB platform (ie. same distance from front/rear wheels to front/end of vehicle). Looks like same tank size as the NMS Passat (& other 2.0 TDI models, for example). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vwbugstuff (Mar 27, 2004)

dncoo8 said:


> That's exactly what the 5 seater is going to be - a 5 seat "sport" version of the Atlas intended to replace the Touareg. I had this discussion with one of the reps at my Atlas training this week. Also they already have at least a rolling mule, as my service manager and GM said they had one on display at the owner's meeting in Las Vegas earlier this month.


This is what I was hinting at in my original post. I don't think it will be the T-Roc because it is supposedly smaller than the Tiguan.


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

Things have gone very quiet on the Atlas front - apart from the annoying commercial that's on TV every 2 seconds. Hopefully we'll hear something this week.


----------



## utsava (Jun 5, 2002)

GjR32 said:


> Things have gone very quiet on the Atlas front - apart from the annoying commercial that's on TV every 2 seconds. Hopefully we'll hear something this week.


I think we are very close to first deliveries. My dealership scheduled a "Launch Party" for the 13th. Hopefully once may 1st rolls around we will get a sense of what fianacing and dealer incentives there will be for the month.


----------



## joelabbott (Mar 27, 2017)

GjR32 said:


> Things have gone very quiet on the Atlas front - apart from the annoying commercial that's on TV every 2 seconds. Hopefully we'll hear something this week.


I think there is a specific thread for the Atlas commercials. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2009)

GjR32 said:


> The Atlas has poor fuel consumption and I'd rather not be filling up all the time.


Poor fuel consumption compared to what? The pilot, explorer and Highlander and all high teens to mid 20s city to highway and the Atlas will be in the same range.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Poor fuel consumption compared to what? The pilot, explorer and Highlander and all high teens to mid 20s city to highway and the Atlas will be in the same range.


As far as we know Atlas is 22mpg HWY. Highlander (same tranny) is 27mpg HWY. In that segment among those consumers that is HUGE difference. 
Not to mention Highlander has DI/PI engine. 
I was very interested in Atlas, but unless they offer torquier engine with 4Motion, I am skipping it.


----------



## utsava (Jun 5, 2002)

edyvw said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > Poor fuel consumption compared to what? The pilot, explorer and Highlander and all high teens to mid 20s city to highway and the Atlas will be in the same range.
> ...


If money is the dominant driving factor, a 3-5 year old vehicle will save you way more money than a few more MPGs in two brand new vehicles. How far down the rabbit hole of savings do we want to go?


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

utsava said:


> If money is the dominant driving factor, a 3-5 year old vehicle will save you way more money than a few more MPGs in two brand new vehicles. How far down the rabbit hole of savings do we want to go?


That is not the pint. Point is that VW is offering 10 year old engine in the segment where all competitors have updated engines. Not to mentione Mazda CX-9 and 310 lb/ft of torque.


----------



## Don® (Oct 11, 2011)

I was turbocharging VR6's as far back as 1996 😂


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

Random thought: Buy what you like. 

If the engine specs works for you and you like the Atlas than by all means buy it. If the Pilot or CX-9 checks all your boxes then go for it. Not every car is going to kill the segment. The Atlas won't be the most powerful or the most economical, but a lot of people will buy it because the ergonomics are good, the size is plentiful, they get a good deal, or the warranty won them over.

Those who are saying it's an outdated engine might decide to still test drive it and realize maybe it's not as bad as they thought. 

Car and Driver, if you believe in their testing, currently ranks the Atlas 2nd only to the CX-9. So regardless of its short comings, seems like they still like it. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

capclassicv2 said:


> Random thought: Buy what you like.
> 
> If the engine specs works for you and you like the Atlas than by all means buy it. If the Pilot or CX-9 checks all your boxes then go for it. Not every car is going to kill the segment. The Atlas won't be the most powerful or the most economical, but a lot of people will buy it because the ergonomics are good, the size is plentiful, they get a good deal, or the warranty won them over.
> 
> ...


Well said sir


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

capclassicv2 said:


> Random thought: Buy what you like.
> 
> If the engine specs works for you and you like the Atlas than by all means buy it. If the Pilot or CX-9 checks all your boxes then go for it. Not every car is going to kill the segment. The Atlas won't be the most powerful or the most economical, but a lot of people will buy it because the ergonomics are good, the size is plentiful, they get a good deal, or the warranty won them over.
> 
> ...


Well it is discussion. You are right on point. Atlas checks a lot of boxes. I am not sure it will check box with traditional VW buyers because of engine. My point is VW could do better. Is Q7 anchor? Probably, because if they offered stronger, more torquier 2.0T with 4Motion it would end up in Q7 category. 
I will try Atlas, but I am traditional VW buyer, and know what is under the hood with all strings attached that are coming with strictly DI engine (no PI). Yes it is classic VW interior design that is uber functional, but it will be underpowered, especially in Colorado where naturally aspirated engines are already in disadvantage even if they have enough power. 
Also, being proud of being second to Mazda? Mazda's are great cars, but did not know VW is fine being second to one of the smallest SUV's in segment.


----------



## cgvalant (Nov 14, 2005)

edyvw said:


> Well it is discussion. You are right on point. Atlas checks a lot of boxes. I am not sure it will check box with traditional VW buyers because of engine. My point is VW could do better. Is Q7 anchor? Probably, because if they offered stronger, more torquier 2.0T with 4Motion it would end up in Q7 category.
> I will try Atlas, but I am traditional VW buyer, and know what is under the hood with all strings attached that are coming with strictly DI engine (no PI). Yes it is classic VW interior design that is uber functional, but it will be underpowered, especially in Colorado where naturally aspirated engines are already in disadvantage even if they have enough power.
> Also, being proud of being second to Mazda? Mazda's are great cars, but did not know VW is fine being second to one of the smallest SUV's in segment.












Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

edyvw said:


> Also, being proud of being second to Mazda? Mazda's are great cars, but did not know VW is fine being second to one of the smallest SUV's in segment.


