# Need Opinions - 2.0 Turbo vs V6 - Atlas Cross Sport



## finz72 (Sep 3, 2018)

Good morning,

I am interested in trading my 2019 Honda Passport Touring for a 2020 Atlas Cross Sport. I am struggling with what engine to get. My Passport is a V6 and its rated at 286 HP. My gas mileage is averaging 21-22 combined.
I am disappointed that the V6 in the Cross Sport has less HP and less gas mileage.
Is the 2.0 Turbo a good engine for the Cross Sport ?

I'm going to test drive both in a couple days but I'd like some opinions on Cross Sport owners as well as Atlas owners. I don't tow anything heavier than bicycles.
I am most interested in the SEL Package 4 motion.

Thanks in advance for any input !


----------



## VeeDubDude66 (Nov 27, 2012)

The test drives will be your *most valuable* input but since you asked for opinions...

Do not get hung up, too much, on the numbers. My 3.6L Cross Sport is rated at 17 city / 23 hiway...you can eek out more, depending on how you drive it. Don't get concerned about HP numbers either and here is why I say that. I have a '14 3.6L Touareg that is "only rated" at 278hp but it goes 143mph bone stock and will tow 7,700lbs. Apples to Oranges tho. My Cross Sport actually "feels" faster than the Touareg but the Atlas is much lighter than Treg.

IMHO (you asked) the 2.0L is small engine for the Atlas but VW knows what they are doing, so does Audi which uses a 2.0 in most of their cars as well. 

If you are interested in modding/tuning the engine there is probably more potential with the turbo...the flip side of that coin is longevity and more maintenance (oil misting/intake cleaning) involved with the turbo engine. I had the 2.0 T engine in my MkVI GTI & MkII Tiguan both were fun to drive and fairly efficient IF you can stay off the skinny pedal. I'm not sure how much of that fun factor would be felt in the Cross Sport, I never drove the 2.0 version.

For real world MPG there is a website/app called Fuelly, you can do model specific research there and see users MPG ratings.

Good luck and let us know your thoughts after you drive both versions.


----------



## emdy (Nov 18, 2019)

I went with a 2.0t atlas for a few reasons.

- It was 25k
- I rarely have more than 1 passenger (I wanted the trunk space)
- I commuted up and down a snowy mountain road for 10 years and firmly believe that AWD doesn't do much for you. FWD is great if you know how to drive and run good snow tires.
- I like to tinker and I've bolted on some aftermarket turbo upgrades and plan to either tune the ecu or get a piggy back unit. There is turbo lag, but it's still fun to drive.
- I have an old tahoe if I really need a truck for something

The 2.0 is basically an oversized sportwagen that can be souped up (a little), which is what I wanted. Different people have different needs though.


----------



## Chuck_IV (May 21, 2020)

emdy said:


> I went with a 2.0t atlas for a few reasons.
> - I commuted up and down a snowy mountain road for 10 years and firmly believe that AWD doesn't do much for you. FWD is great if you know how to drive and run good snow tires.


I was with you until I read this. AWD does a LOT in many situations that I wouldn't touch with a FWD car/truck. I live in CT and without AWD there are hills(my driveway too) and other conditions that would be next to impossible or risky. Being caught in a snowstorm, when the plows just don't/can't get to your route fast enough will make you wish you had AWD. I've always had fun driving right by the FWD cars either completely stuck, or are inching up a simple moderate hill, spinning the treads off their tires.

Sure you can function in a FWD car(I gut it out in my little Honda Civic at times) but the piece of mind of AWD can't be understated, if you live in snowy states.


----------



## Misio9 (Sep 23, 2019)

VW Atlas is not designed to be gas saver that's for sure I went with 3.6 as I don't care about gas milage and 2.0T in such a big vehicle means turbo will be engaged most of the time which will result in similar gas milage in real life condition anyway. (unless you do mostly highway miles) Another thing is longevity the 3.6 naturally aspirated engine is expected to outlast 2.0T but many people won't care as they change vehicles every few years. Just my $0.02


----------



## Alpinweiss2 (Jan 9, 2017)

For people who live at higher elevations, the 2.0T is a better engine. Most turbocharged engines will produce about 100% of the rated horsepower, regardless of altitude. Most naturally-aspirated engines will lose about 3% per 1000 feet of elevation. 

