# Hints at a VR6 replacement



## Web2000 (Apr 25, 2017)

*276hp achieved with premium fuel?!*

Read the US brochure. There is line said (achieved with premium fuel). Is Atlas liked CX-9?! Use regular fuel will get lower horsepower.


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

Yes


----------



## vwatlasusa (Feb 26, 2017)

I dont think so - VW Tech spec doesnt say that.. it says 276hp and fuel requirement is Regular.. CX-9 advertised specifically 2 different hp numbers.. one for Regular and one for Premium.. unless i m missing something somewhere..

http://media.vw.com/doc/2230/2018_v...8_atlas_tech_specs-17990588358e17345260d6.pdf

Also, 2.0T 235hp is achieved by using Premium. so here, it could be low if you use Regular..


----------



## DennisMitchell (Oct 26, 2014)

I sure hope VW Atlas will have two diffenent EPA MPG ratings. One for 87 octane and one for premium. 

The tech document gave 19 MPG overall which is less than Audi Q7. Audi uses premium fuel and a turbo charger (2.0L) or supercharger (3.0L).


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

I truly hope VW brings soon replacement for that VR6. With these MPG numbers Atlas cannot compete with Pilot, Highlander and CX-9.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2009)

calm down... you cant even notice the difference between premium and regular anyways


----------



## Drive by (Mar 13, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> calm down... you cant even notice the difference between premium and regular anyways


Maybe inside the engine. But at my wallet it's $.12 per litre x 80 litre fill. Not huge at all and I'll deal. But it's not nothing. Especially if you drive a lot. That's $10 more per fill. Again not huge but if you fill weekly.....


----------



## cgvalant (Nov 14, 2005)

Drive by said:


> Maybe inside the engine. But at my wallet it's $.12 per litre x 80 litre fill. Not huge at all and I'll deal. But it's not nothing. Especially if you drive a lot. That's $10 more per fill. Again not huge but if you fill weekly.....


I think he meant you can't notice the difference in performance... Not fuel cost.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Drive by said:


> Maybe inside the engine. But at my wallet it's $.12 per litre x 80 litre fill. Not huge at all and I'll deal. But it's not nothing. Especially if you drive a lot. That's $10 more per fill. Again not huge but if you fill weekly.....


Then get SUV with better fuel economy.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2009)

Drive by said:


> Maybe inside the engine. But at my wallet it's $.12 per litre x 80 litre fill. Not huge at all and I'll deal. But it's not nothing. Especially if you drive a lot. That's $10 more per fill. Again not huge but if you fill weekly.....


You dont need to run premium regular unleaded is fine so nothing to worry about


----------



## DJMcGoven (Mar 2, 2007)

And just to make sure it's clear, only the 2.0T needs premium for max performance. The VR6 achieves noted performance on regular. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## 20si06 (Feb 12, 2009)

Just read an article about the VW Arteon on autoblog, and this is what they said about the engines.

"There are three diesel and three gasoline engines at launch, with a turbo V6 gas engine currently under development."

From what I have read, the Arteon will have a lot of similarities to the Atlas, I can only imagine the turbo V6 they are speaking of will end up in the Atlas. Car & Driver also made note in the magazine this month (Atlas First Drive) that they expect the VR6 to be replaced soon by some version of Audi's 90degree 3.0L V-6. Tidbits like this are making it hard to drop $40,000 on a 3.6L Atlas.


----------



## ChrisM (Sep 13, 1999)

Rather than the Audi A6, I think the better bet is that the VR6 is going to be replaced (or supplemented) with another VR6. The Chinese market Atlas, called the Teramont, has a 2.5L VR6 Turbo and I would think that this engine or a version of it is on the way.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

ChrisM said:


> Rather than the Audi A6, I think the better bet is that the VR6 is going to be replaced (or supplemented) with another VR6. The Chinese market Atlas, called the Teramont, has a 2.5L VR6 Turbo and I would think that this engine or a version of it is on the way.


Hopefully. If 2.5 VR6 Turbo ends up here I am getting it like immediately. Until then, thanx but no thanx.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

With the *light-weight* 2.0 TSi making 280 hp in these cars, I can't see the need for a VR6. In Europe, the high-power Diesels (240 hp out of the 2.0) are also very competitive - that's what I would get.


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

feels_road said:


> With the *light-weight* 2.0 TSi making 280 hp in these cars, I can't see the need for a VR6. In Europe, the high-power Diesels (240 hp out of the 2.0) are also very competitive - that's what I would get.


The 2.0T is still lacking in torque (258 ft-lbs) compared to what a turbo V6 could generate.


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

edyvw said:


> Hopefully. If 2.5 VR6 Turbo ends up here I am getting it like immediately. Until then, thanx but no thanx.


Great, does that mean we don't have to hear anymore of your complaining?!


----------



## mtbmurray (Mar 12, 2000)

GjR32 said:


> Great, does that mean we don't have to hear anymore of your complaining?!


:thumbup:


----------



## CiDirkona (May 1, 2007)

IB4TL opcorn:


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

GjR32 said:


> Great, does that mean we don't have to hear anymore of your complaining?!


Nope, you will hear it.


----------



## Ttone74 (Oct 7, 2015)

Hajduk said:


> The 2.0T is still lacking in torque (258 ft-lbs) compared to what a turbo V6 could generate.


The 2.5 VR6 makes 299 BHP, and 369 ft lbs of torque. Would be nice with a DSG in a sedan...


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

20si06 said:


> .....the VR6 to be replaced soon by some version of Audi's 90degree 3.0L V-6....


Can you please explain how a 90degree V6 would be fit into a MQB platform..... :screwy:


----------



## DZD (Mar 25, 2007)

I was unsure if the 2.5L is a VR or just a V - any link to confirm?

Do any of you recall the W8? Would love to see a version f that resurrected with forced induction - of course, I'm just dreaming.

Does anyone know of the electrification plans for the Atlas?


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

DZD said:


> I was unsure if the 2.5L is a VR or just a V - any link to confirm?.....


So, what "V" would fit the MQB platform other than the VR?


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

GjR32 said:


> Great, does that mean we don't have to hear anymore of your complaining?!


damn you beat me! $100 says he doesn't buy it when the V6t comes out even after all this.. "I like to wait for the second year.." or some sh&t like that.


----------



## atlas7 (May 29, 2017)

My next Atlas will be called the Buzz, at least thats what they call it now:laugh: with 300+ hp AND torque instantly


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

atlas7 said:


> My next Atlas will be called the Buzz, at least thats what they call it now:laugh: with 300+ hp AND torque instantly


By the time vw gets around to a plug in hybrid the tax incentives will have dried up and the value proposition won't be there. Always a day late and dollar short.


----------



## TablaRasa (May 12, 2008)

Ttone74 said:


> The 2.5 VR6 makes 299 BHP, and 369 ft lbs of torque. Would be nice with a DSG in a sedan...


is this the same engine they had on the 2003 Eurovan?


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

TablaRasa said:


> is this the same engine they had on the 2003 Eurovan?


The early USA VR6 were 2.8l.


----------



## EPilot (Jul 27, 1999)

DZD said:


> I was unsure if the 2.5L is a VR or just a V - any link to confirm?


Not sure where you guys are getting a 2.5L VR6 from? VW hasn't made a VR6 smaller than 2.8L. 
The turbo version they were kicking around in 2013 was a 3.0L. But if anything I would think they would use the 3.6 that's used now and turbo that if they were going to keep using the VR. 

The only 2.5L I know of that's a VW engine is the 5 cylinder. That engine is fantastic and would be a good one to turbo too.


----------



## Don® (Oct 11, 2011)

I hope they have something in works to replace this R36, because really, the only place I tend to really go is to the gas station.
It has very poor gas mileage. I would not be surprised if there's a recall for a re-flash to try an improve it.


----------



## ChrisM (Sep 13, 1999)

The Teramont aka Chinese Atlas does have a 2.5L VR6 turbo. Apparently, it was developed to work with their displacement-based tax rules. From what I've read, 370 lb-ft of torque and 7 speed DSG are still not quite enough the move the Teramont/Atlas swiftly. If/when the turbo VR6 makes it into other markets, it will be a 3.0, so says the rumor mill.


----------



## EPilot (Jul 27, 1999)

ChrisM said:


> The Teramont aka Chinese Atlas does have a 2.5L VR6 turbo. Apparently, it was developed to work with their displacement-based tax rules. From what I've read, 370 lb-ft of torque and 7 speed DSG are still not quite enough the move the Teramont/Atlas swiftly. If/when the turbo VR6 makes it into other markets, it will be a 3.0, so says the rumor mill.


Interesting I just looked it up it's based off the EA390 3.2/3.6 VR6. 
EA390 2.5T. The 3.6 VR6 in NA mode can get 295 bhp @ 6,600 rpm and 295 lbf⋅ft @ 2,400-5,300 rpm.
Still an odd thing to reduce displacement and then add boost. 
Why not boost the existing 3.6? People have been adding boost to them for years and they have been holding up. Even just adding a low boost turbo would be an improvement. Or a supercharger.

Also with VW saying recently the move to smaller displacement engines is over I'm surprised that the 2.0T is even being considered by VW at the moment.

They should revive the 3.0 V6 TSI Hybrid 375hp/428lb⋅ft and use that in the Atlas.


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

ChrisM said:


> The Teramont aka Chinese Atlas does have a 2.5L VR6 turbo. Apparently, it was developed to work with their displacement-based tax rules. From what I've read, 370 lb-ft of torque and 7 speed DSG are still not quite enough the move the Teramont/Atlas swiftly. If/when the turbo VR6 makes it into other markets, it will be a 3.0, so says the rumor mill.


Saw this this morning-

https://www.motor1.com/news/224706/vw-arteon-r-turbo-vr6/


3.0L VR6 Turbo with 404hp. This is the one people..


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

EPilot;109193921....EA390 2.5T. The 3.6 VR6 in NA mode can get 295 bhp @ 6 said:


> So, do you think the vehicle tax laws in China might be the reason for the displacement and turbo?


----------



## rippersub (Nov 20, 2017)

ice4life said:


> Saw this this morning-
> 
> https://www.motor1.com/news/224706/vw-arteon-r-turbo-vr6/
> 
> ...


God I hope so, 400hp with a turbo in a 3.0, ideally better economy, more power, and TURBO!


----------



## jspirate (Jan 15, 2011)

EPilot said:


> The only 2.5L I know of that's a VW engine is the 5 cylinder. That engine is fantastic and would be a good one to turbo too.


The 5 cylinder turbo would be PERFECT for the Atlas. Slap a stage 1 tune on it and smile!


----------



## TeamAtlas (Oct 17, 2017)

Reducing displacement and adding turbo is THE NORM in the industry. Across the board, manufacturers are doing this (to the delight of turbo suppliers). It's call "downsizing" and is done to minimize fuel burn in cruise (low boost, benefit of lower displacement). The turbo effectively puts back the displacement when it's needed (i.e. acceleration). 

The problems are these:

Turbo cars typically need additional fueling to avoid knocking at high speed/load (reducing fuel savings if driven hard/towing)
Turbo systems add an enormous amount of cost, complexity and new failure sources
Turbo power often (not always) comes with a lag that hinders the all-important "drivability"


----------



## EPilot (Jul 27, 1999)

TeamAtlas said:


> Reducing displacement and adding turbo is THE NORM in the industry. Across the board, manufacturers are doing this (to the delight of turbo suppliers). It's call "downsizing" and is done to minimize fuel burn in cruise (low boost, benefit of lower displacement). The turbo effectively puts back the displacement when it's needed (i.e. acceleration).
> 
> The problems are these:
> 
> ...


Vw has also come saying they are reversing the smaller engine movement. So there will be a turn around at some point. 


Sent from my shack on my pdp 11


----------



## TeamAtlas (Oct 17, 2017)

That's interesting. Do you have a source?

VW did some extreme downsizing in europe with the 1.2L turbo engines. We never saw it in NA since we don't like little engines. This would be a complete about face, but it could show that they did it, learned and are moving away from it for good reasons (could also just be a marketing strategy). 

I'm more convinced than ever that all vehicles should be naturally aspirated mild hybrids. Atlas would benefit from this immensely (that first-to-second power dip could be corrected).


