# Altlas 2nd in 5 three row SUV comparison test



## jkopelc (Mar 1, 2017)

*C/D 3 Row Comparison Test*

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...t?src=nl&mag=cdb&list=nl_dvr_news&date=071417


----------



## Tall Mini (Apr 20, 2011)

Interesting to see how they roasted the Pilot. We looked at one as well and the space was not comparable (which they admit is also true of the Mazda which we also looked at.) Agree whole heartedly with their take on driving the Atlas. Once you get past the numbers it really is enjoyable to drive in the real world. Seems to be getting better as we put more miles on it (can't say that for the mileage however.)

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## jkopelc (Mar 1, 2017)

Interestingly enough, the CX-9 only surpassed the VW once the total from the last category was added - based on it getting 23 versus 18 points on the Atlas (which I would have to say is the most subjective category of them all) and only besting the Atlas by 2 (with a total score of 205 versus 203)


----------



## chipster (May 30, 2017)

*Coming from Jeep Commander ...*

What a big difference in overall cabin and cargo room from our previous Jeep Commander with 3rd row up to our Atlas SE w/ Tech. I've had 7 passengers (3 adults and 4 kids 8-11) with full trunk comfortably fit. 
Very happy with the extra space


----------



## AusinTX (Jun 21, 2007)

Car and Driver:

http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...acadia-honda-pilot-mazda-cx-9-comparison-test

They tested top of the line versions, i.e. SEL Premium

1. Mazda CX9
2. VW Atlas 
3. GMC Acadia
4. Honda Pilot
5. Dodge Durango


----------



## jkueter (Feb 12, 2008)

Use the search function ...


----------



## Fgv1it (May 23, 2017)

Notice that the Mazda and Atlas are close together in the points total; the others are a fair distance behind. Also, the Atlas lost only after the "fun to drive" category was added in, the most subjective category of all. To me, considering size and the various other rankings, the Atlas is the winner in this comparison.


----------



## davidc1 (May 10, 2010)

Fgv1it said:


> Notice that the Mazda and Atlas are close together in the points total; the others are a fair distance behind. Also, the Atlas lost only after the "fun to drive" category was added in, the most subjective category of all. To me, considering size and the various other rankings, the Atlas is the winner in this comparison.


Totally agree.


----------



## fotchpd (Feb 19, 2004)

Fgv1it said:


> Notice that the Mazda and Atlas are close together in the points total; the others are a fair distance behind. Also, the Atlas lost only after the "fun to drive" category was added in, the most subjective category of all. To me, considering size and the various other rankings, the Atlas is the winner in this comparison.


I also agree.. and they gave it a "0" for towing? i looked at an SEL around my area and it had a tow hitch and ability to tow i believe 5k lbs. I thought all the SEL prem with 4motion had that.. maybe im wrong..


----------



## davidc1 (May 10, 2010)

Just a theory here but C&D couldn't get themselves to admit that Atlas is better. "Fun to drive" is their thing and thus had to figure out how to make Mazda win, even if Mazda would be the worst "minivan surrogate." There a many wagons with equal or better cargo space and drives better than CX-9.


----------



## gutefahrt (Jul 2, 2002)

Sounds like a dog off the line. Slowest through the slalom makes it less fun. I hope there's an improvement in year two. They improved the MIB in the Golf after year one of the MK7. I'm holding out for now.


----------



## Paroxetine (Jan 14, 2015)

The Ford Explorer would have come close to the Atlas


----------



## jkopelc (Mar 1, 2017)

Giving my 2 cents here as I have driven both the SEL Premium and the Explorer Platinum. So using the same categories as the reviewer did but only giving a plus, minus or zero (in instances where human bias plays a role) for the Atlas as compared to the Ex scores as follows:

DRIVER COMFORT: 0
ERGONOMICS: 0
SECOND-ROW COMFORT: 0 
SECOND-ROW SPACE: +1 (more hip room in the Atlas)
THIRD-ROW COMFORT +1 (due to below space)
THIRD-ROW SPACE: +1 (more hip and leg room in the Atlas)
CARGO SPACE: 0 (virtual tie)
TOWING CAPACITY: 0 (each tows 5000)
FEATURES/AMENITIES: 0 (virutal tie when it comes to digital dashes, LED headlights, driver assist systems, etc)
FIT AND FINISH: -1 (Platinum model has more soft touch leather and a leather dash)
INTERIOR STYLING: 0
EXTERIOR STYLING: 0
REBATES/EXTRAS: 0
AS-TESTED PRICE: +1 (Atlas top trim is cheaper)

1/4-MILE ACCELERATION: -1 (Explorer ecoboost does better)
FLEXIBILITY: 0
FUEL ECONOMY: 0 (fairly close in terms of economy numbers)
ENGINE NVH: -1 (more HP and torque in Explorer)
TRANSMISSION: +1 (8 speed in the Atlas)

PERFORMANCE: -1 (slight edge to Explorer)
STEERING FEEL: +1 (edge to Atlas with its adjustable steering - should be able to satisfy more drivers)
BRAKE FEEL: 0
HANDLING: 0
RIDE: 0

Total: +2

Based on my simple scoring method above, would have to agree that the Atlas comes out on top (based on the categories you can actually quantify with numbers). Feel free to comment further - but have left a number of zeros as those categories come down to preference.