Incidentally, the above statements start to lose accuracy above about 12,000 feet elevation.

:beer:


----------



## G jeep (Aug 2, 2006)

I went with the 2.0t. I commute 80 miles per day round trip in Houston and need the range. If it had a larger tank I think I would have still gone with the 4. I go to the mountains quite a bit and prefer turbo over non turbo engines. I can get 30+ mpg on my commute if I try. If I drive 80 I get 27 average. My commute is 25% city, 75% highway. 4motion by the way. I was excited when the cross sport came in that combo.


----------



## vbrad26 (Oct 18, 2009)

I've got the 2L in a '19 Atlas and it does just fine. 
It's not fast, but I have definitely driven slower SUV's.
I just wish we could have got it in AWD but that is not an option. 
On the plus side if you end up with the 2L and find it to be too slow you can always tune it.


----------



## finz72 (Sep 3, 2018)

Misio9 said:


> VW Atlas is not designed to be gas saver that's for sure I went with 3.6 as I don't care about gas milage and 2.0T in such a big vehicle means turbo will be engaged most of the time which will result in similar gas milage in real life condition anyway. (unless you do mostly highway miles) Another thing is longevity the 3.6 naturally aspirated engine is expected to outlast 2.0T but many people won't care as they change vehicles every few years. Just my $0.02


I'm hoping that if I pull the trigger and go for a Volkswagen, the care will last me at least 150,000 miles. I usually get a new vehicle every 3-4 years but my next once will have to last to my retirement in 5 years and beyond !! I only drive about 10k miles per year on average.
Would you say that Volkswagen can compare in reliability to Honda's and Toyotas ? That's what I'm really concerned with ...What about the longevity of the 2.0 turbo vs the V6 ?


----------



## VeeDubDude66 (Nov 27, 2012)

finz72 said:


> I'm hoping that if I pull the trigger and go for a Volkswagen, the care will last me at least 150,000 miles. I usually get a new vehicle every 3-4 years but my next once will have to last to my retirement in 5 years and beyond !! I only drive about 10k miles per year on average.
> Would you say that Volkswagen can compare in reliability to Honda's and Toyotas ? That's what I'm really concerned with ...What about the longevity of the 2.0 turbo vs the V6 ?


I'm not far behind you on the retirement deal. Not trying to sway you away from anything BUT for longevity I (personally) would avoid a turbo engine. After a lifetime of driving VWs, i've already decided my retirement vehicle will be a Lexus RX350. Comfortable crossover, normally aspirated V6, not too big, not too small and currently Lexus is rated as the most reliable vehicles on the road. Prior to me buying the Cross Sport, my 2014 Touareg and '17 CC both had wheel speed sensors fail, the CC was under warranty the Treg was not because of time not mileage. Both rear wheel speed sensors failed at 25K miles within two weeks of each other. My Treg is currently in the shop with a major malfunction, COP failed, melted down, burnt wiring harness, which backfed into the computer destroying the coil control circuit. There is only ONE ECM left for that car in the country right now...this all happened while my bride was travelling alone cross-country. The repair bill, so far, is over $3,100 oh yeah and the car only had 32,000 mi on it...again would have been warranty repair but that expired by time, not mileage. Good luck in your searching.


----------



## finz72 (Sep 3, 2018)

VeeDubDude66 said:


> I'm not far behind you on the retirement deal. Not trying to sway you away from anything BUT for longevity I (personally) would avoid a turbo engine. After a lifetime of driving VWs, i've already decided my retirement vehicle will be a Lexus RX350. Comfortable crossover, normally aspirated V6, not too big, not too small and currently Lexus is rated as the most reliable vehicles on the road. Prior to me buying the Cross Sport, my 2014 Touareg and '17 CC both had wheel speed sensors fail, the CC was under warranty the Treg was not because of time not mileage. Both rear wheel speed sensors failed at 25K miles within two weeks of each other. My Treg is currently in the shop with a major malfunction, COP failed, melted down, burnt wiring harness, which backfed into the computer destroying the coil control circuit. There is only ONE ECM left for that car in the country right now...this all happened while my bride was travelling alone cross-country. The repair bill, so far, is over $3,100 oh yeah and the car only had 32,000 mi on it...again would have been warranty repair but that expired by time, not mileage. Good luck in your searching.