----------



## EPilot (Jul 27, 1999)

TeamAtlas said:


> That's interesting. Do you have a source?
> 
> VW did some extreme downsizing in europe with the 1.2L turbo engines. We never saw it in NA since we don't like little engines. This would be a complete about face, but it could show that they did it, learned and are moving away from it for good reasons (could also just be a marketing strategy).
> 
> I'm more convinced than ever that all vehicles should be naturally aspirated mild hybrids. Atlas would benefit from this immensely (that first-to-second power dip could be corrected).


I posted a link before like 6 posts up. 


Sent from my shack on my pdp 11


----------



## TeamAtlas (Oct 17, 2017)

Oh yes and they won't be able to fight that fight in China. As someone else mentioned, their taxes are tied to displacement in 500cc increments. This is what drives a 2.5 or 3.0 turbo instead of a 4.2 v8. Lots of turbos over there. 

China also recently brought in some really extreme hybrid and EV rules so we'll see where that goes...


----------



## TeamAtlas (Oct 17, 2017)

Interesting article. Basically, the tests are changing, and that will drive different choices for manufacturers. Unless the whole operation range of a motor is regulated, automakers will push their emissions production into the unchecked regions. It might also drive us away from direct injection and that would be great.


----------



## EPilot (Jul 27, 1999)

TeamAtlas said:


> Interesting article. Basically, the tests are changing, and that will drive different choices for manufacturers. Unless the whole operation range of a motor is regulated, automakers will push their emissions production into the unchecked regions. It might also drive us away from direct injection and that would be great.


I don't think direct injection is going anywhere it's just too efficient. If they would give us the European version of the DI with the second set of injectors it would solve a lot of the carbon build up issues.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

TeamAtlas said:


> ...[*]Turbo cars typically need additional fueling to avoid knocking at high speed/load (reducing fuel savings if driven hard/towing)....


Is this still true after the addition of knock sensors tied to the timing?


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

TeamAtlas said:


> ....VW did some extreme downsizing in europe with the 1.2L turbo engines. We never saw it in NA since we don't like little engines. This would be a complete about face, but it could show that they did it, learned and are moving away from it for good reasons (could also just be a marketing strategy)......


Likely has more to do with changing regulatory requirements.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

EPilot said:


> .....the European version of the DI with the second set of injectors it would solve a lot of the carbon build up issues.


What carbon buildup issues? With a EA888 Gen3? Link to backup details for the current engines?


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

TeamAtlas said:


> Reducing displacement and adding turbo is THE NORM in the industry. Across the board, manufacturers are doing this (to the delight of turbo suppliers). It's call "downsizing" and is done to minimize fuel burn in cruise (low boost, benefit of lower displacement). The turbo effectively puts back the displacement when it's needed (i.e. acceleration).
> 
> The problems are these:
> 
> ...


God man, this is not 1979. 
Turbo is present in 90% of cars sold in Europe and it is as reliable as any other technology. 
As for turbo lag, that is solved long time ago with VGT, dual scroll turbines etc. 
VW Atlas will get either 2.5 VR6 from Teramont or this 3.0 VR6. It will not develop 404hp as it doesn’t make sense in Atlas. Probably it will have at most up to 350hp but flattened torque curve. 
As for new trend of increasing displacement it is because of NOx requirements. Nothing to do with feasibility of small engines packing power. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rippersub (Nov 20, 2017)

edyvw said:


> It will not develop 404hp as it doesn’t make sense in Atlas. Probably it will have at most up to 350hp but flattened torque curve.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Would love to know why you'd think this,

without even looking, Audi S7, BMW X5, Mercedes 450, Porsche Cayenne, most North American SUV's all come with a 400hp+ option, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. 400hp isn't a lot in a car that big, and some extra poke is never a bad thing, especially if it's well tuned. They already have an "R" line Atlas, and the current VR6 doesn't do that badge justice at all.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

rippersub said:


> Would love to know why you'd think this,
> 
> without even looking, Audi S7, BMW X5, Mercedes 450, Porsche Cayenne, most North American SUV's all come with a 400hp+ option, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. 400hp isn't a lot in a car that big, and some extra poke is never a bad thing, especially if it's well tuned. They already have an "R" line Atlas, and the current VR6 doesn't do that badge justice at all.


Because buyers of Porsche or BMW are not buyers of Atlas. On top of that it would be competition to new 2.9 V6 in Q7. IMO new VR6 in Atlas will be weaker then 2.9 V6 in Q7. It has to be. 
Nothing stops VW to put 2.0T from Q7 now in Atlas, but then...
And it is not about hp, it is about torque. 
By the way not sure what makes Atlas on equal footing with those cars. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TeamAtlas (Oct 17, 2017)

edyvw said:


> God man, this is not 1979.
> Turbo is present in 90% of cars sold in Europe and it is as reliable as any other technology.
> As for turbo lag, that is solved long time ago with VGT, dual scroll turbines etc.
> VW Atlas will get either 2.5 VR6 from Teramont or this 3.0 VR6. It will not develop 404hp as it doesn’t make sense in Atlas. Probably it will have at most up to 350hp but flattened torque curve.
> ...


:banghead: I'm just going to let you have it. I am an OEM ENGINE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER. I COMPLETELY understand all the ramifications of displacement, DI, turbo, superchargers, etc. MY PERSONAL OPINION which was forged through YEARS of development of turbo and NA motors is that turbo is not worth the ******* trip. 

I said nothing about FEASIBILITY. I'm NOT claiming that everything should be a 5.7 v8, and you're actually agreeing with me since I also identified that these changes are due to emissions requirements. Just because turbo is present in Europe, doesn't mean it is the right choice for the consumer! As you said, it's driven by the regs (then the marketing teams try to make you want it). I used to love turbo cars, and I still do under the right conditions, but I don't think it's the right choice for consumers (mild hybrid NA is the way to go in my opinion).

Pertaining to DI, it's not mentioned specifically in the Diess article, but it goes hand-in-hand with the downsized turbo motors. If they were port fueled, you can actually achieve lower overall emissions (though this depends on which emissions are deemed the "most important").

AAAAAND plenty of modern turbo cars still struggle with lag. The Fiat 124 is a primo example.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

TeamAtlas said:


> :banghead: I'm just going to let you have it. I am an OEM ENGINE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER. I COMPLETELY understand all the ramifications of displacement, DI, turbo, superchargers, etc. MY PERSONAL OPINION which was forged through YEARS of development of turbo and NA motors is that turbo is not worth the ******* trip.
> 
> I said nothing about FEASIBILITY. I'm NOT claiming that everything should be a 5.7 v8, and you're actually agreeing with me since I also identified that these changes are due to emissions requirements. Just because turbo is present in Europe, doesn't mean it is the right choice for the consumer! As you said, it's driven by the regs (then the marketing teams try to make you want it). I used to love turbo cars, and I still do under the right conditions, but I don't think it's the right choice for consumers (mild hybrid NA is the way to go in my opinion).
> 
> ...


My point about turbos is that it is proven technology. I owned numerous turbo engines, gas and diesels, and I have never had failed turbo. I had VW TDI's in Europe which made 400k in my business fleet (1.9tdi and 1.6tdi). I actually drove for two months 1.2tdi with 280k on it. We can nit pick and find bit of turbo lag, but are you really going to tell me that naturally aspirated VR6 is going to perform better in low rpm's then let's say BMW N55 with 300 lb-ft at 1,200 rpms? Everything is compromise. I personally like sound of naturally aspirated engines and will probably soon get myself some 10 year old BMW 3 series with some NA engine, just because they sound God damn good. But let's not talk about turbo lag as some ultimate sin. Keep it above 2,000 rpms, it is simple as that. 
As for downsizing, yes port injection would lower NOx, but that will not happen. Today when manufacturers like VW put thinner oil then necessary just to bump mpg several %, you really think they will go back to port injection? It is easier to bump up displacement a bit. But, that is really more of an issue with diesels and their days are numbered anyway.


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

*Any rumors of an updated engine?*

I was wondering if anyone has heard any rumors of an updated engine for the Atlas. We're in the market to buy a real 3 row SUV and would like to add the Atlas to our very small list of options. However the 3.6 VR6 currently available is not sufficient for our driving conditions/needs. 
While the 3.6 VR6 is a nice engine (I've had 2 of them in Passat wagons), it's been basically the same since 2006. They've re-tuned it a little to use regular gas instead of premium, thus lowering the HP and TQ a little bit, but other than that, no real changes in a 12+ year old design. 
Would be nice to get a smaller displacement turbo or hybrid VR6 that makes somewhere around 350hp/tq and can get the big atlas to 60mph under 7 seconds (preferably close to the 6 second mark).

While many may say you don't need that kind of acceleration in a vehicle this big, I'd like to say you haven't driven in poorly designed/built CA roads/streets where you have 100 to 200 ft to get up to speed or get rear-ended.

Our only other choice that fits at this point is a CPO GLS550 with the thirsty V8, or a GLS450 with an ECU tune. 

We want something that can sit real adults in the 3rd row, yet still have room for a couple of suit cases behind the 3rd row. Not many vehicles can satisfy that.

Thanks!


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

*Any rumors of an updated engine?*



thenew3 said:


> I was wondering if anyone has heard any rumors of an updated engine for the Atlas. We're in the market to buy a real 3 row SUV and would like to add the Atlas to our very small list of options. However the 3.6 VR6 currently available is not sufficient for our driving conditions/needs.
> While the 3.6 VR6 is a nice engine (I've had 2 of them in Passat wagons), it's been basically the same since 2006. They've re-tuned it a little to use regular gas instead of premium, thus lowering the HP and TQ a little bit, but other than that, no real changes in a 12+ year old design.
> Would be nice to get a smaller displacement turbo or hybrid VR6 that makes somewhere around 350hp/tq and can get the big atlas to 60mph under 7 seconds (preferably close to the 6 second mark).
> 
> ...


While no one can complain about more power, there are much much much slower vehicles out there that can get up to speed quick enough to not cause an accident. We’re talking a second difference getting up to 60, that’s not much, and irrelevant on surface streets.

Have you driven one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

thenew3 said:


> I was wondering if anyone has heard any rumors of an updated engine for the Atlas. We're in the market to buy a real 3 row SUV and would like to add the Atlas to our very small list of options. However the 3.6 VR6 currently available is not sufficient for our driving conditions/needs.
> While the 3.6 VR6 is a nice engine (I've had 2 of them in Passat wagons), it's been basically the same since 2006. They've re-tuned it a little to use regular gas instead of premium, thus lowering the HP and TQ a little bit, but other than that, no real changes in a 12+ year old design.
> Would be nice to get a smaller displacement turbo or hybrid VR6 that makes somewhere around 350hp/tq and can get the big atlas to 60mph under 7 seconds (preferably close to the 6 second mark).
> 
> ...


I am waiting for Atlas with updated engine, but my wait is until end of 2019. If 2020 model does not get updated (turbo) engine, I am probably getting GL450 or if price drops enough GLS 450. 
I tried GL450 V6TT few weeks ago and it packs a punch. GLS450 should be better since 9G speed shift like nuts. 
Still would like simplicity of Atlas with torquey engine. 
Chinese version has 2.5 VR6 TSI that is specifically made for their market. I read article in Auto, Motor und Sport and it seems that while stronger then 3.6 VR6 it has very narrow torque band between 2.750-3,500rpms. Still much better then 3.6 VR6.
In Europe VW just introduced 3.0 VR6 TSI. I think that is engine we might get. 
There is no way VW will keep 3.6 in future. Toyota is getting ready to roll out 3.5 Twin Turbo engine. Ford just updated Ecoboost to 375hp and 470lb-ft of torque. Actually that 3 tone behemoth Expedtion with Ecoboost has same consumption as VR6 Atlas. So expect that engine in new Explorer. 
But then I just saw they offered Passat GT with VR6, and I am starting to think VW again think people are stupid. F..... Hyundai Sonata offers better performance.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> While no one can complain about more power, there are much much much slower vehicles out there that can get up to speed quick enough to not cause an accident. We’re talking a second difference getting up to 60, that’s not much, and irrelevant on surface streets.
> 
> Have you driven one?
> 
> ...


