# Trading in Atlas for Subaru Asceant



## gvan1998 (Jun 26, 2017)

I recently bought my 4Motion SE Atlas V6 back in March. I like the looks and the size but the gas mileage just sucks. I can never reach 300 miles on a full tank of gas before getting the low fuel warning light, constantly going to the gas station. I was reviewing the Asceant, it does 27 highway mpg AWD, gets over 500 miles with full tank of gas, and almost comparable in cargo space. plus Subaru is known for reliability.
I know I will be losing several grand trading it in but we will see when the asceant gets released in June.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

Subaru is known for blowing head gaskets and ringlands. I know, I've owned several over the years, and see the same with friends that have them, too. Little forum you should visit and check warranty threads... nasioc.com 

Best of luck


----------



## TWong1200 (Apr 3, 2002)

This is an interesting topic as i'm currently shopping these two exact cars. The thing is, i've read so many differing opinions about gas mileage. Complete polar opposites in terms of MPGs. I don't get it. There has to be factors such as driving habits or terrain (i.e. living in the hills, etc.).


----------



## gvan1998 (Jun 26, 2017)

Seriously, I tried to drive like a grandma slowing down traffic, I did eventually get 310 miles before the low fuel light.


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

gvan1998 said:


> I know I will be losing several grand trading it in but we will see when the asceant gets released in June.


As long as you can make back the loss on the trade from the better mileage in the long run...


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

gvan1998 said:


> I recently bought my 4Motion SE Atlas V6 back in March. I like the looks and the size but the gas mileage just sucks. I can never reach 300 miles on a full tank of gas before getting the low fuel warning light, constantly going to the gas station. I was reviewing the Asceant, it does 27 highway mpg AWD, gets over 500 miles with full tank of gas, and almost comparable in cargo space. plus Subaru is known for reliability.
> I know I will be losing several grand trading it in but we will see when the asceant gets released in June.


So, in your little world, the bigger the fuel tank is the better the mileage? :screwy: Subaru, reliable?


----------



## AudiVW guy (Feb 7, 2006)

gvan1998 said:


> I recently bought my 4Motion SE Atlas V6 back in March. I like the looks and the size but the gas mileage just sucks. I can never reach 300 miles on a full tank of gas before getting the low fuel warning light, constantly going to the gas station. I was reviewing the Asceant, it does 27 highway mpg AWD, gets over 500 miles with full tank of gas, and almost comparable in cargo space. plus Subaru is known for reliability.
> I know I will be losing several grand trading it in but we will see when the asceant gets released in June.


i am in same boat - i can not get more than 480 KMs per tank it is annoying but we will be keeping ours
as i love the size


----------



## danporges (Dec 31, 2017)

I would agree on the miles per tank, but not the gas mileage. I am averaging over 20 mpg with mostly city and traffic driving and that in my experience is very good. The problem I have is the tank on the Atlas is very small and that is frustrating on longer trips. 

Regarding the Subaru, my father-in-law owns a machine shop that does a lot engine work. The single most common engine that get, especially up here in New England, is turbocharged subaru's. Also, while the mileage ratings on that big turbo four cylinder look good on paper, I know from my wife's CX-9 that the effect of a little traffic or stop-and-go driving on those engines is VERY steep drop in mileage.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

AudiVW guy said:


> i am in same boat - i can not get more than 480 KMs per tank it is annoying....


You live in an area without fueling stations?


----------



## cplus71 (Mar 14, 2018)

I think the Subaru will cost more for the same features.


----------



## bigjoebh (Jan 20, 2018)

VW should have put in a 20gal fuel tank, that being said she's a big girl lol


----------



## Rafale (Sep 14, 2017)

Interesting, I get about 360 miles on a full tank consistently


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

bigjoebh said:


> VW should have put in a 20gal fuel tank, that being said she's a big girl lol


Shortage of fueling stations where you travel?


----------



## KurtK (Feb 13, 2012)

bajan01 said:


> As long as you can make back the loss on the trade from the better mileage in the long run...


This will take an awful long time. Let's say the Subaru averages 3mpg better than the Atlas. You are only saving $250 per year on gas. The depreciation hit for trading in a one-year old vehicle is pretty steep. No large SUV is going to good on gas, at least not since VW/Audi stopped offering the TDI's.