So, you have purchased the Cross Sport ? If so, what is your impression ?
I currently have a 2019 Honda Passport Touring V6 and it's a great vehicle but I've always liked the Atlas. I have no need for the 3rd row, which is why the Cross Sport intrigues me. It's the Volkswagen brand that worries me ...Tough decision !!


----------



## VeeDubDude66 (Nov 27, 2012)

finz72 said:


> So, you have purchased the Cross Sport ? If so, what is your impression ?
> I currently have a 2019 Honda Passport Touring V6 and it's a great vehicle but I've always liked the Atlas. I have no need for the 3rd row, which is why the Cross Sport intrigues me. It's the Volkswagen brand that worries me ...Tough decision !!


Yes, i have 2020 Cross Sport SEL w/Nav, 3.6L V6, digital cockpit, pano roof, etc. Took delivery on April 2nd. I love it so far. Same here, i had NO need for a 3rd row. Its a great car with TONS of tech features i didn't think i needed in my life but once you get accustomed to lane assist, active cruise, blind spot monitoring, etc. its tough to be without it.


----------



## Misio9 (Sep 23, 2019)

finz72 said:


> Misio9 said:
> 
> 
> > VW Atlas is not designed to be gas saver that's for sure I went with 3.6 as I don't care about gas milage and 2.0T in such a big vehicle means turbo will be engaged most of the time which will result in similar gas milage in real life condition anyway. (unless you do mostly highway miles) Another thing is longevity the 3.6 naturally aspirated engine is expected to outlast 2.0T but many people won't care as they change vehicles every few years. Just my $0.02
> ...


150 000 miles is nothing either for 2.0T or 3.6 so I wouldn't be worry about engine itself but I never owned any Honda or Toyota simply because I don't like this vehicles, how they look and drive so really can't say anything about reliability. I owned two Volkswagens and one Audi before and never had any major problem with either. In my opinion every vehicle now days should make at least 1500000 without any problems.


----------



## Misio9 (Sep 23, 2019)

One more factor to consider is fuel itself, 2.0T needs premium most expensive 91 or 93 when 3.6 doing just fine on 87 in some places difference can be as big as $0.80 - $1 per gallon.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Misio9 said:


> One more factor to consider is fuel itself, 2.0T needs premium most expensive 91 or 93 when 3.6 doing just fine on 87 in some places difference can be as big as $0.80 - $1 per gallon.


2.0 runs on regular 87....

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk


----------



## Alpinweiss2 (Jan 9, 2017)

KarstGeo said:


> 2.0 runs on regular 87....


Well yes, but this is an excerpt from Volkswagen’s website specifications:

“Engine Specs
Under the hood, a 3.6L V6 engine with 276 hp and 266 lb-ft of torque or a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine with 235 hp* (achieved with premium fuel)* and 258 lb-ft of torque bring power to every drive.”

I added the bold italics for emphasis.

:beer:


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Alpinweiss2 said:


> Well yes, but this is an excerpt from Volkswagen’s website specifications:
> 
> “Engine Specs
> Under the hood, a 3.6L V6 engine with 276 hp and 266 lb-ft of torque or a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine with 235 hp* (achieved with premium fuel)* and 258 lb-ft of torque bring power to every drive.”
> ...


I'm fully aware of how this works, but again, it run just fine on 87 (the manual/gas cap will say "min 87 required" and maybe if you were towing, or in the mountains etc. where you wanted that extra 5 hp, yes, run 91/93. But assuming you will run on premium 100% of the time isn't a fair comparison. I have logged the 3.6 under WOT runs with both 87 and 93 and same thing - you see more timing pulled on 87 vs. 93 so you should get a few more hp on the 93 but it's perfectly fine to use 87 in the 3.6.


----------



## Misio9 (Sep 23, 2019)

KarstGeo said:


> Misio9 said:
> 
> 
> > One more factor to consider is fuel itself, 2.0T needs premium most expensive 91 or 93 when 3.6 doing just fine on 87 in some places difference can be as big as $0.80 - $1 per gallon.
> ...