Pilot and Highlander aren't first either. I'm pretty sure Mazda's position in this C&D rank doesn't bother Honda or Toyota because their sales numbers speaks for those vehicles. And when sales start and production for the Atlas stabilizes, it too will outsell the CX-9. But being proud to be second wasn't my point. My point was one of the top enthusiast car mags tested the Atlas and thought it was better than the competition, with the exception of the highest praised enthusiast choice, the CX-9. And that's saying a lot considering how underpowered and horrible at gas mileage we've been discussing within this thread. 



Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## vwbugstuff (Mar 27, 2004)

edyvw said:


> Well it is discussion. You are right on point. Atlas checks a lot of boxes. I am not sure it will check box with traditional VW buyers because of engine. My point is VW could do better.


The Atlas is checking my boxes and I am a traditional VW buyer. I currently drive a 2003 Eurovan with a VR6. The Atlas weighs less, gets better fuel economy, has more horsepower, has more torque, has AWD and has a higher towing capacity than my Eurovan. It also seats 7, just like my Eurovan. And the Atlas has a way better warranty than the EV ever did. So for me, what's not to like??

If there is reason for customers to complain about there not being enough power - and if enough customers and automotive trade magazines complain about the lack of power, it will give VW something to improve upon (like LED tail lights in all trims) for future model years.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

capclassicv2 said:


> Pilot and Highlander aren't first either. I'm pretty sure Mazda's position in this C&D rank doesn't bother Honda or Toyota because their sales numbers speaks for those vehicles. And when sales start and production for the Atlas stabilizes, it too will outsell the CX-9. But being proud to be second wasn't my point. My point was one of the top enthusiast car mags tested the Atlas and thought it was better than the competition, with the exception of the highest praised enthusiast choice, the CX-9. And that's saying a lot considering how underpowered and horrible at gas mileage we've been discussing within this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


Again, who cares man about Pilot or Highlander (though I drove updated Highlander and highly doubt VR6 will match that engine in power delivery considering both cars are same weight, same tranny but more hp on Highlander side. Plus Highlander comes with DI/PI). Being second to Mazda, considering size of CX-9, means CX-9 picked up all points in engine/suspension part. 
My point is, VW is coming to fight with engine that is running last 10 years. There is no excuse not to offer peppier engine except protecting Q7. Which means: VW does not know whether they want to piss or ****, as usual.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

vwbugstuff said:


> The Atlas is checking my boxes and I am a traditional VW buyer. I currently drive a 2003 Eurovan with a VR6. The Atlas weighs less, gets better fuel economy, has more horsepower, has more torque, has AWD and has a higher towing capacity than my Eurovan. It also seats 7, just like my Eurovan. And the Atlas has a way better warranty than the EV ever did. So for me, what's not to like??
> 
> If there is reason for customers to complain about there not being enough power - and if enough customers and automotive trade magazines complain about the lack of power, it will give VW something to improve upon (like LED tail lights in all trims) for future model years.


By the time VW figures out it needs better engine it might be too late. I cannot wrap my head around this decision. They want to fight in segment where people look for 1mpg with engine that can deliver 22mpg with SS system? Traditional buyers like you might swallow that, suburban soccer moms that are targeted buyer? No way!


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2009)

edyvw said:


> By the time VW figures out it needs better engine it might be too late. I cannot wrap my head around this decision. They want to fight in segment where people look for 1mpg with engine that can deliver 22mpg with SS system? Traditional buyers like you might swallow that, suburban soccer moms that are targeted buyer? No way!


What is wrong with a 3.6 Liter direct injected VR6 that makes 276hp and 266 lb/ft of torque which by the way is at 2750rpms???


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> What is wrong with a 3.6 Liter direct injected VR6 that makes 276hp and 266 lb/ft of torque which by the way is at 2750rpms???


1. People expect from VW to be something bit different. 
2. EPA 22mpg on HWY? Again when typical family that drove Toyota Highlander for lat 17 years sits around dinner table to decide what to buy, will first look into MPG numbers. Highlander with 27mpg or Atlas with 22mpg? Tell me this is not the problem? VW is targeting buyers of Pilot, Highlander, Explorer etc. Every MPG counts. 
3. On top of that, because it is VW, people will expect better performance then let's say Toyota. 
4. What is wrong with engine? Expect it is ONLY DI while competition is utilizing DI/PI. So why would someone want to deal with CBU when they can buy some other car that does not have that issue? People who buy cars like this buy them for a long haul.

My point is that VW obviously is investing a lot into this car. So they suppose to offer also more up to date engine or if not V6 turbo then stronger 2.0T (Volvo does). In the end, even China is getting more up to date engine. Nothing else but cost cutting that might boomerang.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2009)

edyvw said:


> 1. People expect from VW to be something bit different.
> 2. EPA 22mpg on HWY? Again when typical family that drove Toyota Highlander for lat 17 years sits around dinner table to decide what to buy, will first look into MPG numbers. Highlander with 27mpg or Atlas with 22mpg? Tell me this is not the problem? VW is targeting buyers of Pilot, Highlander, Explorer etc. Every MPG counts.
> 3. On top of that, because it is VW, people will expect better performance then let's say Toyota.
> 4. What is wrong with engine? Expect it is ONLY DI while competition is utilizing DI/PI. So why would someone want to deal with CBU when they can buy some other car that does not have that issue? People who buy cars like this buy them for a long haul.
> ...