----------



## AudiVW guy (Feb 7, 2006)

Rafale said:


> Interesting, I get about 360 miles on a full tank consistently


no where close to that. 
298 miles regularly


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

AudiVW guy said:


> no where close to that.
> 298 miles regularly


I am fairly sure that my wife’s Atlas got 25+ mpg on a recent 2.5hr trip. My heavily tuned SQ5 gets 21mpg without taking it easy.


----------



## Icantdrive65 (Nov 8, 2001)

Miles per tank is really irrelevant unless you are allergic to gas stations. The reserve when the fuel light comes on is almost three gallons.

I average 20 mpg in mostly hilly back road driving frequently with 5-7 people. We got 25 mpg on a 260 mile road trip last weekend in our SEL 4Motion with 5 people and gear.

Does anybody know what real world gas mileage is in the Ascent yet?

Also, every Subaru I have ever been in felt cheap. It's like they put a good drivetrain in it and then wrap it in an unfinished shell.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

The math on this is astounding. 3 or 4 mpge over a typical 12k year is a few hundred dollars. Tank size/range are independent of mpgs. My Focus gets an average of 30 and it needs filling at 11 gallons...that's 333 miles per tank....

My Atlas gets max of 26 on the highway and 16 in severe stop and go city driving. The Subi isnt going to do much better around town. You won't make up the money you are losing on the trade in the life of the vehicle based on mileage differences alone. People are hung up on the small tank/frequent fillings...mileage is mileage regardless of tank size and the annual costs are the same whether you have a large or small tank. And yes, I think the tank is too small.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sayemthree (Mar 2, 2006)

Icantdrive65 said:


> Miles per tank is really irrelevant unless you are allergic to gas stations. The reserve when the fuel light comes on is almost three gallons.


To some point yes. We had a S4 Avant six speed manual with the V8 engine. Around town had to fill up a LOT


----------



## Icantdrive65 (Nov 8, 2001)

sayemthree said:


> To some point yes. We had a S4 Avant six speed manual with the V8 engine. Around town had to fill up a LOT


I have heard those are pretty bad. Like 180 miles per tank or something?


----------



## sedelstein (Jul 13, 2017)

syntrix said:


> Subaru is known for blowing head gaskets and ringlands. I know, I've owned several over the years, and see the same with friends that have them, too. Little forum you should visit and check warranty threads... nasioc.com
> 
> Best of luck


Also don't forget oil consumption and (I think) bad CVT transmissions. While I don't think Subarus are awful cars, they arent anywhere near the tough Japanese tanks that people make them out to be. That's Toyota.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

sedelstein said:


> Also don't forget oil consumption and (I think) bad CVT transmissions. While I don't think Subarus are awful cars, they arent anywhere near the tough Japanese tanks that people make them out to be. That's Toyota.


Oh crap, forgot about the suby CVT. They die at like 20k and need replacements all the time. Not to mention really annoying to drive. More like a rubber band on two sticks for a tranny.


----------



## snobrdrdan (Sep 10, 2008)

Reality: any large (& heavy) SUV will get crappy mileage in stop & go/city driving
It'll do better on highway driving/trips though

If you do it, you're gonna lose a bunch of money on the Atlas (VW's don't hold their value very well) and probably be in the same boat with the Subie still


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

snobrdrdan said:


> .....(VW's don't hold their value very well)....


Backup data for that statement?


----------



## hipchack (Apr 15, 2018)

We had owned a 2009 Subaru Forester with non-turbo 4 cylinder. It had some occasional oil leaking issues starting at 70k miles which dealership noted was normal. At just over 101k miles it's head gasket had blown. If you read on the subie forums this was an, unfortunately, common issue with their 4 cylinder engines. I had read no issues with their v6 engines and if I bought another subie would go for that. I would not trust an untested subie 2.4L twin turbo 4 cylinder. I would wait for 1-2 generations.


----------



## atlas7 (May 29, 2017)

Anyone looking for better mileage check out the new Ford V6 coming with the 2019 Expedition...gas or diesel and the diesel is expected to get 42mpg IN AN EXPEDITION!!! I LOVE MY ATLAS and most things about it but my JSW TDI is what I use for distant driving. I will not dump my Atlas to get better mileage from anything. I got the Atlas for size and convenience, which it delivers. Now I am working on lowering, lightening, and improving fuel economy as I would do with any vehicle I buy but not whine about some other vehicle that may do something better than mine...continuous improvement (Kai zen I think in Japanese) is the only approach. THERE IS NO PERFECT CAR FOR EVERYONE and that is why we have soooo many choices. Make mine my way and yours your way and we can all be happy:laugh:


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

hipchack said:


> .....their v6 engines.....