I wasn't aware of this, my last 2.0T was Audi and minimum was 91 octane but it was like 10 years ago.


----------



## VeeDubDude66 (Nov 27, 2012)

Misio9 said:


> I wasn't aware of this, my last 2.0T was Audi and minimum was 91 octane but it was like 10 years ago.


It is a recent change...they "detuned" the 2.0T leaning more towards efficiency and mpg, the the hard 91+ octane requirement is no longer applicable. They will run okay on 87 but will not meet the advertised HP rating unless on premium fuel.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Misio9 said:


> I wasn't aware of this, my last 2.0T was Audi and minimum was 91 octane but it was like 10 years ago.


Times have certainly changed - while you may not get peak power out of the turbos with 87, it's safe to run or they wouldn't tell you it was ok to do it. The slight difference in power is likely imperceivable to most people so they figure most will be happier saving ~$0.50/gal.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

If anyone is interested/understands logging, here are 2 logs from my 3.6 Atlas. First is using 87 and second is using 93. Same WOT 2-3 gear pull. Clearly more correction/pull/retard using 87 but again....does it really matter for the average person just driving around town? No. Do you make more power on 93? Yes. How much? Probably 5 hp.

https://datazap.me/u/karstgeo72/atlastiminglog8705082020?log=0&data=1-5-6-7-8-9-10

https://datazap.me/u/karstgeo72/atlastiminglog9306052020?log=0&data=1-3-4-5-6-7-8


----------



## Rybangerter (Aug 4, 2019)

My opinion would be to get the 2.0. This engine is used in the GTI, Golf R, and Areton. There are many aftermarket tuners that will make this engine more powerful than the V6. Most tunes also improve gas mileage. My 2 cents.


----------



## mls2756 (Nov 19, 2004)

*Atlas with 2.0T engine*



finz72 said:


> Good morning,
> 
> I am interested in trading my 2019 Honda Passport Touring for a 2020 Atlas Cross Sport. I am struggling with what engine to get. My Passport is a V6 and its rated at 286 HP. My gas mileage is averaging 21-22 combined.
> I am disappointed that the V6 in the Cross Sport has less HP and less gas mileage.
> ...


I don't have direct experience with the Atlas, but I do have a 2014 Audi A5 Cabrio 2.0T, which has 8-speed Tiptronic automatic and is supposed to weigh 4050 lb empty. (An A5 coupe is much lighter because of inherent convertible structural compromises). My year 2.0T has 220 hp and 258 ft-lb torque. I have owned it since new, 63,000 miles now, and it has been as far from home in Seattle as Jacksonville FL, up to the 11,500 ft level on Pike's Peak (it wasn't quite summer yet, so not all the way to the top) plus was originally driven in Germany Norway Sweden and Denmark after delivery in Ingolstadt the summer of 2014. I digress. My point is that I have been pleasantly surprised how relaxed and effortless our A5 is at going any speed I want to go. And its economy is impressive. If driven on a long trip and not much exceeding 70 mph, it can achieve a true 30 mpg, and I've run some carefully calibrated constant-speed economy tests (a 15 mile loop returning to start point) proving that in the (completely unrealistic) case of driving steadily on a level at 50 mph, it can get 37 mpg. Of course, the Atlas I think is heavier still, and much less slippery, so you won't do this well, but I'm convinced an Atlas 2.0T would be much better than many people would expect.


----------



## mls2756 (Nov 19, 2004)

mls2756 said:


> I don't have direct experience with the Atlas, but I do have a 2014 Audi A5 Cabrio 2.0T, which has 8-speed Tiptronic automatic and is supposed to weigh 4050 lb empty. (An A5 coupe is much lighter because of inherent convertible structural compromises). My year 2.0T has 220 hp and 258 ft-lb torque. I have owned it since new, 63,000 miles now, and it has been as far from home in Seattle as Jacksonville FL, up to the 11,500 ft level on Pike's Peak (it wasn't quite summer yet, so not all the way to the top) plus was originally driven in Germany Norway Sweden and Denmark after delivery in Ingolstadt the summer of 2014. I digress. My point is that I have been pleasantly surprised how relaxed and effortless our A5 is at going any speed I want to go. And its economy is impressive. If driven on a long trip and not much exceeding 70 mph, it can achieve a true 30 mpg, and I've run some carefully calibrated constant-speed economy tests (a 15 mile loop returning to start point) proving that in the (completely unrealistic) case of driving steadily on a level at 50 mph, it can get 37 mpg. Of course, the Atlas I think is heavier still, and much less slippery, so you won't do this well, but I'm convinced an Atlas 2.0T would be much better than many people would expect.