AWD VR6 Atlas is 23 HWY and Highlander is 26HWY 3mpg which translates to less than $200 in fuel savings so that is nil. I have a Toyota store in addition to VW and I will tell you after driving the Highlander, Atlas, Explorer and Pilot that Atlas is a much better driving experience in all aspects. It is exactly what you would expect from a VW and once you get to drive the Atlas you will understand what I am talking about. Just because on paper one makes more power or has this different feature doesn't translate to better performance or a better driving experience the Focus RS is a perfect example of that as compared to the Golf R it isnt much faster and rides like a lumber wagon so specs mean nothing in the end it all comes down to how it performs in real world driving situations. VW has had a long time to put this vehicle together and I think people are going to find that it checks all of the boxes as well as stands out competitively. What you are not considering is who will be buying this vehicle it isnt people buying Golf R's or GTI's so the performance doesnt have to be the best as people who drive SUV's dont care as much about that as they do the quietness of the ride, space, comfort and everything else that comes along with a bigger vehicle.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> AWD VR6 Atlas is 23 HWY and Highlander is 26HWY 3mpg which translates to less than $200 in fuel savings so that is nil. I have a Toyota store in addition to VW and I will tell you after driving the Highlander, Atlas, Explorer and Pilot that Atlas is a much better driving experience in all aspects. It is exactly what you would expect from a VW and once you get to drive the Atlas you will understand what I am talking about. Just because on paper one makes more power or has this different feature doesn't translate to better performance or a better driving experience the Focus RS is a perfect example of that as compared to the Golf R it isnt much faster and rides like a lumber wagon so specs mean nothing in the end it all comes down to how it performs in real world driving situations. VW has had a long time to put this vehicle together and I think people are going to find that it checks all of the boxes as well as stands out competitively. What you are not considering is who will be buying this vehicle it isnt people buying Golf R's or GTI's so the performance doesnt have to be the best as people who drive SUV's dont care as much about that as they do the quietness of the ride, space, comfort and everything else that comes along with a bigger vehicle.


First of all, I was test driver for car magazine and oil company. I know that there is difference between paper and real driving experience. I will try Atlas, of course I will, maybe even buy it (of course not first year model). I am just raising here potential issues. 
1. have no doubt that VW is overall better experience. Why that matters to soccer mom? 3 mpg for her actually matter+Toyota reliability (BS if you ask me) etc. By the way, isn't Atlas 22mpg with 4Motion and 23mpg with FWD, while Highlander is 26mpg with AWD and 27 with FWD? 
2. Paper or no paper, VW 10 years later still offers FSI CBU prone engine. You really think that some people will not be hesitant because of that? (minority that knows about issue).
3. Your second part is exactly what I am talking about. Mazda while developing CX-9 fallowed soccer moms from schools when they were picking up kids. They came to conclusion that they utilize power (torque) much more then what they expected. They tuned engine according to those demands (low end/diesel like torque). 
4. I know VW will offer later more potent engine. Probably with mid-life update. Will it be 2.5 V6T I have no idea or stronger 2.0T 4Motion (I would not be surprised that that 2.0T 4Motion comes earlier). However, since 2.5T is already available, why not going immediately with it and setting up itself not only as most practical but best performing SUV in the class? I can only think that VW is either hesitant to take a bet or protecting Audi.


----------



## brbutler (Sep 15, 2011)

I think VW had their performance eggs in the diesel basket for the Atlas, and once the bottom of that basket fell out, it was too late to come up with an alternative top spec engine solution without delaying launch (not necessarily for lack of such engine, but the related US specific compliance engineering, testing, etc.).


----------



## Don® (Oct 11, 2011)

That's why I'm going to turbocharge mine :laugh:


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

brbutler said:


> I think VW had their performance eggs in the diesel basket for the Atlas, and once the bottom of that basket fell out, it was too late to come up with an alternative top spec engine solution without delaying launch (not necessarily for lack of such engine, but the related US specific compliance engineering, testing, etc.).


I am not sure V6 TDI would be able to be mounted transverse. 
I would think if they thought diesel it would be one of the twin turbo 2.0 TDI versions with 200+hp and around 300-320lb/ft torque.


----------



## Woj (Oct 23, 2000)

Actually, the worrisome part is that the Touareg replacement is supposedly going to share that VR6 motor.
That is not good enough ... VW is truly bent on cutting costs to get sales but at the expense of selling simpler and cruder vehicles.

Just look at the "new" 2015 Golf wagon TDI that they can finally put up for sale, the manual versions come with a 6 spd.
The 2017 Golf wagon manual is only a 5 spd.

Just one of many examples of how VWoA is cutting corners to maintain the price where they want it.

Making a competitor to a Ford Explorer with a VR6 is just not going to cut it. That motor should have been retired years ago.

Just peruse the VW UK website and note how many options are available to shoppers in the UK ... it is quite depressing.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Woj said:


> Actually, the worrisome part is that the Touareg replacement is supposedly going to share that VR6 motor.
> That is not good enough ... VW is truly bent on cutting costs to get sales but at the expense of selling simpler and cruder vehicles.
> 
> Just look at the "new" 2015 Golf wagon TDI that they can finally put up for sale, the manual versions come with a 6 spd.
> ...


European market always had many more options. 
But yes, that is what I am saying all this time, VW wants to establish itself in segment where there is no forgiving by offering engine from 2006. 
If at least they offered 2.0T with 4Motion and some 270lb/ft torque, it might be bit different


----------



## utsava (Jun 5, 2002)

edyvw said:


> European market always had many more options.
> But yes, that is what I am saying all this time, VW wants to establish itself in segment where there is no forgiving by offering engine from 2006.
> If at least they offered 2.0T with 4Motion and some 270lb/ft torque, it might be bit different


While I agree more/better engine options would've been nice, I don't agree that using the VR6 will be "unforgivable". I think VW has actually done a great job tailoring this vehicle to the American market, moreso than they've ever done in their history. It's obvious to me that the engine choices were thrown for a loop when diesel-gate happened. A TDI with great torque and gas mileage would have been the last puzzle piece in the picture. But I think they've checked pretty much all the other major boxes: price, warranty, size, features... The engine is a weakness, but not a fatal one, and offset by strong competitiveness in the other areas. Soccer moms may quibble over a few MPGs, but they're certainly not looking at when the engine technology was developed, CBU, DI/PI, etc..


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

utsava said:


> While I agree more/better engine options would've been nice, I don't agree that using the VR6 will be "unforgivable". I think VW has actually done a great job tailoring this vehicle to the American market, moreso than they've ever done in their history. It's obvious to me that the engine choices were thrown for a loop when diesel-gate happened. A TDI with great torque and gas mileage would have been the last puzzle piece in the picture. But I think they've checked pretty much all the other major boxes: price, warranty, size, features... The engine is a weakness, but not a fatal one, and offset by strong competitiveness in the other areas. Soccer moms may quibble over a few MPGs, but they're certainly not looking at when the engine technology was developed, CBU, DI/PI, etc..