Comparison data pulled from the following sources:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/car...volkswagen_atlas_2018?trims=40056161,40060134


----------



## is95a (Jul 6, 2017)

I would give a +2 to the Atlas for Driver Comfort. The Explorer has absolutely no space on the left side for your legs and any drive more than an hour would be very uncomfortable. By contras the Atlas has tons of room to strech out. I also think the SEL Premium should get a +1 due to the Digital Cockpit and customization. The Sync 2 on the explorer sucks (I am an ex Microsoft employee and can finally admit it is nowhere up to par with Apple Car Play, etc). Rebate should be -1, because they were discounting the platinum by close to $7-8k when we were looking. Cant remember if you compared the 6/72 warranty but that should be a +2


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

When I came back to my Atlas today there was a CX-9 parked next to it and they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder but boy that is 1 ugly awkward looking SUV. I peeked through the window and was surprised to see how narrow the fronts seats are and I wasn't a fan of the tacky pop-up screen. I'm sure the 500 people who buy a CX-9 will be happy but after seeing it in the person I'm even more glad I got the Atlas.


----------



## jkopelc (Mar 1, 2017)

You probably have a point on Driver comfort and based on my plus/minus scheme. (For those that haven't driven the Explorer, is95a is right, the dead pedal area for the explorer is extremely large and does not allow for a comfortable spot to rest your left leg. Either on the dead pedal but then for tall drivers like myself, your knee is bent up to the steering wheel or awkwardly beside the pedal and hopefully not in your way when you need to brake suddenly.) I would agree and give the Atlas +1 over the Explorer.

I left features/amenities at 0. Agree Sync 2 sucks, but they have moved on to Sync 3 now which is a super slick and fast system - hence the tie. My personal opinion also says I like the digital cockpit better but I tried to leave bias out. However I cant remember if the Explorer has the 360 camera anymore which would be another benefit. Additionally, the Atlas panoramic roof is a much more open panel, whereas the Explorer (while still being one pane of glass) still has a huge roll bar in the headliner which adds an artificial separation to it. So just maybe the Atlas squeaks out a +1 here.

Fair enough on the rebate at -1 as the Explorer has been on sale for a while with the Atlas just hitting the streets.

I think when I was rating cargo space I was only thinking behind the 3rd row which both are within a cubic ft of each other. However with all rows down the Atlas easily swallows up anything you can put into the Explorer and more. So I should probably revise this to +1

Based on the revised ratings above, the Atlas gains a net +2 (or +1 if not counting the feature/amenity category) to finish with a +4 (or +3) rating (and again as pointed out this doesn't factor the warranty in which I would definitely give a +1 if there was a category)


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

gutefahrt said:


> Sounds like a dog off the line. Slowest through the slalom makes it less fun. I hope there's an improvement in year two. They improved the MIB in the Golf after year one of the MK7. I'm holding out for now.


I mentioned numerous times here. It is so underpowered that Toyota Highlander feels like GTI compare to Atlas. 
When I test drove it my wife summed it up best: I have a feeling this poor thing will have cardiac arrest.


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

edyvw said:


> I mentioned numerous times here. It is so underpowered that Toyota Highlander feels like GTI compare to Atlas.
> When I test drove it my wife summed it up best: I have a feeling this poor thing will have cardiac arrest.


Oh edy I've missed your Atlas whining so much, welcome back!


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

GjR32 said:


> Oh edy I've missed your Atlas whining so much, welcome back!


Man I am not going anywhere until they put that 2.5 V6 TSI in Atlas. 
Just to mention again, it is a f.....g snail.


----------



## Hajduk (Jan 24, 2000)

Paroxetine said:


> The Ford Explorer would have come close to the Atlas


Nope. C&D doesn't rate the Explorer highly at all.


----------



## GjR32 (Dec 22, 2010)

edyvw said:


> Man I am not going anywhere until they put that 2.5 V6 TSI in Atlas.
> Just to mention again, it is a f.....g snail.


I'm sure VW will announce any day now just what you want to stop your whining.