I think merging on HWY is not 0-60 issue, it is torque issue. 
My BMW accelerates to 60 in 6.9sec. But merging on HWY will leave in dust cars that have much better acceleration, and that is because it packs 425lb-ft of torque. 
IMO, VW could leave hp at 276, but bring something that packs 350lb-ft of torque.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

edyvw said:


> I am waiting for Atlas with updated engine, but my wait is until end of 2019. If 2020 model does not get updated (turbo) engine, I am probably getting GL450 or if price drops enough GLS 450.
> I tried GL450 V6TT few weeks ago and it packs a punch. GLS450 should be better since 9G speed shift like nuts.
> Still would like simplicity of Atlas with torquey engine.
> Chinese version has 2.5 VR6 TSI that is specifically made for their market. I read article in Auto, Motor und Sport and it seems that while stronger then 3.6 VR6 it has very narrow torque band between 2.750-3,500rpms. Still much better then 3.6 VR6.
> ...


All of the Atlas’ contemporaries are naturally aspirated V6s. Including....
Honda Pilot
Dodge Durango
Chevrolet Traverse
Nissan Pathfinder
Toyota Highlander
Most Ford Explorers

I think that turbos will filter down into these, but I don’t think it will be at the rate you are thinking.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

edyvw said:


> I think merging on HWY is not 0-60 issue, it is torque issue.
> My BMW accelerates to 60 in 6.9sec. But merging on HWY will leave in dust cars that have much better acceleration, and that is because it packs 425lb-ft of torque.
> IMO, VW could leave hp at 276, but bring something that packs 350lb-ft of torque.


It’s a HP and Torque issue, as well as a gearing issue. VR6 is quite torquey anyways for NA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> It’s a HP and Torque issue, as well as a gearing issue. VR6 is quite torquey anyways for NA.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, it i. 266lb-ft at 2,750 is not bad for 2005 when engine saw light of a day. Does not change a fact that is asthmatic patient running marathon in SUV.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

edyvw said:


> Yeah, it i. 266lb-ft at 2,750 is not bad for 2005 when engine saw light of a day. Does not change a fact that is asthmatic patient running marathon in SUV.


Minus the 0-60, it’s about identical performance to the q7 2.0T and your xdrive 35d in all other performance metrics. Not sure how that makes it asthmatic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

I read all the reviews about the 6 being underpowered. When we test drove it, I didn't feel like it was. It's an SUV...no slower/faster than our Odyssey or Explorer before it. I can't imagine how loud/whiny a 4-cyl turbo would be...I suppose a wish list would be a 6-cyl tdi motor or a turbo v6. Drove the Mazda CX-9...what a noisy thing with that turbo 4.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> Minus the 0-60, it’s about identical performance to the q7 2.0T and your xdrive 35d in all other performance metrics. Not sure how that makes it asthmatic?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lol. Identical performance as X5 35d. 
Go enjoy it. Actually take it for drag racing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

edyvw said:


> Lol. Identical performance as X5 35d.
> Go enjoy it. Actually take it for drag racing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hey, I’m just going off the numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> Hey, I’m just going off the numbers.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As my friends from Alabama, where I lived some time, would say: bless your heart. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

*Any rumors of an updated engine?*



edyvw said:


> As my friends from Alabama, where I lived some time, would say: bless your heart.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So now your resorting to insults huh scooter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> While no one can complain about more power, there are much much much slower vehicles out there that can get up to speed quick enough to not cause an accident. We’re talking a second difference getting up to 60, that’s not much, and irrelevant on surface streets.
> 
> Have you driven one?
> 
> ...


Yeah I test drove an SE V6 and it felt extremely slow and underpowered. (not many dealers seems to have the SEL premium on lot for test drive)

My current daily driver (2013 MB E350 4matic wagon with a 3.5 V6, 302hp, 276lb tq, 4400lb) has a 0-60 of roughly a little over 6 seconds, my previous daily driver (2008 VW Passat 3.6 4motion wagon, 3.6 VR6, 280hp, 265 lb tq, 4000lb) is also listed at roughly 6 sec 0-60. Both can barely get out onto the road fast enough without being rear ended. Wife's current daily driver (2016 BMW X3 sDrive28i 2.0T I4, 240hp, 260tq, 4000 lb) has an upper 6 second 0-60 and it's a teeth biter every time we try to leave our street to merge with the main road. We've seen many cars get rear-ended trying to merge from our street onto the main road.

Also test drove the MB GLS450 (3.0TT V6, 362hq, 369tq, 5000 lb), GLS550 (4.7TT V8, 449hq, 516tq, 5300lb), the 450 felt a little faster than my current car, while the 550 simply blew out of there like it was nothing.
I'm seeing CPO 2016 GL450 in the upper $40k to lower $50k range with 20k miles and 2015 GL550 in the lower $50k range as well.

Also test drove a 2018 Honda pilot, that thing feels about as quick as my current car. But the 3rd row is too small so it's not on our consideration list.

I don't have to make the purchase till Summer of 2020, so if VW comes out with a more powerful engine, then I can see myself in a 2020/2021 Atlas SEL Premium. If not, then my only other choice is a CPO GLS450/550. By Summer of 2020, I can probably get a 2018 GLS450 or 2017 GLS550 for roughly $50k


----------



## Icantdrive65 (Nov 8, 2001)

Mine works fine in far away, exotic Santa Cruz, including the Santa Cruz mountains. I frequently have 5-7 people with me. It's not fast, but I can't call it slow.

That said, I leased mine hoping that a more powerful engine will be coming in the next three years. It is the perfect SUV for our needs in every way, but I would love more power.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> So now your resorting to insults huh scooter?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How this is an insult? You seriously lost me here. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

thenew3 said:


> Yeah I test drove an SE V6 and it felt extremely slow and underpowered. (not many dealers seems to have the SEL premium on lot for test drive)
> 
> My current daily driver (2013 MB E350 4matic wagon with a 3.5 V6, 302hp, 276lb tq, 4400lb) has a 0-60 of roughly a little over 6 seconds, my previous daily driver (2008 VW Passat 3.6 4motion wagon, 3.6 VR6, 280hp, 265 lb tq, 4000lb) is also listed at roughly 6 sec 0-60. Both can barely get out onto the road fast enough without being rear ended. Wife's current daily driver (2016 BMW X3 sDrive28i 2.0T I4, 240hp, 260tq, 4000 lb) has an upper 6 second 0-60 and it's a teeth biter every time we try to leave our street to merge with the main road. We've seen many cars get rear-ended trying to merge from our street onto the main road.
> 
> ...


I saw several articles talking about 2020 model update. 
That 3.0 VR6 could have torque in range around 400lb-ft. 2.5 VR6 for Chinese market is developing 363lb-ft. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

_Yeah I test drove an SE V6 and it felt extremely slow and underpowered. (not many dealers seems to have the SEL premium on lot for test drive)_




V6 SEL Premium is a trim level not an engine upgrade so any any V6 Atlas will perform the same.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

OZ.IN.USA said:


> _Yeah I test drove an SE V6 and it felt extremely slow and underpowered. (not many dealers seems to have the SEL premium on lot for test drive)_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, difference between SE and SEL premium is 200lbs. That could actually be noticeable. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

thenew3 said:


> Yeah I test drove an SE V6 and it felt extremely slow and underpowered. (not many dealers seems to have the SEL premium on lot for test drive)
> 
> My current daily driver (2013 MB E350 4matic wagon with a 3.5 V6, 302hp, 276lb tq, 4400lb) has a 0-60 of roughly a little over 6 seconds, my previous daily driver (2008 VW Passat 3.6 4motion wagon, 3.6 VR6, 280hp, 265 lb tq, 4000lb) is also listed at roughly 6 sec 0-60. Both can barely get out onto the road fast enough without being rear ended. Wife's current daily driver (2016 BMW X3 sDrive28i 2.0T I4, 240hp, 260tq, 4000 lb) has an upper 6 second 0-60 and it's a teeth biter every time we try to leave our street to merge with the main road. We've seen many cars get rear-ended trying to merge from our street onto the main road.
> 
> ...


Think more, just get GL63 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jyoung8607 (Feb 14, 2006)

thenew3 said:


> Yeah I test drove an SE V6 and it felt extremely slow and underpowered. (not many dealers seems to have the SEL premium on lot for test drive)


You have rather high expectations for a three-row SUV. The Atlas is not part of the market you're looking for.

I like very fast cars. I'm sure you like very fast cars. If you want a very fast three-row SUV, be prepared to get out your checkbook.



thenew3 said:


> We've seen many cars get rear-ended trying to merge from our street onto the main road.


Those people made a poor decision to merge into traffic at that moment, and endangered other people doing so.



thenew3 said:


> My current daily driver (2013 MB E350 4matic wagon with a 3.5 V6, 302hp, 276lb tq, 4400lb) has a 0-60 of roughly a little over 6 seconds, my previous daily driver (2008 VW Passat 3.6 4motion wagon, 3.6 VR6, 280hp, 265 lb tq, 4000lb) is also listed at roughly 6 sec 0-60. Both can barely get out onto the road fast enough without being rear ended. Wife's current daily driver (2016 BMW X3 sDrive28i 2.0T I4, 240hp, 260tq, 4000 lb) has an upper 6 second 0-60 and it's a teeth biter every time we try to leave our street to merge with the main road.


My daily driver is a 2006 Phaeton W12 (my wife drives our Atlas). It has a twelve cylinder engine, 444hp, with a dead flat 419ft-lbs powerband between 2750 and 5200RPM. It's designed for an indefinite comfortable cruise speed of 186mph, and depending on who you ask, tops out somewhere between 193 and 201mph. It's a bit heavy though, and 0-60 is about 6 seconds flat, same as yours. According to your description, my car is not powerful enough to safely exit your neighborhood.



thenew3 said:


> I don't have to make the purchase till Summer of 2020, so if VW comes out with a more powerful engine, then I can see myself in a 2020/2021 Atlas SEL Premium. If not, then my only other choice is a CPO GLS450/550. By Summer of 2020, I can probably get a 2018 GLS450 or 2017 GLS550 for roughly $50k


Without seeing your traffic situation, I can assure you the problem isn't with Volkswagen product design. If a vehicle that does 0-60 in six seconds truly can't exit your neighborhood in a safe manner, you don't have a vehicle problem, you have a residence problem. Take that $50k and have your family airlifted to safety, and then choose a reasonable vehicle that meets your other requirements. Or, accept the very high level of risk inherent in such a dangerous place of residence, and get out your checkbook to partially compensate.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

*Any rumors of an updated engine?*



jyoung8607 said:


> You have rather high expectations for a three-row SUV. The Atlas is not part of the market you're looking for.
> 
> I like very fast cars. I'm sure you like very fast cars. If you want a very fast three-row SUV, be prepared to get out your checkbook.
> 
> ...


In segment that Atlas competes in there are cars with much stronger engines, Explorer being one of them. Problem is that VW would like to have sex but doesn’t want physical contact. Meaning, they want to beat competition, but not hurting Audi. Nothing stops VW from offering 2.5 VR6 TSI or 2.0T with AWD. But then how would that affect Audi? 
VW was absolute leader in Europe while sharing platforms with Audi. Once they decided to separate VW from Audi in development they fell behind. If VW wants to play hard in US they will have to be bold with VW and stop insulting buyers offering engines 13 years old (and VR6 was nothing special in 2005). 
You driving Phaeton. That is not today’s VW. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

*Any rumors of an updated engine?*



edyvw said:


> In segment that Atlas competes in there are cars with much stronger engines, Explorer being one of them. Problem is that VW would like to have sex but doesn’t want physical contact. Meaning, they want to beat competition, but not hurting Audi. Nothing stops VW from offering 2.5 VR6 TSI or 2.0T with AWD. But then how would that affect Audi?
> VW was absolute leader in Europe while sharing platforms with Audi. Once they decided to separate VW from Audi in development they fell behind. If VW wants to play hard in US they will have to be bold with VW and stop insulting buyers offering engines 13 years old (who were average when new).
> You driving Phaeton. That is not today’s VW.
> 
> ...