They do not look at technology. They will when service advisor at VW says: oh yeah, by the way you know DI, CBU so we need to clean it. Most buyers of these vehicles keep them for longer period of time. It is hard to see how typical buyer of these vehicles will address preventive measures regarding CBU like lower NOACK oil, more frequent oil changes, pushing car etc. 
On other aspects I agree. VW always had practical cars, not big, but practical. I had VW CC before BMW, and Passat B5.5, and numerous VW when I lived in Europe. They are super practical. Stretching MQB so much and then designing interior in typical VW manner is spot on. 
No complaints there. I will have second kid and unfortunately my X5 is not best long trip vehicle when you have two small kids (it drives like nuts, and VW will never match that or Audi) so I might even pull trigger on VR6. However, we are minority here that know what to expect from this engine, what issues etc. I am talking about grand scheme of things.


----------



## Woj (Oct 23, 2000)

I would argue that VWoA has made a fatal error with the motor offering. 
Why would you place a VR6 that doesn't make torque until you are above 4000 rpm?

Everybody has noted that turbo motors in this day and age are simply more practical. Why Ford even got rid of their 6.2 L V8 in the Raptor and went with a TT V6 that smokes the previous Raptor.

Most SUV owners, I believe, do not want to drive their SUV like they stole it when merging and moving. I just don't see that being a desired process. Torque is what's needed and at low rpm. The VR6 is at the opposite end of the spectrum, it just doesn't compute.


----------



## Zaris (Jun 11, 2010)

Just to put things into perspective, Volkswagen official specs for the *2018 Atlas 3.6L VR6* is:

276 hp @ 6,200 rpm
266 lb-ft @ 2,750 rpm

Prime competitors to the Atlas have similar horsepower values, but the torque is achieved at a much lower rpm. I wouldn't say Volkswagen's decision to utilize the longstanding VR6 is "fatal" or "a mistake". Here is what others are doing, straight from the manufacturer's website spec sheets:

*2017 Honda Pilot 3.5L V6*
280 hp @ 6,000 rpm
262 lb-ft @ 4,700 rpm

*2017 Toyota Highlander 3.5L V6*
295 hp @ 6,660 rpm
263 lb-ft @ 4,700 rpm

*2017 Ford Explorer 3.5L V6*
290 hp @ 6,500 rpm
255 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm

Also, just to throw it out there since power-to-weight ratios matter to some degree as well:

*Curb Weight (lbs) FWD/AWD*
2018 Volkswagen Atlas: 4,336/4,502
2017 Honda Pilot: 4,054/4,220
2017 Toyota Highlander: 4,244/4,398
2017 Ford Explorer: 4,453/????


----------



## Plagueis (Nov 4, 2013)

edyvw said:


> They do not look at technology. They will when service advisor at VW says: oh yeah, by the way you know DI, CBU so we need to clean it. Most buyers of these vehicles keep them for longer period of time. It is hard to see how typical buyer of these vehicles will address preventive measures regarding CBU like lower NOACK oil, more frequent oil changes, pushing car etc.
> On other aspects I agree. VW always had practical cars, not big, but practical. I had VW CC before BMW, and Passat B5.5, and numerous VW when I lived in Europe. They are super practical. Stretching MQB so much and then designing interior in typical VW manner is spot on.
> No complaints there. I will have second kid and unfortunately my X5 is not best long trip vehicle when you have two small kids (it drives like nuts, and VW will never match that or Audi) so I might even pull trigger on VR6. However, we are minority here that know what to expect from this engine, what issues etc. I am talking about grand scheme of things.


Catch can and CBU issue becomes a non-issue  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vwbugstuff (Mar 27, 2004)

Am I missing something here: has the carbon build-up issue been a problem in the V6's? I don't think I've seen any Passats or V6 CC's in our service dept. for carbon cleaning.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Plagueis said:


> Catch can and CBU issue becomes a non-issue
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Aha, typical soccer mom will install catch can.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

vwbugstuff said:


> Am I missing something here: has the carbon build-up issue been a problem in the V6's? I don't think I've seen any Passats or V6 CC's in our service dept. for carbon cleaning.


It is a problem. Is it a problem like on TSI? No.


----------



## Plagueis (Nov 4, 2013)

edyvw said:


> Aha, typical soccer mom will install catch can.


Day 1 mod for me.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Zaris said:


> Just to put things into perspective, Volkswagen official specs for the *2018 Atlas 3.6L VR6* is:
> 
> 276 hp @ 6,200 rpm
> 266 lb-ft @ 2,750 rpm
> ...


You forgot Mazda CX-9 which has 310lb-ft @ 2000rpm.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Plagueis said:


> Day 1 mod for me.


I am talking about 99.9% of buyers.


----------



## Plagueis (Nov 4, 2013)

edyvw said:


> I am talking about 99.9% of buyers.


Oh I know, I am a bit excited for the Atlas regardless of the stats love to have a bigger VW, my R is the weekend or to drop the munchkin off at her grandparents house transport. Atlas is gonna be for our additional we're thinking of having + the family trips. Tiguan is getting cramped and I'm not giving up my R.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Plagueis said:


> Oh I know, I am a bit excited for the Atlas regardless of the stats love to have a bigger VW, my R is the weekend or to drop the munchkin off at her grandparents house transport. Atlas is gonna be for our additional we're thinking of having + the family trips. Tiguan is getting cramped and I'm not giving up my R.


I was super excited about Atlas. I think I need to come to that point to make a move from 425lb-ft of torque to 266. It will be long process.


----------



## vwbugstuff (Mar 27, 2004)

edyvw said:


> You forgot Mazda CX-9 which has 310lb-ft @ 2000rpm.