in my other reply, I forgot to mention, and I assume you probably know, the Atlas 2.0T engine of today, and the Audi 2.0T engine of 2014, are very similar indeed


----------



## Lothar1566 (Jan 27, 2018)

*Atlas engine*

I had the same issue when I purchased my Atlas. The V6 weights a couple of hundred pounds more. When I test drove seven different Atlases, I noted the 4 wheel drive V6 was the slowest, then the four, then the 2wd six. The differences were only a second or testing the 1/4 mile.

Folks still have the notion that a 2.0 L motor is too small. This is no longer true the 2.0L engine is also used in the Audi SUV, with more boost so it has more H.P. The turbo charger however totally changes the driving dynamics. The engine has so much torque it feels like a lot more powerful engine. You cannot really compare horsepower of a V6 normally aspirated to a turbocharged engine. If you look at the horsepower and torque specs, with a normally aspirated engine, the top H.P. Is typically around 6,000 RPM. You hardly ever rev the engine this high. The RPM you usually drive is between 1,500 RPM to 4000 RPM. The turbo four has higher power in this range than the V6 does. You will notice this when you take your test drive.

The four also handles a little better, does not feel like a big SUV going around corners.

Another benefit of the four is fuel mileage. We have taken several song trips. We cruise around 70 to 75 MPH. I have not reset the long term fuel computer, so for all the mileage I have done the computer states 25.3MPG which is suburb driving and highway. At a steady, set the active following cruise control, which is great by the way, at 70 MPH, we always get 30 to 33 MPG. At 75 MPH we get 27.5 MPH. I have 9,800 miles on the car right now.

VW even used the same final drive and ratios for the four cylinder engine, which should tell you, there is not much power difference between the two available engine options.

BTW when Car and drive tested the Atlas, they also found true four cylinder about a half second faster in the 1/4 mile that the six, although they six was four wheel drive, which adds a few more hundred pounds.

BTW, my brother also bought an Atlas, he is very happy with his, he did buy the six. He is getting all around 22.4 MPG and about 26 MPG on the freeway.

As you can see, I’m happy with the six.

For all you H.P. Fans. VW’s racing cars with the four 2.0L have over 500 HP. Same block. Remember a few years ago, in the Can Am racing circuit, Toyota was racing a 2.0L in line four, and a big turbo, and was getting over 1,000 H.P. This was not a dragster, but a road track car.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

If I was getting the Cross Sport, I would definately do the 2.0 4Motion and get the APR tune. The motor is the same as the GTI (not the same as the R as was mentioned by someone above - yes, same 2.0L displacement but different internals and turbo) - the turbos are however interchangeable if you wanted a lot more power but the software support from the aftermarket won't be there for the Atlas for this swap. Very common for the MK7 Golf/GTI/R to do this.


----------



## DOCmp (Jun 23, 2020)

I think it really comes down to if you wanna haul or not. I went with the V6 for the 5 ton towing capacity as I am likely going to be getting a boat in the next few years and don't want to running into any towing issues. Otherwise, the extra pick up on the V6 was not incredibly noticeable on test drive


----------



## spike_africa (Nov 9, 2015)

I was in the same boat till I looked up the mpg and acceleration. The 2.0 fwd is the fastest setup. It also gets the best mpg. 

I had a 2020 2.0 fwd Cross Sport. It was totaled. Will be getting another one. 

It regularly beat it's rated mpg in the city I was doing 22-24mpg depending on how hard I drove. Highway I was getting 26-27mpg doing 80mph on 93 octane. Towing my little motorcycle trailer with 2 dirt bikes at 75mph got me 25-26mpg. Pretty fantastic. I don't see a point in the 3.6 unless you want the full factory tow setup for low range power with 4000-5000 lb loads. Even then, a tuned up 2.0 will beat it and get better mpg.