Only one limited engine choice is truly more powerful in the explorer and I assure you it’s much lower volume than the 3.5 NA. Most are rolling around in the same power class as all the other three rows. 250 - 300 HP / 250 - 300 TQ NA v6.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

jyoung8607 said:


> You have rather high expectations for a three-row SUV. The Atlas is not part of the market you're looking for.
> 
> I like very fast cars. I'm sure you like very fast cars. If you want a very fast three-row SUV, be prepared to get out your checkbook.
> 
> ...


At last, a voice of reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

jyoung8607 said:


> You have rather high expectations for a three-row SUV. The Atlas is not part of the market you're looking for.
> 
> I like very fast cars. I'm sure you like very fast cars. If you want a very fast three-row SUV, be prepared to get out your checkbook.
> 
> ...


Actually, what I said is roughly 6 second is just about enough as my current daily driver gets me out onto the main road with just about enough speed. The road design here is really stupid, there's a bend with trees so you can't see more than about 50 to 70 feet on the left if there are cars coming. The road is 45mph but because it's a state highway, most people drive around 60 mph, around that bend. So you have about 70 ft where you can see if there are any cars coming at 60mph, and you have to make the right turn (forget about turning left) and get up to speed before folks coming around that bend ends up in your rear seat as they can't see you turn out due to those trees/bushes and the way the roads bend. It's not people making poor decision to merge at that moment, it's that they have no choice due to the dumb road design. (price we pay to live in a neighborhood with good school district).

If VW can get an engine in the Atlas that can get it to 60 mph in around 6 second ish, then it would be perfect choice for us. I'd even be willing to pay close to $55k for such beast.

Honda Pilot can do 0-60 in a tad over 6 seconds with their 3.5 V6 and still get better MPG than the Atlas. Those German engineers can surely do better than the Japanese engineers!


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

thenew3 said:


> Actually, what I said is roughly 6 second is just about enough as my current daily driver gets me out onto the main road with just about enough speed. The road design here is really stupid, there's a bend with trees so you can't see more than about 50 to 70 feet on the left if there are cars coming. The road is 45mph but because it's a state highway, most people drive around 60 mph, around that bend. So you have about 70 ft where you can see if there are any cars coming at 60mph, and you have to make the right turn (forget about turning left) and get up to speed before folks coming around that bend ends up in your rear seat as they can't see you turn out due to those trees/bushes and the way the roads bend. It's not people making poor decision to merge at that moment, it's that they have no choice due to the dumb road design. (price we pay to live in a neighborhood with good school district).
> 
> If VW can get an engine in the Atlas that can get it to 60 mph in around 6 second ish, then it would be perfect choice for us. I'd even be willing to pay close to $55k for such beast.


Sounds like you need to call your local police / highway patrol to get people to slow down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> Sounds like you need to call your local police / highway patrol to get people to slow down.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Highway patrol is on that road daily, yet folks don't seem to get it.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

thenew3 said:


> Honda Pilot can do 0-60 in a tad over 6 seconds with their 3.5 V6 and still get better MPG than the Atlas. Those German engineers can surely do better than the Japanese engineers!


Honda makes the best engines in my opinion. I have a DD k20z3 that sees regular engine speeds north of 8K.... its unholy.

For reference, the last gen pilot pre 2016 was actually slower than the atlas.

Where the VR6 wins for me, is refinement and sound. The Honda may be a reliable powerhouse, but the VR6 is so smooth and silky.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

My 2006 Honda Odyssey has 244 hp/240 ft pounds. Its f'ing heavy/huge. Its' plenty fast...for a family vehicle. I see 8.6 sec 0-60. Nobody complains about a mini van power/speed. Why is this such an issue here? B/c when folks here "VW" they see "R32" or "GTI"? I can't think of a single time I have thought "this is too slow".


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

KarstGeo said:


> My 2006 Honda Odyssey has 244 hp/240 ft pounds. Its f'ing heavy/huge. Its' plenty fast...for a family vehicle. I see 8.6 sec 0-60. Nobody complains about a mini van power/speed. Why is this such an issue here? B/c when folks here "VW" they see "R32" or "GTI"? I can't think of a single time I have thought "this is too slow".


Or they are comparing the atlas with offerings from Mercedes Benz and / or BMW, that is not an apples to apples comparison folks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jyoung8607 (Feb 14, 2006)

edyvw said:


> In segment that Atlas competes in there are cars with much stronger engines, Explorer being one of them.


The Explorer 3.5 EcoBoost is nice, but you're starting to get into Q7 3.0T money.



edyvw said:


> Problem is that VW would like to have sex but doesn’t want physical contact. Meaning, they want to beat competition, but not hurting Audi. Nothing stops VW from offering 2.5 VR6 TSI or 2.0T with AWD. But then how would that affect Audi?


The 2.5 VR6 TSI exists to fill a particular market need in China, where the 3.6 NA would be more heavily taxed due to displacement. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to have over here, I'd love to have one and get it chipped. But if the 2.5 VR6 TSI did the 3.6 VR6 FSI's job better and cheaper without China's tax issue, then we'd already have it.



edyvw said:


> VW was absolute leader in Europe while sharing platforms with Audi. Once they decided to separate VW from Audi in development they fell behind.


Uh... what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_MQB_platform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_MLB_platform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_New_Small_Family_platform



edyvw said:


> If VW wants to play hard in US they will have to be bold with VW and stop insulting buyers offering engines 13 years old (and VR6 was nothing special in 2005).


The Chattanooga production line is running pretty hard to keep up with all these allegedly insulted customers.



edyvw said:


> You driving Phaeton. That is not today’s VW.


Well, this is true.


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

The 3.0T VR6 sounds interesting. Hopefully it comes to the states for the Atlas

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

jyoung8607 said:


> The Explorer 3.5 EcoBoost is nice, but you're starting to get into Q7 3.0T money.
> 
> 
> The 2.5 VR6 TSI exists to fill a particular market need in China, where the 3.6 NA would be more heavily taxed due to displacement. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to have over here, I'd love to have one and get it chipped. But if the 2.5 VR6 TSI did the 3.6 VR6 FSI's job better and cheaper without China's tax issue, then we'd already have it.
> ...


I am not sure you understood my point about VW and Audi platforms. 
During Peich times VW moved Passat to shared platform with Audi. At that time in Europe when B5 got out you had to wait some three months for B5 with 1.9TDi engine. Once they introduced TDI with 110hp, wait time even increased. I remember when VW announced they will raise price of B5 for some 3,000 Deutsche marks and what happened? Wait time increased. When VW decided to decouple VW's from Audi platforms with Passat B6 things went downhill. It is like they tried to make VW as cheap as possible to distance it from Audi. I remember when B6 got out there it was really big deal until 2.0TDI PD engines started to fail like crazy. It was huge disappointment. Golf fallowed that, and all other cars. 
VW and Audi share some platforms, mostly in cheaper segment where Audi sells Q3 as fake Quattro and similar cars. But larger VW's, Golf, Passat are far cry from times when your Phaeton was developed. Today if VW wanted to develop similar car they would probably put transverse engine inside and I guess VR6 and said: look new S class.

As for Explorer, so what? Ford is not Audi's league, but they sell them. Durango is not Audi's league but they sell SRT or R/T (which actually is in price range of VW). But let's say that argument stands that this is category of 250-300hp (which Ford and Dodge obviously do not care about), how is that all those cars develop that hp with much better mpg? VR6 mpg is on par with Durango R/T (V8) and Ford Explorer ecoboost, while new Expedition has exactly same mpg numbers. 
So you said TN factory is hardly keeping up (you have no idea since you do not know target sale of Atlas). Sell to? Traditional VW buyers? Hardly. Buyers of appliance cars? yes. Problem with that strategy is that buyers of Atlas (in most cases) are not loyal buyers. They go for reliability and deal. Once VW starts having typical VW issues which every loyal VW owner could not care less about, those buyers will abandon VW. 
VW does not have fallowing because they were offering three generations old engines which were average when new. They have fallowing because of something different. 
What happened here is that VW probably wanted to offer in Atlas 2.0 tdi with some 200-220hp and 400lb-ft for traditional VW buyers. That never happened, and now they are in some limbo with traditional VW buyers.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> Honda makes the best engines in my opinion. I have a DD k20z3 that sees regular engine speeds north of 8K.... its unholy.
> 
> For reference, the last gen pilot pre 2016 was actually slower than the atlas.
> 
> ...


The last gen Pilot has exactly same 0-60 as Atlas, 8.0 sec dead even with 5 speed automatic. 
My in laws have previous generation Pilot with some 60k.
- Three sets of rotors.
- VCM issues in engine
- Rear differential
And they drive like slower then average church ladies. On top of that I think even Atlas uses less fuel. That thing uses gas like MIG-21.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> Or they are comparing the atlas with offerings from Mercedes Benz and / or BMW, that is not an apples to apples comparison folks.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


VW traditionally with large vehicles tried to be alternative to precisely those brands. On par performance for less money. Passat B5, 1st and 2nd gen Touareg (2nd gen Touareg in Europe is real alternative), phaeton etc.
I guess those times are gone. Now it is race to boredom.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

*Any rumors of an updated engine?*



edyvw said:


> The last gen Pilot has exactly same 0-60 as Atlas, 8.0 sec dead even with 5 speed automatic.
> My in laws have previous generation Pilot with some 60k.
> - Three sets of rotors.
> - VCM issues in engine
> ...


Sounds like thy should’ve not rode the brakes and serviced the VTM-4 per Honda’s schedule. I never had VCM issues.

Actual atlas does the deed 0.1 faster LOL. But who cares? I still loved my pilot, it was still plenty powerful.

Maybe you need to slow down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

edyvw said:


> VW traditionally with large vehicles tried to be alternative to precisely those brands. On par performance for less money. Passat B5, 1st and 2nd gen Touareg (2nd gen Touareg in Europe is real alternative), phaeton etc.
> I guess those times are gone. Now it is race to boredom.


Awesome, if it’s that boring you should go somewhere else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

*Any rumors of an updated engine?*



edyvw said:


> As for Explorer, so what? Ford is not Audi's league, but they sell them. Durango is not Audi's league but they sell SRT or R/T (which actually is in price range of VW). But let's say that argument stands that this is category of 250-300hp (which Ford and Dodge obviously do not care about), how is that all those cars develop that hp with much better mpg? VR6 mpg is on par with Durango R/T (V8) and Ford Explorer ecoboost, while new Expedition has exactly same mpg numbers.


More HP better economy? Hmm they are actually worse
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39318&id=39699&id=38729

So AWD R/T at 46K starting? Atlas starts at ~34K



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> More HP better economy? Hmm they are actually worse
> https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39318&id=39699&id=38729
> 
> So AWD R/T at 46K starting? Atlas starts at ~34K
> ...


I am talking about EPA ratings. In real world I can make my BMW do 32mpg although it is rated 26mpg HWY by EPA. But that happens only once a year when I want to see whether I could do it. Otherwise it is 23-24mpg HWY. 
As for R/T MPG, yeah, it is 22mpg on HWY rated. Highly doubt I personally would ever achieve that number. But that is not the point, EPA has standardized tests, that is the point. 
As for R/T. What you get in R/T for 46k is entering SEL premium in certain areas (infotaintment) plus it is MB platform with ZF transmission. So yeah, it is on par with Atlas.
But if you talking about starting price, Durango starts at $29.995 with 19/26mpg. It is not something I would ever buy, Durango with V6, but point is mpg. Every competitor in this segment is doing much, much better then VW. Yes, VR6 sounds great (not as inline though), but.....


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

edyvw said:


> Well, difference between SE and SEL premium is 200lbs. That could actually be noticeable......


 Yeah, right......


----------



## CobaltSky (Jan 16, 2018)

thenew3 said:


> My current daily driver (2013 MB E350 4matic wagon with a 3.5 V6, 302hp, 276lb tq, 4400lb) has a 0-60 of roughly a little over 6 seconds, my previous daily driver (2008 VW Passat 3.6 4motion wagon, 3.6 VR6, 280hp, 265 lb tq, 4000lb) is also listed at roughly 6 sec 0-60. Both can barely get out onto the road fast enough without being rear ended. Wife's current daily driver (2016 BMW X3 sDrive28i 2.0T I4, 240hp, 260tq, 4000 lb) has an upper 6 second 0-60 and it's a teeth biter every time we try to leave our street to merge with the main road. We've seen many cars get rear-ended trying to merge from our street onto the main road.