But, CX-9 trailer towing is only 3500 lbs and the warranty is only 3/36. So, you've got the torque, but you really can't do anything with it..... ;-)


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

vwbugstuff said:


> But, CX-9 trailer towing is only 3500 lbs and the warranty is only 3/36. So, you've got the torque, but you really can't do anything with it..... ;-)


You are picking selectively competition.
Yes, CX-9 has 3500lbs and 3/36 (not concerned about that when it comes to Mazda, but get the point). However, Atlas tows 5000lbs only with tow package. 99% of buyers in this segment could not care less about towing. If towing is priority, well Dodge Durango then. 
You mentioned Explorer. You are forgetting that Explorer for 45K has 3.5 Ecoboost engine. Hmm, turbo V6 for 45K or video game cluster for 48K in Atlas? Yeah, I would rather have huge torque at 2000rpm then Play Station available in Atlas. Or 2.3 turbo in lower trims that can be coupled with AWD? 
You mentioned Pilot. Pilot hits 0-60 in 6 seconds. So while I understand that 0-60 is really not important in this segment, point is that that SUV moves, and moves quickly. 
Highlander has also torque in high rpms, but you forget that both Highlander and Pilot offer much better MPG, and couple that with Toyota reputation? You get picture. VW does not stand out, that is the point. If they offered 2.5 V6 TSI, that would be different story then.


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

edyvw said:


> but you forget that both Highlander and Pilot offer much better MPG,


No they don't. 

Atlas 18/25
Pilot 18/26
Highlander 20/27


----------



## vwbugstuff (Mar 27, 2004)

Hajduk said:


> No they don't.
> 
> Atlas 18/25
> Pilot 18/26
> Highlander 20/27


CX-9 20/26.....

The CX-9 averages 23mpg with a 4-cylinder while the Atlas isn't really that far off, averaging 21.5 with a 6-cylinder. It's almost an apples vs. oranges comparison.

The bottom line is that there are a bunch of us on this forum that are excited about and looking forward to VW's latest addition to hit the showrooms. We all have our various opinions and reasons why we are considering the Atlas, but no one should be expected to make their final decision until they actually sit in, touch, smell, drive and lick the door handles for themselves. A bunch of statistics and specifications on paper don't really mean a thing unless you've actually experienced some extended seat time yourself.

Then, as was mentioned before, if you don't like it, don't buy it.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Hajduk said:


> No they don't.
> 
> Atlas 18/25
> Pilot 18/26
> Highlander 20/27


You really think that is not going to be an issue among targeted consumers? Do not forget, you and I are not one of them.


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

edyvw said:


> You really think that is not going to be an issue among targeted consumers? Do not forget, you and I are not one of them.


1-2 mpg? No


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

edyvw said:


> You really think that is not going to be an issue among targeted consumers? Do not forget, you and I are not one of them.


This is actually the opposite. Car people care more about 1-2 MPG differences than the mass buying public. They go to the dealership of whatever vehicle they like the exterior of, ask the salesman if it's fuel efficient. Salesman responds, "it's very fuel efficient." And then the customer drives it for 10 minutes, then signs the paper work.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## utsava (Jun 5, 2002)

capclassicv2 said:


> This is actually the opposite. Car people care more about 1-2 MPG differences than the mass buying public. They go to the dealership of whatever vehicle they like the exterior of, ask the salesman if it's fuel efficient. Salesman respond, "it's very fuel efficient." And then the customer drives it for 10 minutes, then signs the paper work.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


This. :thumbup:


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

capclassicv2 said:


> This is actually the opposite. Car people care more about 1-2 MPG differences than the mass buying public. They go to the dealership of whatever vehicle they like the exterior of, ask the salesman if it's fuel efficient. Salesman responds, "it's very fuel efficient." And then the customer drives it for 10 minutes, then signs the paper work.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


I would disagree with that. 
People today with touch of a button can research to death cars online. If people were so ignorant, GM would never file for bankruptcy.


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

edyvw said:


> I would disagree with that.
> People today with touch of a button can research to death cars online. If people were so ignorant, GM would never file for bankruptcy.


If that was the case, GM wouldn't have sold so many Equinoxs and Traverses the last few years after they both were leap frogged by the competition. GM didn't file for bankruptcy because of Internet researching, they filed because they of their crappy business practices. 

Take Mitsubishi for example. They don't sell a lot of cars. They are still a small company here, with a weak dealership network and a very small marketing budget. But they do sell enough uncompetitive vehicles to continue to do business here. People that buy Outlanders did so because either they liked the style, liked the price, or couldn't get financing elsewhere. Because research would point them elsewhere. 

Respectfully, I think you're overestimating the number of buyers who actually do real serious research. The number of Internet car searches has increased but it still hasn't changed the fact that the Nissan Rouge is a hit even though it's not as good as anything else in its segment. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## jspirate (Jan 15, 2011)

Plagueis said:


> Tiguan is getting cramped and I'm not giving up my R.


Don't ever sell that R!


----------



## jspirate (Jan 15, 2011)

vwbugstuff said:


> But, CX-9 trailer towing is only 3500 lbs and the warranty is only 3/36. So, you've got the torque, but you really can't do anything with it..... ;-)


What? You should drive a car that has its torq in the low RPMs. You do something with it every time the car starts from a standstill. Once you have that, you don't ever want to be without it.

That said, the towing is a real deal, if you need it.


----------



## Plagueis (Nov 4, 2013)

jspirate said:


> Don't ever sell that R!


Never, almost paid off too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

capclassicv2 said:


> If that was the case, GM wouldn't have sold so many Equinoxs and Traverses the last few years after they both were leap frogged by the competition. GM didn't file for bankruptcy because of Internet researching, they filed because they of their crappy business practices.
> 
> Take Mitsubishi for example. They don't sell a lot of cars. They are still a small company here, with a weak dealership network and a very small marketing budget. But they do sell enough uncompetitive vehicles to continue to do business here. People that buy Outlanders did so because either they liked the style, liked the price, or couldn't get financing elsewhere. Because research would point them elsewhere.
> 
> ...