:screwy:


----------



## DCC (Oct 12, 2000)

snobrdrdan said:


> If you do it, you're gonna lose a bunch of money on the Atlas (VW's don't hold their value very well) and probably be in the same boat with the Subie still


What he said about VW values are 100% true


----------



## lschw1 (Apr 21, 2003)

By definition, when you buy an SUV type vehicle you are saying that mpg and distance between fill ups isn't important to you. The miles you go on a gas tank is also dependent on the size of the gas tank. Is the Subaru's tank bigger? Mpg is much more important than the miles between fill ups. I once had an 83 GTI that got 25mpg. It had a 10.4 gallon gas tank meaning you had to fill up at 200 miles, but you were only buying about 8-9 gallons. If you really cared about going a long way between fill ups, then you have to get one of the Jetta/Golf Sportwagen TDIs that are being released. I get over 500 miles per tank with my 2015 Golf Sportwagen and on trips get over 600. It usually takes me two to three weeks before I need to fill up my 13.5 gallon tank.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

lschw1 said:


> .....The miles you go on a gas tank is also dependent on the size of the gas tank.....


:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## mv213 (Dec 1, 2014)

atlas7 said:


> Anyone looking for better mileage check out the new Ford V6 coming with the 2019 Expedition...gas or diesel and the diesel is expected to get 42mpg IN AN EXPEDITION!!! I LOVE MY ATLAS and most things about it but my JSW TDI is what I use for distant driving. I will not dump my Atlas to get better mileage from anything. I got the Atlas for size and convenience, which it delivers. Now I am working on lowering, lightening, and improving fuel economy as I would do with any vehicle I buy but not whine about some other vehicle that may do something better than mine...continuous improvement (Kai zen I think in Japanese) is the only approach. THERE IS NO PERFECT CAR FOR EVERYONE and that is why we have soooo many choices. Make mine my way and yours your way and we can all be happy:laugh:


Dude, calm down. The Epedition diesel will NOT get 42 mpg. They just announced the F150 diesel at 30mpg. How do you figure the Expedition will get 40% better? It won’t. Figure 30-ish tops, if it ever gets introduced. Still good but nowhere near 40’s.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

mv213 said:


> Dude, calm down. The Epedition diesel will NOT get 42 mpg. They just announced the F150 diesel at 30mpg. How do you figure the Expedition will get 40% better? It won’t. Figure 30-ish tops, if it ever gets introduced. Still good but nowhere near 40’s.


You're doing well to get 30 in a vehicle that large...42...noway.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## 0macman0 (Nov 6, 2017)

KarstGeo said:


> You're doing well to get 30 in a vehicle that large...42...noway.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I’d still want the gas ecoboost motor over that diesel anyways, considerably more power and torque, runs on pump gas, still gets great fuel economy for a large SUV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jpik (Sep 11, 2017)

I just left Subaru for a Tiguan, I just can't imagine that sized vehicle with a Subaru CVT in it. I'll give Subaru props for very real world MPG's, and quality customer service. Thankfully it was good service, since Subaru's climate controls are lousy (loud, never really hot in the cold and never cold in the summer), my main wiring harness caught fire (melted those climate controls lol), my CVT was replaced under the class action (I was well out of warranty, fun fact a CVT for a 22K car actually costs almost 10K out of pocket and takes 5 weeks to acquire.) oh, and the 7,000 mile oil changes never really made sense, because Subaru says its normal for their engines to burn upto a quart every 1,500 miles...so buy the time you reach 7K you've already dumped 4 extra quarts into it.

I do miss my MPG's, but I'm happy with my move. I did go Tiguan while I wanted the Atlas, I just couldn't go from 28 MPG around town to sub 20.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

Good article on the Atlas's fuel economy.

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...las-fuel-economy-review-car-and-driver-page-3

Again...about 3 or 4 off so at $2.50 per gal and a 12k year $250 more to operate it. People are very hung up on the low range due to the tank size but obviously this has zero to do with the fuel mileage.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## knedrgr (Jun 6, 2011)

KarstGeo said:


> Good article on the Atlas's fuel economy.
> 
> https://www.caranddriver.com/review...las-fuel-economy-review-car-and-driver-page-3
> 
> ...