Here's one solution. Move out of the Peoples Republic of California and enjoy a 2018 Atlas


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

CobaltSky said:


> Here's one solution. Move out of the Peoples Republic of California and enjoy a 2018 Atlas


Unfortunately not an option as the wife's dream job is here.


----------



## golfzex (Mar 29, 2004)

0macman0 said:


> So now your resorting to insults huh scooter?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He does this in every thread, adults are talking and he starts name calling and being rude. 

Ignore the troll :thumbup:


----------



## CobaltSky (Jan 16, 2018)

thenew3 said:


> Unfortunately not an option as the wife's dream job is here.


Ah, the things we do for love.


----------



## Pnvwfun (Jan 22, 2018)

While a 3.0 or 2.5 turbo might be nice for acceleration, any MPG gains (if there are any) over the current non-turbo 3.6 come at a higher fuel cost. Turbos require premium fuel, and at 30 cents more per gallon than 87 octane regular fuel where I live, the cost difference would have to be offset by at least a 2-3 MPG gain. I didn't buy the Atlas for blistering acceleration, I bought it for size at a decent fuel efficiency. I'm quite happy with it so far.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Picked mine up today. I don't get the lack of power comments. The VR6 is plenty of motor for this vehicle. This is not a small car...it's a family hauler and if folks want a super-fast SUV, there are other better options. I thought our '06 Ody was fast and it is slower than this one. It's all what you are used to I guess. Talking with the guys at the dealer as were waiting to finalize our deal, we chatted about the 2.0...I ask if they had one/driven one...they said they did and it was not what you wanted..ahahahah


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

Pnvwfun said:


> .....Turbos require premium fuel......


This is absolutely false. Any of the VW turbo engines operate just fine on 87 as they all have knock sensors that modify the ECU accordingly.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

Pnvwfun said:


> While a 3.0 or 2.5 turbo might be nice for acceleration, any MPG gains (if there are any) over the current non-turbo 3.6 come at a higher fuel cost. Turbos require premium fuel, and at 30 cents more per gallon than 87 octane regular fuel where I live, the cost difference would have to be offset by at least a 2-3 MPG gain. I didn't buy the Atlas for blistering acceleration, I bought it for size at a decent fuel efficiency. I'm quite happy with it so far.


That is not quite right. 
1. There are numerous turbo engines that run on regular. Mazda CX-9 being one of them. With regular gas in CX-9 engine develops 227hp and 310lb-ft of torque. With premium it develops 250hp and again, 310lb-ft. Hp on a side, torque is what matters in these vehicles. 
2. You will gain mpg. 3.6 VR6 from date it was introduced in 2005 was gas guzzler. I remember them being engine of choice in Skoda Superb L&K in Europe for people who wanted alternative to German premium brands, and while providing similar or lower performance compared to other six cylinder engines in that category, they were always using more gas. 
Do not forget that competition is delivering much better mpg numbers. 
Atlas is lighter then Audi Q7, BMW X5 and yet, those cars all equipped with turbo (BMW) or supercharger (Audi) deliver better numbers. You might say : well those are BMW or Audi. That is irrelevant. VW and Audi engines are built to same standard. Watch new 2.9 Turbo in Audi Q7. It will probably be rated in high 20’s. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> Picked mine up today. I don't get the lack of power comments. The VR6 is plenty of motor for this vehicle. This is not a small car...it's a family hauler and if folks want a super-fast SUV, there are other better options. I thought our '06 Ody was fast and it is slower than this one. It's all what you are used to I guess. Talking with the guys at the dealer as were waiting to finalize our deal, we chatted about the 2.0...I ask if they had one/driven one...they said they did and it was not what you wanted..ahahahah


Well if you thought 06 Ody is fast, yeah Atlas will do it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

edyvw said:


> That is not quite right.
> 2. You will gain mpg. 3.6 VR6 from date it was introduced in 2005 was gas guzzler. I remember them being engine of choice in Skoda Superb L&K in Europe for people who wanted alternative to German premium brands, and while providing similar or lower performance compared to other six cylinder engines in that category, they were always using more gas.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very well said. I had the 3.6 in a 2007 passat and a 2008 passat. Even with the smaller and lighter vehicle, I was only regularly getting 14 to 15 mpg city and 20 highway. If I drive no faster than the speed limit (55 to 65mph) then I may be able to get 22 mpg highway.
The passat was rated for 16/24mpg with the 3.6 engine.

Now the Atlas does have 2 more gears than the passat, but it also weighs significantly more. So I have my doubts the atlas will reach the advertised mileage.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

thenew3 said:


> Very well said. I had the 3.6 in a 2007 passat and a 2008 passat. Even with the smaller and lighter vehicle, I was only regularly getting 14 to 15 mpg city and 20 highway. If I drive no faster than the speed limit (55 to 65mph) then I may be able to get 22 mpg highway.
> The passat was rated for 16/24mpg with the 3.6 engine.
> 
> Now the Atlas does have 2 more gears than the passat, but it also weighs significantly more. So I have my doubts the atlas will reach the advertised mileage.


Drive it like any other European car and it will not go over 20mpg, if even that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

edyvw said:


> Drive it like any other European car and it will not go over 20mpg, if even that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not true of all European cars. My current daily driver is heavier than my passat was, makes more power than my passat did, yet easily gets 25 mpg highway when I drive it like a maniac. When I drive it at the speed limit, I can easily get 30mpg.

This is comparing a 2008 Passat 3.6 4motion wagon to a 2013 MB E350 4matic wagon. One has a 3.6 VR6 with 280hp and weighs roughly 4000lb, the other as a 3.5 V6 with 302hp and weighs 4400lb.

My passat once got 9mpg on a tank when I drove it like a maniac around town. My MB never got below 14mpg no matter how hard I drive it around town.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

thenew3 said:


> .....have my doubts the atlas will reach the advertised mileage.


You misunderstand what the EPA rating means.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

edyvw said:


> Well if you thought 06 Ody is fast, yeah Atlas will do it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't think that was my intent...clearly a 2006 Honda Odyssey is not a performance vehicle...but...for a large family hauler it has more than adequate power. The Atlas is the same..plenty of power to me for what it is. It seems that folks here are comparing a large family hauler that can be had for $35K to an expense Euro vehicle that costs twice as much. If I wanted high-performance and speed, I would have bought a Ford Focus RS. Someone here is talking about not being able to merge on the highway safely in this vehicle they are in a different world than the real one.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

thenew3 said:


> Not true of all European cars. My current daily driver is heavier than my passat was, makes more power than my passat did, yet easily gets 25 mpg highway when I drive it like a maniac. When I drive it at the speed limit, I can easily get 30mpg.
> 
> This is comparing a 2008 Passat 3.6 4motion wagon to a 2013 MB E350 4matic wagon. One has a 3.6 VR6 with 280hp and weighs roughly 4000lb, the other as a 3.5 V6 with 302hp and weighs 4400lb.
> 
> My passat once got 9mpg on a tank when I drove it like a maniac around town. My MB never got below 14mpg no matter how hard I drive it around town.


I am saying drive Atlas like any other European car and you will not go over 20mpg. I drove Atlas one day and got 11.8mpg. Not any different then I drive X5. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

edyvw said:


> I am saying drive Atlas like any other European car and you will not go over 20mpg. I drove Atlas one day and got 11.8mpg. Not any different then I drive X5.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I'm saying the 3.6 doesn't get good gas mileage in a smaller car like the passat, don't expect it to do well in the atlas even driven like a 100 year old granny in a corolla.


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> I don't think that was my intent...clearly a 2006 Honda Odyssey is not a performance vehicle...but...for a large family hauler it has more than adequate power. The Atlas is the same..plenty of power to me for what it is. It seems that folks here are comparing a large family hauler that can be had for $35K to an expense Euro vehicle that costs twice as much. If I wanted high-performance and speed, I would have bought a Ford Focus RS. Someone here is talking about not being able to merge on the highway safely in this vehicle they are in a different world than the real one.


Well clearly VW wants to get customers of Odyssey, Highlander etc. That is NEW approach by VW. VW was always cheaper alternative to premium German brands. 
When someone tells me: it is family hauler, it has adequate power, translation is: you got kids, now let’s cut your balls, and go out of house only to buy diapers. Next thing is bumper sticker: I used to be cool. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

KarstGeo said:


> I don't think that was my intent...clearly a 2006 Honda Odyssey is not a performance vehicle...but...for a large family hauler it has more than adequate power. The Atlas is the same..plenty of power to me for what it is. It seems that folks here are comparing a large family hauler that can be had for $35K to an expense Euro vehicle that costs twice as much. If I wanted high-performance and speed, I would have bought a Ford Focus RS. Someone here is talking about not being able to merge on the highway safely in this vehicle they are in a different world than the real one.


That someone would be me, and just because we live in different places with different traffic/road situations doesn't mean I don't live in the real world. I could say the same about you. We all live in different areas with different road/traffic conditions that creates different needs in vehicles. Go out and travel around, see the rest of the real world. You'd be amazed at how different things are in the rest of the "real world".


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

edyvw said:


> Well if you thought 06 Ody is fast, yeah Atlas will do it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He never said his odyssey was fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

edyvw said:


> I am saying drive Atlas like any other European car and you will not go over 20mpg. I drove Atlas one day and got 11.8mpg. Not any different then I drive X5.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Then you must drive like an absolute maniac or you are a liar / exaggerator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

thenew3 said:


> That someone would be me, and just because we live in different places with different traffic/road situations doesn't mean I don't live in the real world. I could say the same about you. We all live in different areas with different road/traffic conditions that creates different needs in vehicles. Go out and travel around, see the rest of the real world. You'd be amazed at how different things are in the rest of the "real world".


Considering almost every compact car out there is considerably slower to 60 than the atlas, how do they get out of your neighborhood without dying?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

edyvw said:


> Well clearly VW wants to get customers of Odyssey, Highlander etc. That is NEW approach by VW. VW was always cheaper alternative to premium German brands.
> When someone tells me: it is family hauler, it has adequate power, translation is: you got kids, now let’s cut your balls, and go out of house only to buy diapers. Next thing is bumper sticker: I used to be cool.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is a pretty blanket statement on drivers of family cars. I quite like having a family and kids.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> Considering almost every compact car out there is considerably slower to 60 than the atlas, how do they get out of your neighborhood without dying?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't know, maybe that's why there aren't many around here. We are on a dead end street with about 40 houses. Out of all the houses here, there is probably somewhere around 70% of them german cars with good acceleration. (Many BMW M, and MB AMG, a few Audi R and RS, and a # of various model Porsche). There is one Honda Pilot 3 houses down from me and the lady that drives it says she hates it trying to merge onto the main road. (even the pilot has a 6.2 sec 0-60). a few Subaru WRX/STI, A couple of GTI, Mini Cooper S, a handful of Mustangs, and a handful of GLS550's. (most of these cars are in the low 6 second range with many in the 4-5 sec range). There are a couple of older/slower cars, they tend to take the back road out which is a 5 to 15 minute detour depending on traffic.

Not many compact cars here, given a 60 year old 3 bed 2 bath 1600 sqft house starts at around $1 mil (before renovations) in this neighborhood. I've often seen Bugatti, Maserati, Bentley in the neighborhood, although I don't know if they are just visiting or they live here.

The house next to mine used to be a rental, the first day the new tenants moved in, the mother was rear-ended trying to take the most obvious way out of our street. (She was in an Odyssey and couldn't merge with traffic fast enough). After that, she picked up an Jaguar XJ in order to merge with traffic, and told her teenage daughter in the RX350 to always spend the extra 5-15 minutes and take the back road.


----------



## EPilot (Jul 27, 1999)

0macman0 said:


> Omacman0


 and


edyvw said:


> edyvw


 if you can’t have a conversation or debate without flaming each other that don’t have a debate or conversation on the site. Flaming and inciting fights on the site is against the rules and stops now. One and only warning. 