So VW wants to sell just enough vehicles? I thought VW wants to position itself at the top, not to muddle thru. 
GM filed for bankruptcy because they made POS cars (still do). However, there will always be someone to buy it. That kind of approach VW cannot allow with Atlas. VW will sell Atlas, no question about it. The question is: whether they will sell enough of them to justify investment.


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

edyvw said:


> So VW wants to sell just enough vehicles? I thought VW wants to position itself at the top, not to muddle thru.
> GM filed for bankruptcy because they made POS cars (still do). However, there will always be someone to buy it. That kind of approach VW cannot allow with Atlas. VW will sell Atlas, no question about it. The question is: whether they will sell enough of them to justify investment.


Lol, jeez you're a tough one to crack. And btw, GM cars are pretty good. I like my Cruze more than my previous 3 VW's. 

Back to the Atals, the short answer to your question is, yes. VW wants to sell just enough vehicles. 

The long answer is that a few years ago, VW had this plan to sell 800,000 vehicles in North America. That plan died when they realized they can't achieve that without a competitive line-up and having an image of unreliable vehicles. They initially thought that they could continue growth with the Jetta and Passat until they built their new crossovers. But when the market started favoring crossovers, their 'just okay' sedans stopped growing market share, and the Touareg and Tiguan weren't up to the task. Remember the Routan? VW's Town and Country was also part of the plan to help grow not only sales but profit. Because it wasn't just about the number of vehicles, it was also making their business in NA profitable. They didn't care about the image Chrysler had because Chrysler was the leader in the segment. And having them built a sister vehicle would help VW avoid the development cost of a vehicle that would never lead the segment, and not make a profit in-house.

Enter the Volkswagen Atlas. Plans have changed, but the goal to release this 3-row always remained the same. VW is not going to be the top seller in this category. It's not spoken because that would be dumb to publically announce it knows it can't reach number 1 in this market. But the NA market is a mature market, with Ford, GM, and Toyota leading the 3-row crossover segment. As far as I can tell, VW won't even produce the Altas at the rate Toyota produces the Highlander. Demand has not proven that they need to supply that many. But that's not to say VW won't roll as many Atlas into their dealerships that they can. VW is aware of the challenges of bringing a new vehicle into a mature market. So while we're discussing engine choices, trim packaging and car magazine rankings, they're happy that the Atlas has gotten the attention it has. It was featured on some daytime show (I don't remember the name right now.)


SUV3/1/2017Ford Explorer23,424Toyota Highlander18,058Hyundai Santa Fe*11,446GMC Acadia11,432Chevrolet Traverse10,657Nissan Pathfinder10,442Honda Pilot9,945Kia Sorento7,751Dodge Durango6,506Buick Enclave3,772Mazda CX-92,550Ford Flex1,796

These are the March 2017 sales numbers (goodcarbadcar.net is the source and I couldn't find the April numbers). Good estimates for the Atlas should put it around the Sorento, Durango, Enclave levels. And that's 5k monthly average sales they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. These are going to be sold/leased to a higher percentage of new customers than returning VW buyers. For comparison in March, the Touareg sold 317 units and the Tiguan sold 3,270. If they can break the 5k mark, I'm sure they'll be pleased. It sets themselves up and gives them a foundation to build upon. When the LWB Tiguan goes on sale, I suspect it will outsell Atlas, which would be great considering it's current sales numbers. But even saying that, no one expects the VW Atlas to rush to number 1. But if they create a good driving, reliable vehicle, maybe they'll crack 10k in a few generations if history can speak positively about it. That's why the VR6 is important. It's tested and it's reliable and VW can start building an image that the Atlas can continue the current trend of VW's modern line-up reliability.

I know this is all opinion discussion, but in my opinion, I think VW did a good job with this rollout. Ads are starting, vehicles are going to dealerships, the price is competitive, it looks like a typical VW and those who have driven it say that it's a good driver that masks its size. This is good for us as enthusiasts. A profitable VW means the future should see more investments in what we like.

Sidenote, after pulling those numbers I realized that the Pilot barely sells half as much as the Highlander, and can't touch the Explorer. GM even sells more Traverse and Acadia. That surprised me because I thought it was at the top of the segment.

_* The Santa Fe numbers include the Santa Fe Sport, which doesn't compete in this segment, so their overall numbers should be lower._


----------



## jspirate (Jan 15, 2011)

Plagueis said:


> Never, almost paid off too.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My lowly FWD CC that is modded a bit won't be sold either. Its a driver's car through and through.


----------



## vwbugstuff (Mar 27, 2004)

Not to get ahead of myself here, but I would imagine that when and if (emphasis on when) the 5-seater Atlas replaces the Touareg in the US, it will probably sell more than 300 units per month...


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

capclassicv2 said:


> Lol, jeez you're a tough one to crack. And btw, GM cars are pretty good. I like my Cruze more than my previous 3 VW's.
> 
> Back to the Atals, the short answer to your question is, yes. VW wants to sell just enough vehicles.
> 
> ...


What is the point of these numbers, and your long post which I skimmed thru? VW can sell 100 units or 5000 units a month, whether that is good for VW depends on VW investment and both of us do not know how many units VW needs to sell to make money. 
And GM still makes POS cars (real people, not actors would beg differently). You drive car developed in South Korea, that runs on engines developed in Germany. Question is: what now after Opel?
Will see about VR6. For some people it will be OK. IMO, most people will go to VW expecting more from engine then in Toyota or Honda. People will not go to VW because it is example of reliability. Reliability part might come in 10 years.


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

edyvw said:


> What is the point of these numbers, and your long post which I skimmed thru? VW can sell 100 units or 5000 units a month, whether that is good for VW depends on VW investment and both of us do not know how many units VW needs to sell to make money.
> And GM still makes POS cars (real people, not actors would beg differently). You drive car developed in South Korea, that runs on engines developed in Germany. Question is: what now after Opel?
> Will see about VR6. For some people it will be OK. IMO, most people will go to VW expecting more from engine then in Toyota or Honda. People will not go to VW because it is example of reliability. Reliability part might come in 10 years.




Okay.


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

Where's the Kurkuma yellow? As far as I can there's not a single one in the country yet!