I too, never understood the concept of wanting a larger fuel tank, so one doesn't have to fuel up as often. You're basically carrying around extra weight with the larger tank. Understood that different driving habits and area of commute will play a large part of the MPG issue. But those issues won't go away with a different car. YMMV

Also, is the Subaru's turbo 4-banger rated for regular gas, or will it require premium? Now, the jump to premium is around $0.58/gal (in Ohio).

I had a heavily tuned 2003 WRX that required premium, sometime I would throw in 100 octane to have extra fun. But that was when there was roughly a $0.10 difference between grades of gas.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

knedrgr said:


> I too, never understood the concept of wanting a larger fuel tank, so one doesn't have to fuel up as often. You're basically carrying around extra weight with the larger tank. Understood that different driving habits and area of commute will play a large part of the MPG issue. But those issues won't go away with a different car. YMMV
> 
> Also, is the Subaru's turbo 4-banger rated for regular gas, or will it require premium? Now, the jump to premium is around $0.58/gal (in Ohio).
> 
> I had a heavily tuned 2003 WRX that required premium, sometime I would throw in 100 octane to have extra fun. But that was when there was roughly a $0.10 difference between grades of gas.


I actually would like a larger tank for a bit more range in-town. Fueling once a week isn't a huge deal but I just feel like a vehicle this size and with average mpgs in the upper teens/low 20s should have more than a 18.5 gal tank. You are correct though; the extra weight drops mpgs and that is why I think some manufacturers do this. I have read things online indicating that folks think that filling up more often due to a smaller tank equates to more money spent on gas over the year...math is very hard for some I suppose but then again, these are likely the same folks that buy vehicles based on monthly payments etc.


----------



## knedrgr (Jun 6, 2011)

For sake of discussion, some basic math between the two. This is based on the assumption that the new Ascent's turbo 4 requires to run on premium (assumption taken from the Forester's turbo 4's requirement). And to keep things on the same level, we'll use manufacture's claims, since there hasn't been an independent testing on the new Ascent.

Atlas AWD at 18.6 gal tank, and rated for 23mpg highway. Runs on 87 octane. Ohio's current pricing of 87 oct is $2.689/gal. Averages 12K miles/year. 

(12,000 miles / 23mpg) x $2.689 = $1,402.96 annual fuel cost


Ascent AWD at 19.3 gal tank, and rated for 27mpg highway. Runs on 93 octane. Ohio's current pricing of 93 oct is $3.267/ga. Averages 12K miles/year. 

(12,000 miles / 27 mpg) x $3.267 = $1,452.00 annual fuel cost.


So if the OP is going to get hose on a few grands in the trade-in value of the Atlas, and hope that he'll make it up with better fuel millage, it doesn't paint a pretty picture.


----------



## atlas7 (May 29, 2017)

mv213 said:


> Dude, calm down. The Epedition diesel will NOT get 42 mpg. They just announced the F150 diesel at 30mpg. How do you figure the Expedition will get 40% better? It won’t. Figure 30-ish tops, if it ever gets introduced. Still good but nowhere near 40’s.


If you saw the engine you would understand BUT, there are no guarantees on mileage but the whatever it is, it will be closer to 42 than 30. The horizontally opposed 6 is more Subaru than Ford and since the turbo/supercharged engine will knock the socks of previous mileage ratings for ANY truck size vehicle ever. Once you investigate this new engine and get your foot out of your mouth you will probably buy one yourself...it will not be out this year so any current motor is just that.


----------



## atlas7 (May 29, 2017)

0macman0 said:


> I’d still want the gas ecoboost motor over that diesel anyways, considerably more power and torque, runs on pump gas, still gets great fuel economy for a large SUV.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The new (coming next year at the earliest)engine, as I said is either gas or diesel, turbo and supercharged (think Audi) with opposed pistons and the Diesel is the more powerful one...far superior to any ecoboost on the market, https://youtu.be/UxON-Hllz5E
no sparkplugs and even the gas version is 37mpg...

I still love my ATLAS but if this had been around or known to me prior to purchase I would be in line for the first release...now I will wait for the second improved release and be happy with that one.