Sent from my shack on my pdp 11


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> Then you must drive like an absolute maniac or you are a liar / exaggerator.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes I drive like an absolute maniac when I need to leave my street and merge with the main road. Ask my wife, she'll confirm it.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

thenew3 said:


> I don't know, maybe that's why there aren't many around here. We are on a dead end street with about 40 houses. Out of all the houses here, there is probably somewhere around 70% of them german cars with good acceleration. (Many BMW M, and MB AMG, a few Audi R and RS, and a # of various model Porsche). There is one Honda Pilot 3 houses down from me and the lady that drives it says she hates it trying to merge onto the main road. (even the pilot has a 6.2 sec 0-60). a few Subaru WRX/STI, A couple of GTI, Mini Cooper S, a handful of Mustangs, and a handful of GLS550's. (most of these cars are in the low 6 second range with many in the 4-5 sec range). There are a couple of older/slower cars, they tend to take the back road out which is a 5 to 15 minute detour depending on traffic.
> 
> Not many compact cars here, given a 60 year old 3 bed 2 bath 1600 sqft house starts at around $1 mil (before renovations) in this neighborhood. I've often seen Bugatti, Maserati, Bentley in the neighborhood, although I don't know if they are just visiting or they live here.
> 
> The house next to mine used to be a rental, the first day the new tenants moved in, the mother was rear-ended trying to take the most obvious way out of our street. (She was in an Odyssey and couldn't merge with traffic fast enough). After that, she picked up an Jaguar XJ in order to merge with traffic, and told her teenage daughter in the RX350 to always spend the extra 5-15 minutes and take the back road.


This is just crazy that the traffic flow is that fast. I wish the atlas could work for you though it’s a great vehicle!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

0macman0 said:


> He never said his odyssey was fast.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


OK “adequate” power and “plenty “ of power. 
Like I said before, Yugo had “adequate “ power too. Depends what is it. 
I got a ticket driving Toyota Sienna 113mph. It can go that fast. Thing is how it gets there. As Jeremy Clarkson said: if you own a car that doesn’t get your adrenaline going every time you sit in it, you might as well take public transportation. 
Atlas should be move from Golf, Passat, CC to family vehicle. But VW obviously told their consumer base to look elsewhere. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

thenew3 said:


> Yes I drive like an absolute maniac when I need to leave my street and merge with the main road. Ask my wife, she'll confirm it.


It’s fun every once and a while, might get old every day 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> This is just crazy that the traffic flow is that fast. I wish the atlas could work for you though it’s a great vehicle!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It's the stupid way they designed the street/roads. My street turns right onto a highway (CA Highway 1) While they do lower the speed limit for that stretch going through town to 45 mph, most traffic on the road still go about 60mph. And since it's around a bend you can only see about 100 ft to your left for on-coming cars, and the on-coming cars can only see you when they are 100ft away. at 60mph, 100ft is not a huge distance. You have to turn right and get up to traffic speed as fast as you can otherwise the on-coming traffic ends up in your back seat. Forget about turning left (take the long back road if you want to go left). 

I have been driving for nearly 29 years. In the 21 years I lived outside of CA I was only in 1 accident and was not at fault (got rear ended at red light). Since moving to CA, the past 8 years I've been in 3 minor and 1 major accident (not at fault). Partly due to the poorly designed roads, partly due to the crazy distracted or inexperienced drivers.


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> It’s fun every once and a while, might get old every day
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It sure does. Luckily I now work from home and so only have to do that treacherous merge a couple of times each week. 

BTW that 9mpg tank in my passat was when I had to merge onto the highway traffic a few dozen times a day to shuttle kids around to various activities. Doing 0-60 runs a few dozen times a day sure does drain the gas tank fast. But even driving "normally" both of my passat 3.6's would only get 20 maybe 21 mpg on the highway going 75mph on long trips. The VR6 was a great motor for the Passat, but I feel it's extremely under powered and inefficient for something the size of the Atlas. And the fact that it's basically the same motor that was in a 2006 passat doesn't help. That's 12+ year old design that has not been updated. Even the japanese update their engines more often. I was hoping they would release it with the VAG 3.0 super charged V6 that makes 333/325 hq/tq That would've been a big improvement over the 3.6 VR6.


----------



## TiGeo (Apr 7, 2008)

edyvw said:


> Well clearly VW wants to get customers of Odyssey, Highlander etc. That is NEW approach by VW. VW was always cheaper alternative to premium German brands.
> When someone tells me: it is family hauler, it has adequate power, translation is: you got kids, now let’s cut your balls, and go out of house only to buy diapers. Next thing is bumper sticker: I used to be cool.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Or you can have children and drive a vehicle that says "I have a family and need something big and slow but I don't want to admit it so I drive something that says I don't want folks to think this." I stopped worrying about what people think a long time ago.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

TiGeo said:


> Or you can have children and drive a vehicle that says "I have a family and need something big and slow but I don't want to admit it so I drive something that says I don't want folks to think this." I stopped worrying about what people think a long time ago.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


That was not the point. By the way, I like having power under the hood for safety reasons. Do not understand why family equals big and slow? One will need to pass cars, merge, pass cars on higher altitude etc. 
If I was concerned what people think I would be driving Toyota Highlander hybrid.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

edyvw said:


> That was not the point. By the way, I like having power under the hood for safety reasons. Do not understand why family equals big and slow? One will need to pass cars, merge, pass cars on higher altitude etc.
> If I was concerned what people think I would be driving Toyota Highlander hybrid.


I understand this and again, I don't feel that the Atlas with the 6 is particularly underpowered...certainly not to the point of posing a hazard. When I think underpowered, I think about my '89 Subaru GL wagon with <100hp....to merge you had to turn the AC off...it was the slowest car I have ever driven. We are not even close to that here. I have driven lots of cars over the years and particularly SUVs, vans, etc. for work/travel and this one doesn't strike me as particularly fast or slow, kind of in the middle but certainly slower than a 2017 Ford Expedition with the 3.6L EcoBoost 6 or a 2018 F-150 with the 5.0L 8 that I had as rentals recently but faster than any of the 4-banger SUVs I have been in. Maybe a better question is, what 0-60 time do you require/consider fast/slow...what is the cut-off? I drive a 2013 Ford Focus with 165hp and a 5-speed manual. I think it does 0-60 in ~7 seconds...that is more than enough for my highway commute every day that has a few "hairy" merges.


----------



## Don® (Oct 11, 2011)

It would be great if it had another 100hp.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

Don® said:


> It would be great if it had another 100hp.


Why not another 200hp....?


----------



## atlas tsi shrugged (Jan 26, 2018)

Hajduk said:


> The 2.0T is still lacking in torque (258 ft-lbs) compared to what a turbo V6 could generate.


I wouldn't call the 2.0T lacking in torque. With the transmission in sport mode it's enough to spin the front tires!


----------



## jkopelc (Mar 1, 2017)

Just to add a little perspective and some real world comparison to the turbo engine versus the VR6 that some people are hating on.

Audi specs from C&D long term test. (Link: https://www.caranddriver.com/review...w?src=nl&mag=cdb&list=nl_dvr_news&date=012618)

So while on paper the Q7 has some great stats, I am perfectly happy with the VW and the price I paid. I bolded a couple of my own observations on mileage and price. YOWSA!


Months in Fleet: 12 months Current Mileage: 31,132 miles
Average Fuel Economy: 20 mpg Fuel Tank Size: 22.5 gal Fuel Range: 450 miles
Service: $897 Normal Wear: $0 Repair: $1327
Damage and Destruction: $745

Specifications
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 7-passenger, 4-door hatchback

*PRICE AS TESTED: $75,655 (base price: $55,750)*

*ENGINE TYPE: supercharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection*

DISPLACEMENT: 183 cu in, 2995 cc
POWER: 333 hp @ 6500 rpm
TORQUE: 325 lb-ft @ 2900 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 8-speed automatic with manual shifting mode

DIMENSIONS:
WHEELBASE: 117.9 in
LENGTH: 199.6 in
WIDTH: 77.5 in HEIGHT: 68.5 in
PASSENGER VOLUME: 136 cu ft
CARGO VOLUME: 15 cu ft
CURB WEIGHT: 5085 lb

PERFORMANCE: NEW
Zero to 60 mph: 6.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 25.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.6 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.0 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.7 sec @ 96 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 155 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.90 g

*FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA combined/city/highway: 21/19/25 mpg
C/D observed: 20 mpg
Unscheduled oil additions: 0 qt*


----------



## Ryan E. (Oct 1, 2002)

Interesting stats, MPG looks similar to the Atlas and it's roughly 1.3 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile for $30k more. I do like the looks of the Q7.

Thanks for sharing :thumbup:


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

atlas tsi shrugged said:


> I wouldn't call the 2.0T lacking in torque. With the transmission in sport mode it's enough to spin the front tires!


Based on your forum name it seems like you might own an Atlas 2.0T, if so how is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

KarstGeo said:


> I understand this and again, I don't feel that the Atlas with the 6 is particularly underpowered...certainly not to the point of posing a hazard. When I think underpowered, I think about my '89 Subaru GL wagon with <100hp....to merge you had to turn the AC off...it was the slowest car I have ever driven. We are not even close to that here. I have driven lots of cars over the years and particularly SUVs, vans, etc. for work/travel and this one doesn't strike me as particularly fast or slow, kind of in the middle but certainly slower than a 2017 Ford Expedition with the 3.6L EcoBoost 6 or a 2018 F-150 with the 5.0L 8 that I had as rentals recently but faster than any of the 4-banger SUVs I have been in. Maybe a better question is, what 0-60 time do you require/consider fast/slow...what is the cut-off? I drive a 2013 Ford Focus with 165hp and a 5-speed manual. I think it does 0-60 in ~7 seconds...that is more than enough for my highway commute every day that has a few "hairy" merges.


0-60 is not an issue. It is torque that engine is lacking. It is 40-80mph in highest gear or 60-80 in 8th or 7th gear that provides effortless driving experience. 
But put that also on a side, what about five people + full trunk+roof box and then navigating mountain pass. 
I get your argument about your Subaru. But if you fallow that logic you could say: Subaru had adequate power, because (fill here) had 50hp in 1968. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

For Comparison (Source: C&D)

2017 Audi Q7 2.0T

Zero to 60 mph: 7.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 19.2 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 31.1 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 91 mph
Top speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 130 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 186 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g

2018 Atlas VR6

Zero to 60 mph: 7.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.2 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 25.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 116 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.84 g

It's hard to compare the top speed times since one measures 110 MPH vs 120 MPH, but they seem really close.
These vehicles are within 1 second worst case (often a few tenths of a second) within in each other on every metric. Interestingly, the numbers claim the atlas handles better, while the Q7 will get you places ~.5 seconds faster.
Atlas also wins top gear 30-50 acceleration and almost matches 50-70 top gear.
5-60 rolling is identical as illustrated, the most important indicator in city performance IMO unless you street race.


----------



## atlas tsi shrugged (Jan 26, 2018)

0macman0 said:


> Based on your forum name it seems like you might own an Atlas 2.0T, if so how is it?


Yes, I do. While I wish it had 4Motion and heated seats, the stereo is great and it's definitely not lacking in the engine dept. It feels pretty powerful and more responsive than other 2.0T cars I've owned. And the fact that it runs on cheaper 87 octane gas is really nice. In terms of MPG I've seen pretty close to 30 on back roads, and around 26 on the highway, which I consider excellent for the size/weight of the car.

I just wasn't interested in the 3.6 VR6 at all, and I think VW is making a big mistake by not offering a better selection with the 2.0T engine.


----------



## bbixby (Jan 19, 2018)

For those interested in the 2.0T like me, I called APR and asked if they offer a tune. They said they they are working on it. 
They need to get the code off of an Atlas ECU with the 2.0T.

It will be very interesting to see what they will offer.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

bbixby said:


> For those interested in the 2.0T like me, I called APR and asked if they offer a tune. They said they they are working on it.
> They need to get the code off of an Atlas ECU with the 2.0T.
> 
> It will be very interesting to see what they will offer.


It will be interesting for sure. Amazing what can be done with a little programming magic. Now days it’s the biggest hp/$ upgrade.