----------



## der_apoteker (Mar 27, 2017)

*because even VW knows it is awful*

That is the worst color since the "gold" beetle



GjR32 said:


> Where's the Kurkuma yellow? As far as I can there's not a single one in the country yet!


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

der_apoteker said:


> That is the worst color since the "gold" beetle


Feel free to stick with your boring black, white, grey and silver but I think the Kurkuma is a really cool color.


----------



## Drive by (Mar 13, 2017)

GjR32 said:


> Feel free to stick with your boring black, white, grey and silver but I think the Kurkuma is a really cool color.


And this is why choices are offered. If I was given a free VW SEL Premium in that colour I would refuse. Can't believe that made it out the door. Then again other manufacturers have metallic puke, metialic poop and other awful colours. Not just VW here


----------



## der_apoteker (Mar 27, 2017)

*one bad color doesnt mean all are bad*



GjR32 said:


> Feel free to stick with your boring black, white, grey and silver but I think the Kurkuma is a really cool color.


i am actually frustrated by the lack of color choices with the models that dealers have right now... i am holding out for a blue version. BUt i really like the metallic orange that is available on the new Tiguan LWB...
i guess they didn't bother to ask my opinion...


----------



## D.Johnson (Feb 18, 1999)

GjR32 said:


> Where's the Kurkuma yellow? As far as I can there's not a single one in the country yet!


It looks like a couple have just popped up on cars.com.



der_apoteker said:


> i am actually frustrated by the lack of color choices with the models that dealers have right now... i am holding out for a blue version. BUt i really like the metallic orange that is available on the new Tiguan LWB...
> i guess they didn't bother to ask my opinion...


The blue ones are slowly starting to show up. I see Checkered Flag in Va. Beach has one, and there are a couple more up at the normal heavy hitter dealers in northern VA. That might help your search.


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

There's at least one Kurkuma Yellow in Canada

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?8430130-Canadian-Atlas-Information/page2


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

D.Johnson said:


> It looks like a couple have just popped up on cars.com.
> I couldn't find any yellow ones on cars.com. Could you post the links please?
> 
> 
> The blue ones are slowly starting to show up. I see Checkered Flag in Va. Beach has one, and there are a couple more up at the normal heavy hitter dealers in northern VA. That might help your search.


 .


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

D.Johnson said:


> It looks like a couple have just popped up on cars.com.
> 
> 
> 
> The blue ones are slowly starting to show up. I see Checkered Flag in Va. Beach has one, and there are a couple more up at the normal heavy hitter dealers in northern VA. That might help your search.


I couldn't find any yellow ones on cars.com. Could you post the links please?


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

GjR32 said:


> I couldn't find any yellow ones on cars.com. Could you post the links please?


When you do the filters, you have to select "Other" as the color as yellow doesn't appear to be listed.


----------



## D.Johnson (Feb 18, 1999)

capclassicv2 said:


> When you do the filters, you have to select "Other" as the color as yellow doesn't appear to be listed.



This is correct. It will give you a mixture of other colors too, but yellow will be in there.

This will lead you, for example, to Luther westside VW, and on their website, you will see the Kukurma Atlas SE.


----------



## vwbugstuff (Mar 27, 2004)

der_apoteker said:


> i am actually frustrated by the lack of color choices with the models that dealers have right now... i am holding out for a blue version. BUt i really like the metallic orange that is available on the new Tiguan LWB...
> i guess they didn't bother to ask my opinion...


Habanero Orange Atlas for 2019....that would be cool:thumbup:


----------



## loopless (Oct 4, 2007)

edyvw said:


> As far as we know Atlas is 22mpg HWY. Highlander (same tranny) is 27mpg HWY. In that segment among those consumers that is HUGE difference.
> Not to mention Highlander has DI/PI engine.
> I was very interested in Atlas, but unless they offer torquier engine with 4Motion, I am skipping it.


V6 Highlander is rated 20/27, V6 Altas 18/25 
I doubt given the current state of gas prices that really makes much of a difference to a buyer.

I have a feeling the 2.0 Atlas will add a few MPG to that, and possibly embarrass the VR6 on performance. I suspect that's why the 2.0 is not available for a while.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

loopless said:


> V6 Highlander is rated 20/27, V6 Altas 18/25
> I doubt given the current state of gas prices that really makes much of a difference to a buyer.
> 
> I have a feeling the 2.0 Atlas will add a few MPG to that, and possibly embarrass the VR6 on performance. I suspect that's why the 2.0 is not available for a while.


Highlander is I think 20/27 in AWD (or 19/26) and Atlas is 18/23 in AWD. That is considerable difference. 
As for 2.0T it could be or not. If 2.0T cannot carry all that weight it might be a problem. I hope they bring 2.0T in 4Motion option. Problem? Buyers of Q7 with 2.0T might opt out for Atlas, so VW is protecting Q7.
The biggest problem I believe for Atlas is not whether VW can offer or not something better then Toyota or Honda, it is the fact that VW is protecting Audi. If Atlas fails (and there is probability that that will happen) it will be because of in house competition and protection of Audi.


----------



## Don® (Oct 11, 2011)

I'm with edyvw on this one...
I test drove the new 2.0T Q7 Quattro and it had no problems with get up and go. I was pleasantly impressed.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Don® said:


> I'm with edyvw on this one...
> I test drove the new 2.0T Q7 Quattro and it had no problems with get up and go. I was pleasantly impressed.


Well, it is 273lb-ft at 1600rpms I think. 2.0T in Q7 0-60 is same like 3.0T in previous gen. Q7. 
I do not buy any other argument here. 2.0T 4Motion is offered in China with 220hp. There is no any other reason not to offer 2.0 4Motion except to protect Q7. And 2.0T Q7 is 400lbs heavier then Atlas, so there goes that difference of 15lb-ft.


----------



## jspirate (Jan 15, 2011)

2.0 is the clear choice. I don't need/want AWD, but it does suck that you can't get the spiffy new v-cockpit. 