----------



## ebTDI (Dec 2, 2013)

We're about to trade in a 2009 Subaru Tribeca (the forgotten Subaru lol) for our Atlas. It has generally been a good vehicle, and has 99,500 miles on it right now. That said, Subarus eat front axles for lunch, power steering racks for dinner, and the turbo ones will have head gaskets as a midnight snack.

We did look at the Ascent as well, but the Atlas had more of what we wanted, with an engine that has a good reputation, and a standard auto trans. I haven't driven a Subaru CVT with a turbo engine, but the non-turbo 4-cyl with CVT... holy crap it's a dog at low speed, really have to wind it out. Then it was fine for merging, etc. Step up to the 3.6R Outback, and that was a very nice car. We had one as a loaner, and liked it a lot. Just too small for us.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

hipchack said:


> We had owned a 2009 Subaru Forester with non-turbo 4 cylinder. It had some occasional oil leaking issues starting at 70k miles which dealership noted was normal. At just over 101k miles it's head gasket had blown. If you read on the subie forums this was an, unfortunately, common issue with their 4 cylinder engines*. I had read no issues with their v6 engines *and if I bought another subie would go for that. I would not trust an untested subie 2.4L twin turbo 4 cylinder. I would wait for 1-2 generations.


You probably read no issues for the V6 engine because Subaru doesn't make a V6. The 3.6 flat-6 motor has had some head gasket issues also.


----------



## hipchack (Apr 15, 2018)

Yes. My mistake, 3.6L flat six engine and not a v6.


----------



## beastcivic (May 27, 2003)

**Full disclosure, I'm a Subaru Ambassador**

I've got to chime in since I've had at least 10 Subarus between myself, my wife, and close family members (not to mention 20+ among my friends). The dreaded "head gasket issue" wasn't as prolific as people make it out to be. And, that has been essentially fixed with the 2010 2.5L and newer motors. The 3.6L had very few head gasket issues in general.

The 2.4L DIT in the Ascent is going to be new, so who knows what issues might (or might not) exist with it. The Ascent is built on the Subaru global platform, which has been around since 2017 with the Impreza being the first (at least in America) to go to the platform.

I'm excited about the Ascent, I've not been able to see it in person. I wasn't really impressed with the Atlas, I thought I would be, but the couple I sat in just wasn't what I was expecting/hoping for. I had a 2016 Honda Pilot Touring for about 5 months which I liked, and is sort of my benchmark for 7/8 seater SUVs going forward. 

I am fearful the power output won't be amazing on the Subaru (and from what I've read around here, the Atlas needs more power too). The Pilot was pretty quick (if I remember sub 7 second 0-60) and had good highway passing power. I'm hoping the low RPM torque the Subaru turbo motor offers will be all the Ascent needs to get moving and passing on the highway.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

beastcivic said:


> **Full disclosure, I'm a Subaru Ambassador**
> 
> I've got to chime in since I've had at least 10 Subarus between myself, my wife, and close family members (not to mention 20+ among my friends). The dreaded "head gasket issue" wasn't as prolific as people make it out to be. And, that has been essentially fixed with the 2010 2.5L and newer motors. The 3.6L had very few head gasket issues in general.
> 
> ...


The DIT motor will more than likely emphasize flat torque curve rather than peak horsepower. It's not a STI afterall. But it's going to be saddled with a CVT for the sake of fuel economy. Subaru hasn't had much luck with CVT reliability, since they are considered to be disposable transmissions to Subaru, at a big cost to the customer. Plus, with some harder off-road situations (where 99% of owners will never test a Subaru this hard), the CVT will "give up" to avoid overheating the transmission.


----------



## beastcivic (May 27, 2003)

BsickPassat said:


> The DIT motor will more than likely emphasize flat torque curve rather than peak horsepower. It's not a STI afterall. But it's going to be saddled with a CVT for the sake of fuel economy. Subaru hasn't had much luck with CVT reliability, since they are considered to be disposable transmissions to Subaru, at a big cost to the customer. Plus, with some harder off-road situations (where 99% of owners will never test a Subaru this hard), the CVT will "give up" to avoid overheating the transmission.


We'll have to see how the CVT works out, that's true. They do have the higher torque CVT for the 3.6L, and I haven't heard of issues with it. But, I do know they have had issues with the first CVT in the 2.5L NA motors.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

beastcivic said:


> We'll have to see how the CVT works out, that's true. They do have the higher torque CVT for the 3.6L, and I haven't heard of issues with it. But, I do know they have had issues with the first CVT in the 2.5L NA motors.


the 3.6R CVT has issues also, most of the time it can be solved by a new TCU flash from Subaru.