I like 4 cylinders, I like turbos, I like my VR6. Both seem like great choices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

atlas tsi shrugged said:


> Yes, I do. While I wish it had 4Motion and heated seats, the stereo is great and it's definitely not lacking in the engine dept. It feels pretty powerful and more responsive than other 2.0T cars I've owned. And the fact that it runs on cheaper 87 octane gas is really nice. In terms of MPG I've seen pretty close to 30 on back roads, and around 26 on the highway, which I consider excellent for the size/weight of the car.
> 
> I just wasn't interested in the 3.6 VR6 at all, and I think VW is making a big mistake by not offering a better selection with the 2.0T engine.


They are both good engines IMO. Yeah that is some really stellar fuel economy numbers. Now that they are getting out in the wild I would love to see some performance numbers as well 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## golfzex (Mar 29, 2004)

atlas tsi shrugged said:


> Yes, I do. While I wish it had 4Motion and heated seats, the stereo is great and it's definitely not lacking in the engine dept. It feels pretty powerful and more responsive than other 2.0T cars I've owned. And the fact that it runs on cheaper 87 octane gas is really nice. In terms of MPG I've seen pretty close to 30 on back roads, and around 26 on the highway, which I consider excellent for the size/weight of the car.
> 
> I just wasn't interested in the 3.6 VR6 at all, and I think VW is making a big mistake by not offering a better selection with the 2.0T engine.


This is good to hear, are you considering a tune? Or is it enough power that you don’t feel you would need it?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ribbit (Jun 4, 2012)

Put the v6 audi Q7 in the atlas and I'm in. Will trade my great TREG TDI in for that platform. Of course if they offer a TDI I'd run to sign up.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

ribbit said:


> Put the v6 audi Q7 in the atlas and I'm in.......


Any suggestions how you would make that V6 fit in an MQB?


----------



## golfzex (Mar 29, 2004)

ribbit said:


> Put the v6 audi Q7 in the atlas and I'm in. Will trade my great TREG TDI in for that platform. Of course if they offer a TDI I'd run to sign up.


The deal they gave us for our TDI Treg was too good to pass up. Plus we really wanted a larger SUV with a real third row. 

But, if our Treg was the size of the atlas we would have really had a tough choice. 

While the Treg definitely had its strong points that beat the Atlas, I am super happy with the Atlas as it has a lot of strong points too. 

Even more importantly, the wife loves it lol. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## atlas tsi shrugged (Jan 26, 2018)

golfzex said:


> This is good to hear, are you considering a tune? Or is it enough power that you don’t feel you would need it?


I run a tune in my other car, a Jeep Ecodiesel, so I'm definitely not against them. Definitely helps in terms of drivability. I also ran a tune in my Evo X which I don't have anymore. That car really needed it because it ran like crap without it, even when completely stock.

But honestly I don't think the Atlas TSI needs a tune for everyday drivability. It has a lot of low end torque for a 2 liter engine. Also the price penalty at the pump for 93 octane gas (actually 91 to keep it CARB-compliant but around here they don't sell 91) isn't worth it in my opinion.

But if there was a real quick and easy way to switch back and forth between stock and the tune I would probably get it.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

But the same motor in the Toureg claims 280 achieved with premium on the VW site. The Atlas manual does have a comment to the effect that additional performance can be achieved with premium but that is the only place it's mentioned; the Atlas manual says 276hp for the same motor. So it's like a lot of cars....run regular but if you want a tiny kick, run premium. I believe this is a move to make this seem more family-friendly/economical as some folks shy away from cars (me included) that require premium fuel. As the mpgs, who buys a vehicle this big and expects stellar fuel mileage? My minivan got crappy mileage around town too. Over a year for an average person driving 12K you are talking an additional $216 (Pilot AWD = 22 mpg overall and Atlas 4Motion 6 = 19 mpg overall, assuming $2.50/gal regular). It's not like the Atlas's slightly poorer fuel economy is going to break the bank and it if is, you may need to rethink that you are buying a $35-40K vehicle. That's ~$18/mos....the cost to taking that 3-row SUV with your family to McDonalds one time...


----------



## atlas tsi shrugged (Jan 26, 2018)

On a non-turbo car the difference in performance between regular and premium gas isn't much. I don't know about the Atlas VR6 but if you look at the Nissan Armada and the Infiniti QX80, they are basically the same car except that the Nissan runs on regular gas. As a result it makes 10 less horsepower and 12 less ft-lbs less than the 400hp/413ft-lb QX80.


----------



## twolitereightvmk1 (Sep 14, 2010)

*Video from china talks 2.5 VR6 turbo in Teramont*

Hi I haven't read through entire thread.
I found this video about the Chinese Teramont and he mentions a 2.5 VR6 Turbo engine option.
If this has already been discussed great but the video is fun to see the Chinese variant anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7JtjJcOk-k


----------



## rickyfinch (Sep 30, 2014)

I don't understand why you need the VR6 or a bigger engine. The 2.0 is adequate. Stage one tune is 316 HP and 381 tq. No bolt ons. Torque is available at 2600 RPM and HP peaks at 5000 RPM. Seems pretty good to me considering.


----------



## GavinD (Jun 19, 2014)

rickyfinch said:


> I don't understand why you need the VR6 or a bigger engine. The 2.0 is adequate. Stage one tune is 316 HP and 381 tq. No bolt ons. Torque is available at 2600 RPM and HP peaks at 5000 RPM. Seems pretty good to me considering.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's all about towing.

The 2.0T is only rated to pull a 2000lb trailer. So, it can't pull an average bow rider, can't pull an enclosed snowmobile trailer with 2 sleds, can't pull an ATV trailer with more than 2 ATVs, can't really pull much of a utility trailer with anything serious on it. You would have a hard time towing an air-cooled Beetle on a trailer with a 2000lb tow rating. No amount of tuning is going to change the federally regulated tow rating.

The VR6 is rated to pull up to 5000lbs, which is middle of the pack for its class, but still down on power and torque compared to most of the other vehicles that it competes with.


----------



## TiGeo (Apr 7, 2008)

Why do they call it a "V6" now rather than "VR6"?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## EPilot (Jul 27, 1999)

TiGeo said:


> Why do they call it a "V6" now rather than "VR6"?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


They've been doing that for years. People don't understand what the difference between the VR and regular V is so they just call it a V6.


----------



## EPilot (Jul 27, 1999)

rickyfinch said:


> I don't understand why you need the VR6 or a bigger engine. The 2.0 is adequate. Stage one tune is 316 HP and 381 tq. No bolt ons. Torque is available at 2600 RPM and HP peaks at 5000 RPM. Seems pretty good to me considering.


I'm curious to know what the torque limits are on the 2.0T transmission. Will it stand up to 381 FtLbs? That's a 123 increase in torque. Will that hold over time?
Supposedly Aisin recommend limit is 450 NM (336 ft tq).


----------



## Pnvwfun (Jan 22, 2018)

KarstGeo said:


> But the same motor in the Toureg claims 280 achieved with premium on the VW site. The Atlas manual does have a comment to the effect that additional performance can be achieved with premium but that is the only place it's mentioned; the Atlas manual says 276hp for the same motor. So it's like a lot of cars....run regular but if you want a tiny kick, run premium. I believe this is a move to make this seem more family-friendly/economical as some folks shy away from cars (me included) that require premium fuel. As the mpgs, who buys a vehicle this big and expects stellar fuel mileage? My minivan got crappy mileage around town too. Over a year for an average person driving 12K you are talking an additional $216 (Pilot AWD = 22 mpg overall and Atlas 4Motion 6 = 19 mpg overall, assuming $2.50/gal regular). It's not like the Atlas's slightly poorer fuel economy is going to break the bank and it if is, you may need to rethink that you are buying a $35-40K vehicle. That's ~$18/mos....the cost to taking that 3-row SUV with your family to McDonalds one time...


I'm averaging 21 mpg in my SEL 4Motion on regular fuel and am very happy with that. I saw that statement in the manual that it "may improve" performance with premium, but I don't think that using premium fuel would give you any significant gain in performance or fuel economy because it's tuned for 87 octane. Save your money, Consumer Reports and a lot of other people have debunked the myth that using premium in a car designed for regular fuel will give any sort of gain. I have seen other vehicles like my old Explorer get re-tuned for premium fuel which gave it a slight MPG improvement, but I would need about a 3 MPG improvement to offset the cost difference.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

Pnvwfun said:


> I'm averaging 21 mpg in my SEL 4Motion on regular fuel and am very happy with that. I saw that statement in the manual that it "may improve" performance with premium, but I don't think that using premium fuel would give you any significant gain in performance or fuel economy because it's tuned for 87 octane. Save your money, Consumer Reports and a lot of other people have debunked the myth that using premium in a car designed for regular fuel will give any sort of gain. I have seen other vehicles like my old Explorer get re-tuned for premium fuel which gave it a slight MPG improvement, but I would need about a 3 MPG improvement to offset the cost difference.


My butt dyno says torque is improved on premium. That’s all I put in. With a 12:1 compression ratio it has to be pulling ignition timing on 87.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

Pnvwfun said:


> .....saw that statement in the manual that it "may improve" performance with premium, but I don't think that using premium fuel would give you any significant gain in performance or fuel economy because it's tuned for 87 octane. Save your money, Consumer Reports and a lot of other people have debunked the myth that using premium in a car designed for regular fuel will give any sort of gain....


Since the 90s, VW engines have knock sensors that allow the engine timing to be changed based on fuel used. As the timing with 92 or 93 is much more optimum than with 87, the performance will be increased. That can't be argued.


----------



## Shiki87 (Jul 3, 2017)

0macman0 said:


> My butt dyno says torque is improved on premium. That’s all I put in. With a 12:1 compression ratio it has to be pulling ignition timing on 87.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think I'll try next few tanks with premium, just changed oil on 300 miles mark and that honestly made some improvement how engine revs, how smoother it goes etc. So premium is at least cleaner or supposed to be cleaner so I'll check. 

Thank you for the input!


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

Shiki87 said:


> I think I'll try next few tanks with premium, just changed oil on 300 miles mark and that honestly made some improvement how engine revs, how smoother it goes etc. So premium is at least cleaner or supposed to be cleaner so I'll check.
> 
> Thank you for the input!


An engine manufacturer will usually tune the ignition tables on 100+ octane fuel to determine what ignition timing provides that max brake torque, then they set the timing retard tables on pump fuel and set knock values for pulling timing to prevent knock. 12:1 is crazy high for an engine running on pump fuel, comparable to what I run in my YZ250F. Based on this, I would assume the computer will make the best use of the fuel octane you put in running the max ignition timing without major knock and below the MBT timing. I believe that performance is improved, seems to pull harder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

Shiki87 said:


> ......just changed oil on 300 miles mark and that honestly made some improvement how engine revs, how smoother it goes etc....


Always have to chuckle at comments like this.


----------



## Atlas32 (Feb 3, 2018)

0macman0 said:


> My butt dyno says torque is improved on premium. That’s all I put in. With a 12:1 compression ratio it has to be pulling ignition timing on 87.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My atlas has the VR6 and definitely has way more get up and go in Sport mode, I definitely don’t try to pass a string of cars in normal mode falls a little short on top


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SpeedoPro (Feb 12, 2018)

Any possibility the VW will offer the 2.5 turbo in the Atlas? I read the new Tourag will get a 2.5 L turbo making close to 300 hp.


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

SpeedoPro said:


> Any possibility the VW will offer the 2.5 turbo in the Atlas? I read the new Tourag will get a 2.5 L turbo making close to 300 hp.



the 2.5T VR6 is already in the Teramont (Atlas outside the US) in China and some other markets. I would love to see that motor make it to the Atlas in the US. With an ECU tune I can see that motor making 350 hp stage 1, or maybe 400 hp stage 2.

Even the 2.0T with a stage 1 tune can get to 300+ hp and 350+ tq. If they make that available with AWD in SEL Premium I would buy it and chip it.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

thenew3 said:


> the 2.5T VR6 is already in the Teramont (Atlas outside the US) in China and some other markets. I would love to see that motor make it to the Atlas in the US. With an ECU tune I can see that motor making 350 hp stage 1, or maybe 400 hp stage 2.
> 
> Even the 2.0T with a stage 1 tune can get to 300+ hp and 350+ tq. If they make that available with AWD in SEL Premium I would buy it and chip it.


Even better, leave it 3.6 and slap a dual scroll turbo on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> Even better, leave it 3.6 and slap a dual scroll turbo on it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hah, yeah that would be nice, however I don't think the existing 3.6 VR was designed to support forced induction so it may not be too reliable if you just slap a couple of turbos on it. 