V6 vs I4:


----------



## cgvalant (Nov 14, 2005)

jspirate said:


> 2.0 is the clear choice. I don't need/want AWD, but it does suck that you can't get the spiffy new v-cockpit.
> 
> V6 vs I4:


As a driver of an APR stage 1 GTI, this is why I really wanted an SEL premium with the 2.0t and AWD. 

That being said, there are differences between the various 2.0T ECUs (i.e. there are quite a few different ones for GTIs) and it could very well be that tuners don't feel there is enough of a market with the Atlas to provide a tune for either the 2.0t or 3.6. 

BTW, there are better numbers to be had for the 3.6 than what APR offers. I think it was Revo who offers more power. Though you may have to sacrifice torque (think r36 numbers). Intake and exhaust will likely be the best bet for 3.6 performance gains... But again, we have the issue of whether there is enough of a market.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

Is cars.com the best place to see nationwide dealer inventory?


----------



## jspirate (Jan 15, 2011)

cgvalant said:


> As a driver of an APR stage 1 GTI, this is why I really wanted an SEL premium with the 2.0t and AWD.
> 
> That being said, there are differences between the various 2.0T ECUs (i.e. there are quite a few different ones for GTIs) and it could very well be that tuners don't feel there is enough of a market with the Atlas to provide a tune for either the 2.0t or 3.6.
> 
> ...


Yes... I went K04 on my 2011 CC. I had less than 1000 miles on it and had the bigger snail on before a tune was available. I had to send the ECU to APR while the car sat in the garage waiting. Then, I was the first to discover the weak valve springs on the CC's. Fixed that, and its been running like a top ever since! So yeah... the 2.0 on the Atlas will be tuned very soon after purchasing! If stage 2 goods are available, it will get stage 2!

Over 300 TQ at 1500 rpm and close to 400 at 2500 
Although, APR's numbers seem a little high to me...


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

jspirate said:


> Yes... I went K04 on my 2011 CC. I had less than 1000 miles on it and had the bigger snail on before a tune was available. I had to send the ECU to APR while the car sat in the garage waiting. Then, I was the first to discover the weak valve springs on the CC's. Fixed that, and its been running like a top ever since! So yeah... the 2.0 on the Atlas will be tuned very soon after purchasing! If stage 2 goods are available, it will get stage 2!
> 
> Over 300 TQ at 1500 rpm and close to 400 at 2500
> Although, APR's numbers seem a little high to me...


For the family hauler Stage I is perfectly fine. It would be good if APR develop ECU upgrade for Atlas, emphasizing torque not much HP.


----------



## D.Johnson (Feb 18, 1999)

GjR32 said:


> Is cars.com the best place to see nationwide dealer inventory?



It has flaws, but it is a starting point. You can also use some other the other search sites, like autotrader.com, cargurus.com, etc. 

Problem with these web sites is that they are not constantly updated. Car might be listed, but actually sold. Or cars might be on the lot, but not yet listed. Or the individual dealer might not even participate in any of these sites. This was quite evident last month, as people were running everywhere trying to find a 2015 TDI. Cars that were still showing as available on cars.com were sold days previous, whereas my local dealer had 20 TDIs sitting on his lot that went somewhat slowly, because he didn't participate in anything beyond his own website. 

Another option would be to go to vw.com, to the "find a match" section, and start plugging in zip codes. You'll have a better selection in one of the historically big Volkswagen selling areas (for example, Northern Va/DC/Maryland and south Florida), but you have to be willing to travel. But this takes time and effort on your part. On the other hand, if you are on good terms with your local VW dealer, they can look in their system and do this work for you. Some will be happy to share the info with you...."I see one yellow Atlas in Seattle"....others won't, and will only help you if they know that they are going to get a sale out of you. YMMV. Good luck.


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

D.Johnson said:


> It has flaws, but it is a starting point. You can also use some other the other search sites, like autotrader.com, cargurus.com, etc.
> 
> Problem with these web sites is that they are not constantly updated. Car might be listed, but actually sold. Or cars might be on the lot, but not yet listed. Or the individual dealer might not even participate in any of these sites. This was quite evident last month, as people were running everywhere trying to find a 2015 TDI. Cars that were still showing as available on cars.com were sold days previous, whereas my local dealer had 20 TDIs sitting on his lot that went somewhat slowly, because he didn't participate in anything beyond his own website.
> 
> Another option would be to go to vw.com, to the "find a match" section, and start plugging in zip codes. You'll have a better selection in one of the historically big Volkswagen selling areas (for example, Northern Va/DC/Maryland and south Florida), but you have to be willing to travel. But this takes time and effort on your part. On the other hand, if you are on good terms with your local VW dealer, they can look in their system and do this work for you. Some will be happy to share the info with you...."I see one yellow Atlas in Seattle"....others won't, and will only help you if they know that they are going to get a sale out of you. YMMV. Good luck.


Cheers for the advice. Pretty much what I've been doing already. I'm looking for an SEL premium in Kurkuma with black wheels (i.e. Exactly the same as the one at the launch event in Santa Monica back in October) but there only seem to be 4 kurkumas nationwide as of now and none of them SEL Premiums.


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

*Park assist*

Have any of you SEL premium owners tried the automatic parking features? I'd love to hear general feedback on it. Does the system brake for you?


----------



## Banshee365 (Aug 27, 2006)

GjR32 said:


> Have any of you SEL premium owners tried the automatic parking features? I'd love to hear general feedback on it. Does the system brake for you?



We test drove an SEL Premium yesterday and tried the park pilot. It works pretty good. You control the shifter and pedals. It only does the steering. To use it you push the park pilot button while driving through the parking lot. The vehicle looks for spots to your right. When it sees a spot between two vehicles it places an arrow into the spot on the instrument cluster. Then you just put it in reverse and let off the brake at the pace you desire. The first time I got into the spot fine but was a little crooked. The second time I tried it the system put it in pretty straight. I didn't get a chance to try to parallel parking feature as there isn't much of that where I live.


----------



## hwalker (Dec 3, 2012)

*New5 passenger SUG for Chattanooga*

The new T-Roc got greenligjted. So expect that to be the new SUV! It will be Q3 sized or a little smaller....


----------