The first Subaru CVT, iirc, was found on the Subaru Justy.


----------



## beastcivic (May 27, 2003)

BsickPassat said:


> the 3.6R CVT has issues also, most of the time it can be solved by a new TCU flash from Subaru.
> 
> The first Subaru CVT, iirc, was found on the Subaru Justy.


Yep, you're right about the first CVT, just not attached to a 2.5L, they had tiny 1-1.1L output motors. Neat little cars.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

mv213 said:


> Dude, calm down. The Epedition diesel will NOT get 42 mpg. They just announced the F150 diesel at 30mpg. How do you figure the Expedition will get 40% better? It won’t. Figure 30-ish tops, if it ever gets introduced. Still good but nowhere near 40’s.



As if you have never seen a truck in the left freeway lane doing 10-15mph UNDER the speed limit? Hypermile it, diesels respond in a way without responding! FullD: I've owned a bunch of 7.3L diesels, and a crap ton of vw diesels. Oh and that 505D that exploded once 

I'd be interested in the early posters to come back and report how it's going with their searches... really hate the "I'm a suby expert, but I'm not a suby expert" tone already infecting this thread.


----------



## bach61 (Mar 10, 2018)

gvan1998 said:


> I recently bought my 4Motion SE Atlas V6 back in March. I like the looks and the size but the gas mileage just sucks. I can never reach 300 miles on a full tank of gas before getting the low fuel warning light, constantly going to the gas station. I was reviewing the Asceant, it does 27 highway mpg AWD, gets over 500 miles with full tank of gas, and almost comparable in cargo space. plus Subaru is known for reliability.
> I know I will be losing several grand trading it in but we will see when the asceant gets released in June.


Just took my wife's Mazda CX-9 3 row CUV out to Ouray, Durango and Telluride. 
* Colorado in general and those mountain areas are not know for the better mpg but after having this almost a year and this first real road trip, amazed at the power, comfort and mpg.... worst was 28 and best was 32 in 750 miles of travel. It offers 300 ft lbs torque out of the 4 cyl turbo. Kicks it in every way, real transmission, sporty handling, good ride and creature comforts. We have just over 10,000 miles on it now.

I just got the GolfSW S 4motion and loving it too.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

We drove the CX9..nowhere close to the size of the Atlas in terms of third row and space behind third row.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jmarkisz (Jan 8, 2017)

*Subaru Input*



gvan1998 said:


> I recently bought my 4Motion SE Atlas V6 back in March. I like the looks and the size but the gas mileage just sucks. I can never reach 300 miles on a full tank of gas before getting the low fuel warning light, constantly going to the gas station. I was reviewing the Asceant, it does 27 highway mpg AWD, gets over 500 miles with full tank of gas, and almost comparable in cargo space. plus Subaru is known for reliability.
> I know I will be losing several grand trading it in but we will see when the asceant gets released in June.


For what it’s worth, I had 3 VW TDI’s and loved them but opted for the VW TDI Diesel Gate Buy Back. I turned in 2 2016’s TDI’s each with 30,000 miles for just about what we purchased them for. I loved them but they were expensive to maintain even doing the maintenance myself. I then purchased 2 Foresters and never looked back. The Foresters are outstanding for the money. I didn’t go with the Turbo but have all of the other options in our Touring models. Great quality, mileage, safety features and cargo space. I also have a 2010 Outback with 136,000 miles and never had a problem with it. It’s a work horse and super reliable. I have friends with Subaru’s with 200,000 trouble free miles too. A good friend of mine has the Audi Q5 TDI with nothing but problems. Do your research such as Consumer Reports and use Costco’s auto program for your best dealer pricing too. Good luck!


----------



## Shangus (Nov 2, 2014)

I just bought an Atlas SEL R-Line but we test drove the CX-9 as well. I really liked it but felt that with 5-6 passengers it didn't give me the confidence that it would have enough power from 40-70 for passing, etc. We would have been using it as the family everyday hauler and I felt that the V6 of the Atlas would be more suited for that. The Atlas 'felt' like it had more power in that band although I know the engine is rated for lower torque than the Mazda's turbo 4. I really love the looks of the CX-9 though, and could only accept an R-Line Atlas and in a pinch maybe would have gotten away with the black or dark gray non-R-Line version.