I think 300 to 350hp and 350lb tq (under 2k rpm peak) would make the Atlas an ideal vehicle.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

thenew3 said:


> Hah, yeah that would be nice, however I don't think the existing 3.6 VR was designed to support forced induction so it may not be too reliable if you just slap a couple of turbos on it.
> 
> I think 300 to 350hp and 350lb tq (under 2k rpm peak) would make the Atlas an ideal vehicle.


Yeah those numbers are a good place to be.
I’m afraid that going down to a 2.5l would hurt towing capacity though. Small engines have a hard time with all the heat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> Yeah those numbers are a good place to be.
> I’m afraid that going down to a 2.5l would hurt towing capacity though. Small engines have a hard time with all the heat.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well Volvo rates the XC90 T6 with 5k lb towing capacity. That thing has a little 2.0 super/turbo charged motor that makes 316hp and 295lb tq. Can get 0-60 in 6 seconds in a vehicle roughly the same size/weight as Atlas.

So I think a 2.5T VR6 should have no problem towing 5k, if it can be tuned for the 300 to 350hp range and 350 lb tq range. Should get the atlas 0-60 in low to mid 6's.


----------



## Ryan E. (Oct 1, 2002)

thenew3 said:


> Hah, yeah that would be nice, however I don't think the existing 3.6 VR was designed to support forced induction so it may not be too reliable if you just slap a couple of turbos on it.
> 
> I think 300 to 350hp and 350lb tq (under 2k rpm peak) would make the Atlas an ideal vehicle.


Good tune and a cat back exhaust could get the 3.6 up to 300hp. United Motorsports software is killer for the 3.2, hopefully they’ll eventually make a tune for the Atlas. 

VR6 can hold up to 500hp on the stock bottom end.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

thenew3 said:


> Well Volvo rates the XC90 T6 with 5k lb towing capacity. That thing has a little 2.0 super/turbo charged motor that makes 316hp and 295lb tq. Can get 0-60 in 6 seconds in a vehicle roughly the same size/weight as Atlas.
> 
> So I think a 2.5T VR6 should have no problem towing 5k, if it can be tuned for the 300 to 350hp range and 350 lb tq range. Should get the atlas 0-60 in low to mid 6's.


Yeah you are right, some 2.0T tow quite a bit, and I’m not knocking them at all. Ford has their 2.7 TT that pulls a fair amount. But you are dealing with some serious cylinder pressures with that small of a displacement, I personally would like to not see the engine downsized that much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> Yeah you are right, some 2.0T tow quite a bit, and I’m not knocking them at all. Ford has their 2.7 TT that pulls a fair amount. But you are dealing with some serious cylinder pressures with that small of a displacement, I personally would like to not see the engine downsized that much.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I'm with you on that. I miss the old 5.0 and 5.7l V8's I used to drive many years ago.
However engine down sizing is the trend these days. Many other countries tax based on engine displacement, they've had small displacement high compression turbo engines for many decades. It's not unusual to see trucks with small 1.6 to 2.0L turbo 4's towing heavy loads in very hot climates. I think technology has improved enough where a small displacement turbo engine will last a respectable amount of time under heavy load. 

I remember riding in my uncle's mini van that seats 8 and has a 1 liter 3 cylinder turbo with a 4 sp auto. Going up a steep mountain road, in hot summer weather (110+ degree) with AC blasting full strength and that little motor screaming.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

thenew3 said:


> I'm with you on that. I miss the old 5.0 and 5.7l V8's I used to drive many years ago.
> However engine down sizing is the trend these days. Many other countries tax based on engine displacement, they've had small displacement high compression turbo engines for many decades. It's not unusual to see trucks with small 1.6 to 2.0L turbo 4's towing heavy loads in very hot climates. I think technology has improved enough where a small displacement turbo engine will last a respectable amount of time under heavy load.
> 
> I remember riding in my uncle's mini van that seats 8 and has a 1 liter 3 cylinder turbo with a 4 sp auto. Going up a steep mountain road, in hot summer weather (110+ degree) with AC blasting full strength and that little motor screaming.


Yeah the engineering has come far enough to make them reliable. I do miss the big old v8s

What kind of van was that???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

0macman0 said:


> Yeah the engineering has come far enough to make them reliable. I do miss the big old v8s
> 
> What kind of van was that???
> 
> ...



I don't remember the exact brand/model. It was over in asia, some local manufacturer that I had not heard of before. And it was 20 year ago and the thing was really beat up but still worked. 

I still love the low rumble of a V8. Modern turbo 4's can make more power than those old V8's but doesn't sound good making the power compared to those V8' of the 80's and 90's.


----------



## Vento (Feb 16, 1999)

Regarding a 3.0T replacement, watch around 12:14.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dCa4cUvJ4M&t=9s


----------



## bbixby (Jan 19, 2018)

Vento said:


> Regarding a 3.0T replacement, watch around 12:14.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dCa4cUvJ4M&t=9s


Good find!


----------



## thenew3 (Jun 18, 2006)

Vento said:


> Regarding a 3.0T replacement, watch around 12:14.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dCa4cUvJ4M&t=9s


So he said the 3.6 VR6 will be in Atlas this year and next, after that, no news. So earliest we'll see a new engine is the 2020 model year if there is a new engine.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

0macman0 said:


> My butt dyno says torque is improved on premium. That’s all I put in. With a 12:1 compression ratio it has to be pulling ignition timing on 87.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Atlas is listed on VW's site as 11.4:1 with 276 hp/266 ft lbs of torque on regular fuel; the 3.6 in the Toureg has 12.0:1 with 280 hp/266 ft lbs of torque achieved with premium although it can also run on regular. They are not the exact same motor.


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

KarstGeo said:


> The Atlas is listed on VW's site as 11.4:1 with 276 hp/266 ft lbs of torque on regular fuel; the 3.6 in the Toureg has 12.0:1 with 280 hp/266 ft lbs of torque achieved with premium although it can also run on regular. They are not the exact same motor.


Good to know. Still, at 11.4:1 I would expect a torque increase on premium. Anything over 11:1 really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TeamAtlas (Oct 17, 2017)

You'll only get a bump if you are at the knock limit. Engines are generally not factory tuned to go into knock and rely on the knock sensor. It's generally regarded as a safety for cooling issues and really bad fuel (unlikely in NA). 

Either both motors are knock limited or airflow limited, and either way the premium fuel on the Touareg is a waste. 4hp is well within the noise of HP measurement.


----------



## KirkK (Apr 3, 2018)

I was extremely impressed by the Atlas when I first saw it at the auto show. Then I test drove it (several times), each time highly impressed with everything but the engine. And yes, the VR6 may be reliable, but in today's market, that's not enough. Engines also need to be powerful and efficient! If you're a VW fan, then maybe the VR6 is acceptable, but at this point, VW needs to win back it's reputation with excellent overall product. (Mediocre engines won't cut it!)

So, after reading through 7 pages of this thread, it appears that it will probably be 2020 at the earliest, before VW might fit a suitable engine to the Atlas in North America.

I feel sorry for VW USA engineers who poured thousands upon thousands of hours designing this vehicle. only to be harpooned by corrupt and criminal VW upper management (via Dieselgate).

By the time VW decides to fix this engine issue, poor sales of the Atlas may have convinced the public it's a bad vehicle, when in fact, it's a fine vehicle in search of an engine. What a pity!


----------



## sayemthree (Mar 2, 2006)

KirkK said:


> I was extremely impressed by the Atlas when I first saw it at the auto show. Then I test drove it (several times), each time highly impressed with everything but the engine. And yes, the VR6 may be reliable, but in today's market, that's not enough. Engines also need to be powerful and efficient! If you're a VW fan, then maybe the VR6 is acceptable, but at this point, VW needs to win back it's reputation with excellent overall product. (Mediocre engines won't cut it!)
> 
> So, after reading through 7 pages of this thread, it appears that it will probably be 2020 at the earliest, before VW might fit a suitable engine to the Atlas in North America.
> 
> ...


 Many euro manufacturers do not even market any NA engines any more. I agree the vr6 is the weak point of the 4 motion atlas


----------



## kain2thebrain (Mar 25, 2018)

I'm curious about who has compared the Atlas against it's competition, as opposed to what they think it should be as a VW.

I test drove a lot of the cars in this segment (3rd row midsize crossover/suv ~$35k starting price) and against competition the Atlas shines. 

The Honda Pilot I've seen mentioned feels so slow, regardless of what the specs say. Maybe that's preference for a standard transmission vs CVT.

Ford Explorer feels like it weighs twice as much as the Atlas, and I don't think the transmission helps with the feeling of sluggishness.

I'm not coming from anything with high performance here. My last car was a 2.5L NA Chevy Equinox. I'm just a guy who wanted an SUV to haul hus family that it also a joy to drive.

And guys, the Atlas is a great drive. Compared to everything else I drove, this thing just feels so good. Smooth acceleration, power when I need, handles like a dream. This isn't a performance ride for enthusiasts, no. But it's not meant to be.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ribbit (Jun 4, 2012)

If you can do it just move to the Q7 and get the engine the Atlas should have. I hate to say it ,but after a TREG TDI all these options seem lame. Hoping against hope the Diesel will make a come back.:banghead::banghead:


----------



## KirkK (Apr 3, 2018)

kain2thebrain said:


> "The Honda Pilot I've seen mentioned feels so slow, regardless of what the specs say. Maybe that's preference for a standard transmission vs CVT."
> 
> 
> Umm... The Pilot does not have a CVT, and is the quickest and probably most efficient vehicle in this segment. I would jump on an Atlas in a second if it had the Pilot's engine! (or something similar) From purely a performance standpoint, the VR6 is Ok. The big problem for me is it's poor economy at real highway speeds.


----------



## kain2thebrain (Mar 25, 2018)

KirkK said:


> kain2thebrain said:
> 
> 
> > "The Honda Pilot I've seen mentioned feels so slow, regardless of what the specs say. Maybe that's preference for a standard transmission vs CVT."
> ...


----------



## jingranbury (Mar 21, 2018)

My friend has a 2017 Pilot touring edition... He gave me sometime to drive it before I bought my Atlas... Yes, it has a bit more power, but it does not feel much more powerful than the Atlas, at least to me... While it does not have a CVT transmission it has an abysmal 9 speed transmission and hunts for gears all the time... Even my friend does not like the transmission... Add to that that all the controls for the radio, and climate control are touchscreen only, trying to adjust anything while driving is a distraction nightmare... Dollar for dollar , features, interior space, and, a usable infotainment system I deemed the Atlas a better vehicle for me and my style of driving... I'm no longer interested in 0 to 60 times since I am now in my late 60's, and, the power on the road is smooth and more than adequate for me... I came out of a 2011 Ford Flex with 262 HP and the Atlas is superior power wise in every way... Besides, I like the styling and ride comfort of the Atlas better than the Pilot... Happy to be a newer Atlas owner...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 9, 2018)

*2.5L V6 Turbo from Chinese version of Atlas (Teramont)*

The Chinese version of the Atlas is called the Teramont and offers a 2.5L V6 Turbo engine (more powerful than the VR6 in the U.S. Atlas). Does anyone think we will see this engine in the 2019 Atlas in the U.S.?


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

No, of course not. You think we are months away from the 2019 model and no one in the press has figured this out?......:screwy:


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

I doubt it. Not even midcycle yet.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## MMeachGLI (Feb 1, 2014)

I don’t think it will make it stateside. It would be nice to have that option though.


----------



## akisaka (Jul 9, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> The Chinese version of the Atlas is called the Teramont and offers a 2.5L V6 Turbo engine (more powerful than the VR6 in the U.S. Atlas). Does anyone think we will see this engine in the 2019 Atlas in the U.S.?


2.5T VR6 is probably designed for Chinese market. Due to tax issue, you'll pay roughly 20% more for a 3.6L engine than a 2.5T there. That's why vw put a 2.5T in high trim teramont instead of 3.6L in China.

Rumor has it that vw made this 2.5T base on 3.0 VR6 engine. It's more likely that we'll see 3.0T VR6 in the future, but I doubt if Atlas could get it.


----------