----------



## Alpinweiss2 (Jan 9, 2017)

spike_africa said:


> I was in the same boat till I looked up the mpg and acceleration. The 2.0 fwd is the fastest setup. It also gets the best mpg.
> 
> I had a 2020 2.0 fwd Cross Sport. It was totaled. Will be getting another one.
> 
> It regularly beat it's rated mpg in the city I was doing 22-24mpg depending on how hard I drove. Highway I was getting 26-27mpg doing 80mph on 93 octane. Towing my little motorcycle trailer with 2 dirt bikes at 75mph got me 25-26mpg. Pretty fantastic. I don't see a point in the 3.6 unless you want the full factory tow setup for low range power with 4000-5000 lb loads. Even then, a tuned up 2.0 will beat it and get better mpg.


If I lived at a low elevation, I would give some consideration to the 3.6 liter VR6 engine. It has a very nice sound to it, and it can be equipped to tow a fairly heavy trailer. However, the 2.0T is faster, and uses less fuel, even near sea level.

Since I live at about 6,000 ft. elevation, the 2.0T is a “no brainer” choice. The turbocharged engine produces almost 100% of its horsepower through the highest of mountain passes. It will “run circles” around the naturally-aspirated 3.6 VR6. The 3% per 1000 foot losses start to add up quickly in the high mountains.

The only downside to the turbocharged engine is that it should use premium fuel. For some people that is an issue.

:beer:


----------



## child_in_time (Aug 9, 2006)

finz72 said:


> Good morning,
> 
> I am interested in trading my 2019 Honda Passport Touring for a 2020 Atlas Cross Sport. I am struggling with what engine to get. My Passport is a V6 and its rated at 286 HP. My gas mileage is averaging 21-22 combined.
> I am disappointed that the V6 in the Cross Sport has less HP and less gas mileage.
> ...


Just curious, what is it that you don’t like about Passport? Aside from ****ty infotainment system and Honda sensing issues, anything else...asking for a friend :laugh:


----------



## finz72 (Sep 3, 2018)

The Passport is a great vehicle, not a problem with it. I wanted an Atlas 2 years ago but didn’t need the 3rd row. At the time the Passport was a great option for a mid size SUV with 2 rows. When the Cross Sport arrived, I decided to go for the switch. I hope I don’t regret going VW instead of Honda. I want a reliable, long lasting car.


----------



## jspirate (Jan 15, 2011)

I have not really read this tread, but if you are OK tuning it, then the 2.0 is a no-brainer.

It is my understanding that alot of people worry about warranties. I've never had an occasion to rely on a warranty, so I am not there yet. Maybe I will be one day though...


----------



## tallguy09 (Nov 14, 2016)

finz72 said:


> Good morning,
> 
> I am interested in trading my 2019 Honda Passport Touring for a 2020 Atlas Cross Sport. I am struggling with what engine to get. My Passport is a V6 and its rated at 286 HP. My gas mileage is averaging 21-22 combined.
> I am disappointed that the V6 in the Cross Sport has less HP and less gas mileage.
> ...


Biggest question: Why trading in a 2019 Passport?
In my case I would go with the V6 (VR6), drove both. Its quieter and I prefer the smoothness and noise levels.

Was about to get the Cross Sport but no connectivity (Car Net 2.0) in Canada till 2022 models so I am waiting a year, but then also checking out the next generation Grand Cherokee.
I like the Cross Sport but the interior is cheap, the media system is outdated and too small for the size of interior cabin, its personal for sure but the Cross Sport simply did not convince me, its not causing any type of wow effect....


----------



## spike_africa (Nov 9, 2015)

tallguy09 said:


> Biggest question: Why trading in a 2019 Passport?
> In my case I would go with the V6 (VR6), drove both. Its quieter and I prefer the smoothness and noise levels.
> 
> Was about to get the Cross Sport but no connectivity (Car Net 2.0) in Canada till 2022 models so I am waiting a year, but then also checking out the next generation Grand Cherokee.
> I like the Cross Sport but the interior is cheap, the media system is outdated and too small for the size of interior cabin, its personal for sure but the Cross Sport simply did not convince me, its not causing any type of wow effect....


What trim level did you look at? I wouldn't personally get anything other then an SE/w tech or higher. The S and SE are to basic for me.


----------