----------



## gutefahrt (Jul 2, 2002)

Explorer ecoboost hits 60 two seconds faster than the glacial Atlas. But the Exploder ranks 7th in 3-rows. 

http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/explorer


----------



## gutefahrt (Jul 2, 2002)

Explorer ecoboost hits 60 two seconds faster than the glacial Atlas. But the Exploder ranks 7th in 3-rows. 

http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/explorer

Is the 2.5 TSI a turbo? Is it in a current VW?


----------



## edyvw (May 1, 2009)

gutefahrt said:


> Explorer ecoboost hits 60 two seconds faster than the glacial Atlas. But the Exploder ranks 7th in 3-rows.
> 
> http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/explorer
> 
> Is the 2.5 TSI a turbo? Is it in a current VW?


2.5 V6 TSI is new engine and it is engine available to Chinese version of Atlas, Teramont (or whatever the name is) with, hear this, 7 speed DSG. 
As for Explorer, while Ecoboost has much more power (most importantly, torque) it has a lot of infant issues that VW/Audi 1st gen. TFSI engines had.


----------



## Szy_szka (Aug 26, 2010)

AusinTX said:


> Car and Driver:
> 
> http://www.caranddriver.com/compari...acadia-honda-pilot-mazda-cx-9-comparison-test
> 
> ...


That order is not correct. As a Durango owner I have to make this list right: 

1. Mazda CX9
2. VW Atlas 
3. GMC Acadia
4. Dodge Durango
5. Honda Pilot


----------



## giantsnation (Dec 15, 2014)

After looking at some cars recently, I'm a little surprised they didn't throw a 2018 traverse in this dog fight. The new Traverse is right in line with the Atlas (size and price wise) and I was really impressed when I test drove one.


----------



## jkueter (Feb 12, 2008)

giantsnation said:


> After looking at some cars recently, I'm a little surprised they didn't throw a 2018 traverse in this dog fight. The new Traverse is right in line with the Atlas (size and price wise) and I was really impressed when I test drove one.


Isn't that the same thing as the Acadia?


----------



## jkopelc (Mar 1, 2017)

I was going to say the same thing. Pretty much a lower version of the Acadia - although for 2017 MY, the Acadia has actually shrunk in size. However for the purposes of this comparison test, I would say that anything the Traverse gains in size it would lose in fit, finish and feel (being that Chev is the lowest model line GM offers)


----------



## giantsnation (Dec 15, 2014)

jkopelc said:


> I was going to say the same thing. Pretty much a lower version of the Acadia - although for 2017 MY, the Acadia has actually shrunk in size. However for the purposes of this comparison test, I would say that anything the Traverse gains in size it would lose in fit, finish and feel (being that Chev is the lowest model line GM offers)


I would have thought the same but it didn't feel cheap inside and everything was solid and the seams were all dead straight. In the past, I had a 2012 chevy cruze that was fantastic and in fact, the only reason I went back to a VW was purely based on size otherwise I would have kept the car.


----------



## dbjb (Sep 10, 2017)

The 2018 Traverse and Buick Enclave are completely revised and contenders. We almost bought one but the wife preferred the styling of the VW


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

*4cyl turbo v6 alternative 3 row suvs*

This whole 4cyl turbo v6 alternative 3 row SUV thing is taking off. Not sure how I feel about it. Here's the list I noticed. 

Audi q7 2.0t
Chevy traverse redline 2.0t
Ford explorer 2.3t
Mazda cx9 2.5t
Subaru ascent 2.4t
Vw atlas 2.0t

Edit: adding XC90 t5 2.0t


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

If only they had the towing capacity. Someday they will!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

add Volvo XC90. all 2.0 boosted engines. turbos and turbo + supercharger


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

BsickPassat said:


> add Volvo XC90. all 2.0 boosted engines. turbos and turbo + supercharger


With towing too boot!


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

BsickPassat said:


> add Volvo XC90. all 2.0 boosted engines. turbos and turbo + supercharger


True we could add the XC90 t5. I think the t6 is an unfair comparison as it is twin charged.


----------



## tallguy09 (Nov 14, 2016)

Myself love the CX-9 Design, also interior more upscale. Atlas looks more old school to me, much more conservative.
From all SUV’s I most like the CX-9.
It’s all subjective for sure.




GjR32 said:


> When I came back to my Atlas today there was a CX-9 parked next to it and they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder but boy that is 1 ugly awkward looking SUV. I peeked through the window and was surprised to see how narrow the fronts seats are and I wasn't a fan of the tacky pop-up screen. I'm sure the 500 people who buy a CX-9 will be happy but after seeing it in the person I'm even more glad I got the Atlas.


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

tallguy09 said:


> Myself love the CX-9 Design, also interior more upscale. Atlas looks more old school to me, much more conservative.
> From all SUV’s I most like the CX-9.
> It’s all subjective for sure.