As for the Ascent, the styling screams late '90s to me, and I think it is weird that the car's release date is still unknown and you can't really price it completely yet. Nothing against Subaru, as I complained about the Atlas's styling too...


----------



## bach61 (Mar 10, 2018)

KarstGeo said:


> We drove the CX9..nowhere close to the size of the Atlas in terms of third row and space behind third row.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk




My fault. I got to the conversation a bit later in the thread than I thought as my screen didn't show another page. 

My mention of fuel mileage wasn't really honing in on cargo / passenger stats at all, just putting it out there that more than a few vehicles these days shine in the mpg category and apropos to those with mpg concerns. I didn't note the space or cargo concerns in the OP. 
If a/the chief concern is cargo room or adult 3rd row comfort, those are legit shopping criteria. Tough to find the No Compromise vehicle's these days but we got lucky with this as a daily commuter, grand kid hauler and sometime road trip cruiser.


----------



## Only1Z (Oct 15, 2006)

jmarkisz said:


> For what it’s worth, I had 3 VW TDI’s and loved them but opted for the VW TDI Diesel Gate Buy Back. I turned in 2 2016’s TDI’s each with 30,000 miles for just about what we purchased them for. I loved them but they were expensive to maintain even doing the maintenance myself. I then purchased 2 Foresters and never looked back. The Foresters are outstanding for the money. I didn’t go with the Turbo but have all of the other options in our Touring models. Great quality, mileage, safety features and cargo space. I also have a 2010 Outback with 136,000 miles and never had a problem with it. It’s a work horse and super reliable. I have friends with Subaru’s with 200,000 trouble free miles too. A good friend of mine has the Audi Q5 TDI with nothing but problems. Do your research such as Consumer Reports and use Costco’s auto program for your best dealer pricing too. Good luck!


I had a 2012 manual Passat TDI and routinely got 800 miles per tank. Big tank and 45 mpg equals once a month fill-ups...lol. When going on trips where I'd get 50+ mpg, 900 miles could be done. 

I replaced it with a 2017 Golf R. Filling up once a month doesn't equal the enjoyment I get now.


----------



## jspirate (Jan 15, 2011)

I just want to get in to this thread count before it gets REALLY silly.


----------



## sayemthree (Mar 2, 2006)

I really really hate CVT transmissions. The atlas 8 speed is great.


----------



## Aonarch (Dec 4, 2006)




----------



## Atlas53 (Jan 29, 2018)

*Subaru vs VW*

One thing not mentioned is the fun-to-drive factor. I have not driven an Ascent - no one has except for engineers, really. However, I have driven my Father's '16 Outback. It is an appliance on wheels. The CVT transmission is a strange beast. My VW Atlas is fun to drive and the transmission works well, engineered to shift quickly and almost imperceptibly. Every time my Father rode in my Atlas (he just passed away), he'd ask the same question - "Want to trade?" I demonstrated the lane assist for him while driving down the Garden State Parkway, taking my hands off of the wheel and letting the car steer itself - he loved it.
I remember the '79 Subaru DL I had. Blew a head gasket, pulled the engine out in my garage and took it apart. I recall having to shim the cylinder liners so that they stood proud of the block a certain amount and would crush the gasket to seal it when you tightened the head down. Put a new clutch plate in while I had it out. Of course, the clutch plate was made out of spec - too thick - and it wouldn't release. Had to pull the engine out to fix that, again, in an unheated garage, in Michigan, in the winter.


----------



## trbochrg (Dec 1, 2004)

bigjoebh said:


> VW should have put in a 20gal fuel tank, that being said she's a big girl lol


Yeah, i think my wife's Touareg is a 26 gallon tank. We routinely get 500+ miles to a tank


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

I'm a Subaru ambassador as well. It is ascent not asceant and it is surprisingly low quality compared to the atlas. Much more like a Highlander (which is no surprise as it shares parts like the pano roof and switch gear)

Having said that I think we all know how I feel about the atlas given my experience.


----------



## nyca (Apr 15, 2002)

Saw the Ascent at a recent auto show - the third row rear seat is very tight. The layout of the vehicle is not optimum - has a long hood despite having a short 4 cylinder engine. Why? Packaging is all wrong, needed a 3-4" shorter engine bay and 3-4 inches more interior length dimension for leg room. Packaging on it just doesn't work for a 7 seater if you really want a usable third row seat for anyone except children. Otherwise, interior and such were fine. Can't comment on CVT because I didn't drive it.