I like the real wood trim in the CX9 better. Also the auburn leather is much richer looking than any of the interior options for the atlas. Plus, I wish the atlas had the heads up display from the cx9. but the digital cockpit is a nice alternative (when it works).


----------



## Daekwan (Nov 5, 2017)

tallguy09 said:


> Myself love the CX-9 Design, also interior more upscale. Atlas looks more old school to me, much more conservative.
> From all SUV’s I most like the CX-9.
> It’s all subjective for sure.


CX-9 looks the best and has the best quality interior.. but the actual utility of it is useless IMO. First of all Im 6'3" 230lbs, my wife is 5'10 and pregnant with twins. As you can imagine we are NOT small people. Sitting in the CX-9 felt cramped for me, Im sure it would for her too. She wouldn't even bother getting in after watching me struggle. The 2nd row leg room is tiny.. and much like the Toyota Highlander the 3rd row might as well not exist. The only people fitting into 3rd row of a CX-9 are children under the age of 8.

My shopping guidelines for a 3row SUV were pretty simple. I needed to fit in it.. all 3 rows if needed. So my first and simplest test is this: I get in the drivers seat of the vehicle and adjust it for my comfort and driving position. I think get immediately behind the drivers seat and do the same for the second row. I then get immediately behind that second row seat and sit in the 3rd. I found there were ONLY three vehicles in the crossover market where I was able to do this with a decent degree of comfort. Honda Pilot, Ford Explorer and VW Atlas. And out of those three I skipped the Explorer because its been the same design since 2011 (who wants to buy a brand new car.. that looks exactly like a seven year old used car?) and while we loved the Honda Pilot.. the VW Atlas made it feel like it was a generation behind. The Atlas looks/feels/is bigger, has more tech/safety features and quite frankly doesnt look like a 4 door minivan. The Atlas is chiseled and handsome.. the Pilot I honestly would be embarrassed to drive.. it looks like the typical soccer mom minivan with all the my kid is on the honor roll stickers on the back. Which is crazy considering the previous generation Pilot looked chiseled and handsome.. its like Honda engineers sat around a table and said how can we make the Pilot look much more feminine?


----------



## Atlas123 (Sep 18, 2017)

Daekwan said:


> My shopping guidelines for a 3row SUV were pretty simple. I needed to fit in it.. all 3 rows if needed. So my first and simplest test is this: I get in the drivers seat of the vehicle and adjust it for my comfort and driving position. I think get immediately behind the drivers seat and do the same for the second row. I then get immediately behind that second row seat and sit in the 3rd. I found there were ONLY three vehicles in the crossover market where I was able to do this with a decent degree of comfort. Honda Pilot, Ford Explorer and VW Atlas. And out of those three I skipped the Explorer because its been the same design since 2011 (who wants to buy a brand new car.. that looks exactly like a seven year old used car?) and while we loved the Honda Pilot.. the VW Atlas made it feel like it was a generation behind. The Atlas looks/feels/is bigger, has more tech/safety features and quite frankly doesnt look like a 4 door minivan. The Atlas is chiseled and handsome.. the Pilot I honestly would be embarrassed to drive.. it looks like the typical soccer mom minivan with all the my kid is on the honor roll stickers on the back. Which is crazy considering the previous generation Pilot looked chiseled and handsome.. its like Honda engineers sat around a table and said how can we make the Pilot look much more feminine?


Did you try the Traverse?


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

Daekwan said:


> CX-9 looks the best and has the best quality interior.


Yeah but the driver and passenger seat do not have thigh adjustments in a nearly $50k car. And the seat cushion is so short. Terrible and an automatic disqualifier.



Daekwan said:


> Honda Pilot, Ford Explorer and VW Atlas. And out of those three I skipped the Explorer because its been the same design since 2011 (who wants to buy a brand new car.. that looks exactly like a seven year old used car?)


Not to argue, but the explorer (while it is on the same essential design as 11') was just refreshed for the second time for 2018. So I wouldn't say that it is the "same design" just as I wouldn't say the second refresh of the Grand Cherokee in 2017 was the "same design." More evolutionary than the same.



Daekwan said:


> while we loved the Honda Pilot.. the VW Atlas made it feel like it was a generation behind. The Atlas looks/feels/is bigger, has more tech/safety features and quite frankly doesnt look like a 4 door minivan.


Also, what tech/safety features does the Atlas offer that the Explorer does not? Maybe 360 camera (but the explorer has 180 camera).


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

Atlas123 said:


> Did you try the Traverse?


I was going to say- My main comparison was the Traverse High Country. Each car had pros and cons much more comparable than the cliche pilot/explorer argument.


----------