Looked at every 7 seater SUV in this size/price class - the Atlas and the Traverse are the two class leaders.


----------



## GTINC (Jan 28, 2005)

nyca said:


> ....The layout of the vehicle is not optimum - has a long hood despite having a short 4 cylinder engine. Why? Packaging is all wrong, needed a 3-4" shorter engine bay and 3-4 inches more interior length dimension for leg room.....


A longitudinal flat 4 is a lot longer than a transverse inline 4. Same reason an Audi A4 has a longer nose than a Passat.


----------



## BsickPassat (May 10, 2010)

Because the engine is located forward of the transmission. Part of the symettric AWD layout.


nyca said:


> Saw the Ascent at a recent auto show - the third row rear seat is very tight. The layout of the vehicle is not optimum - has a long hood despite having a short 4 cylinder engine. Why? Packaging is all wrong, needed a 3-4" shorter engine bay and 3-4 inches more interior length dimension for leg room. Packaging on it just doesn't work for a 7 seater if you really want a usable third row seat for anyone except children. Otherwise, interior and such were fine. Can't comment on CVT because I didn't drive it.
> 
> Looked at every 7 seater SUV in this size/price class - the Atlas and the Traverse are the two class leaders.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## sedelstein (Jul 13, 2017)

ice4life said:


> I'm a Subaru ambassador as well. It is ascent not asceant and it is surprisingly low quality compared to the atlas. Much more like a Highlander (which is no surprise as it shares parts like the pano roof and switch gear)
> 
> Having said that I think we all know how I feel about the atlas given my experience.


I can't blame you about being bitter with your experience. I've been there too with the Detroit "big 3". It's amazing how something as simple as one single part, can sour someone to a brand.


----------



## KarstGeo (Jan 19, 2018)

nyca said:


> Saw the Ascent at a recent auto show - the third row rear seat is very tight. The layout of the vehicle is not optimum - has a long hood despite having a short 4 cylinder engine. Why? Packaging is all wrong, needed a 3-4" shorter engine bay and 3-4 inches more interior length dimension for leg room. Packaging on it just doesn't work for a 7 seater if you really want a usable third row seat for anyone except children. Otherwise, interior and such were fine. Can't comment on CVT because I didn't drive it.
> 
> Looked at every 7 seater SUV in this size/price class - the Atlas and the Traverse are the two class leaders.


The tight third row is the Achilles heel of most of these newer CUVs and is why the Atlas was our choice. It's truly a reasonable alternative to a full-size truck-based SUV.


----------



## loopless (Oct 4, 2007)

Average person owns a car for 6 years. With a 72,000/6 year warranty, any 'supposed' reliability issues that one might perceive are then basically irrelevant when buying an Atlas. I also imagine this props up used prices nicely. So what supposed benefits does the new Subaru, that no-one has driven, have? The 2.0 in the Atlas runs on non-premium gas, and likely will be close to the Subaru in economy, so that 'fuel-saving' argument is blown.


----------



## ice4life (Nov 6, 2017)

loopless said:


> Average person owns a car for 6 years. With a 72,000/6 year warranty, any 'supposed' reliability issues that one might perceive are then basically irrelevant when buying an Atlas. I also imagine this props up used prices nicely. So what supposed benefits does the new Subaru, that no-one has driven, have? The 2.0 in the Atlas runs on non-premium gas, and likely will be close to the Subaru in economy, so that 'fuel-saving' argument is blown.


Yeah except *you cannot get a 2.0t Atlas with AWD* which kind of negates the point of a large crossover for a lot of buyers. I would not be able to run a FWD crossover in Denver and I am not the only one who feels weird spending $40+k on a 2WD SUV. Texas and Florida might be exceptions, but like i said, a majority of people would fight that one.

And remember just because the Atlas has the great warranty, does not mean that the staff of people "trained" to work on it actually know their ass from their elbow. That was why VW group of America ended up buying my Atlas back after 4 months. They either cannot get parts, or once they get the parts, they have no fukin clue how to actually fix the car. Some warranty- or as I told VW group of America (when i finally got to them), *a warranty is only as good as the parts and people who back it up. *


----------

