Welcome to the forum Ramzi

I had a '17 Jetta SEL with the 4cyl Turbo and it had plenty of power and then some, I'm sure it would work for your use stated above.

For me personally I went with the V6 in the event that my truck was not available for a tow providing it was on the lighter side
the thing that really amazed me was my insurance was less on my Atlas because or the non turbo engine, I actually called
to make sure it was not a mistake and it wasn't.

I'm sure more members will be checking in so hang in there

Again, Welcome !

 

Hey MrAtlas!

I test drove both and found that they drive very differently since the v4 has the turbo kicking in!

From the looks of it, we will be settling for a 2.0 since we are getting quite a sweet deal for the in-shop demo

 

Hey Ramzi,

Fantastic News ! be sure to post up a few pictures when you take delivery

 

Location: Ontario, Canada

Greetings future fellow Atlas owners!

My wife and I (parents of two young children) are looking to purchase an Atlas Cross Sport 2020 (AWD) and are debating between the 2.0L and the 3.6L engine.

I’ve read that the fuel consumption on both os pretty similar but I’ve always known that v6 engines consume at least 15-20% more fuel than their v4 counterparts.

We’ve never really needed to hitch anything to our vehicle and have never owned a v6 vehicle before since we’ve mostly lived in cities and fuel consumption/environment is an important factor.

From your experience with the Atlas and/or Cross Sport, which engine would you recommend?

Thanks!!

I owned a 3.6 Atlas for 3 years and have now had a 3.6 cross-sport for 2 months. Average mileage around town/city is predictably about 18-19 mpg and highway driving at an average of 70-75 mph I'd put predictable average around 26. I find the 3.6 suitable for the size and weight of the cross-sport. With the improved steering and handling, the power is quite adequate and while not a true German luxury car, it is a very worthy vehicle. I do pull a utility trailer for various reasons...therefore never even considered the 4 cylinder option.

 

I'd always go with EA888 Gen3, though it has lower output than the VR6, but you can always APR tune the car. With Stage 1 you still have factory warranty and you will end up with more power and torque than the VR6.

 

Any ECU upgrades/modifications performed on your VW by anyone other than Volkswagen will most definitely void your warranty! This is really bad advice.

 

Thanks for the info and insights....I also enjoy a good discussion/debate.

I agree with your towing assessment...but another area I’d like to explore is the whole concept of putting a 2.0 litre 4-banger in a big vehicle that weighs over 4 thousand pounds...that can carry up to 7 people, their luggage and tow another 2,000 pounds? That seems like a lot of stress for a small motor...or am I being old-fashioned? Isn’t this the same motor originally designed of the Golf GTI? The power (HP & Torque) are probably acceptable, but what I’m concerned about is the stress on the motor. Is there any long term history/data to support this kind of configuration...or is it just a silly trend by automakers to improve fuel economy numbers on paper? Or am I just rambling...? LOL

Like many others, I too was confused about the 2.0T motor and VW listing premium unleaded in the adverts for the 2018 model...but that messaging seems to have magically disappeared for current models. Funny how that happens. My guess it’s because there seems to be a trend lately in the CUV/SUV market where companies are trying to squeeze the most out of 4-bangers by upping the horsepower (and compression ratios)...which is requiring those motors to use premium unleaded...and VW doesn’t want people to think they need to put expensive gas in their cars to seem more competitive. Makes sense to me. 🤓

Also I fully understand the difference between regular and premium unleaded...especially in turbo/super-charged applications where the compression ratios are very high. The 2.0T in the Atlas seems to be at 10.5:1 under normal load, and up to 13:1 under boost (could be wrong...just going by the Wikipedia article listed below). If that is accurate, then 13:1 is easily managed with good regular gas...ie. little-to-no knock. When you start pushing high compression ratios (like a super-charged car I have that goes up to 24:1 😬)...then premium is a must!

I did some checking and I don’t fully understand why you keep calling the 2.0T motor in the Atlas the EA888? I believe it’s the EA113...the EA888 is very close in design (I think it was based on the EA113)...and is currently used in the Tiguan. The source of my info: List of Volkswagen Group petrol engines - Wikipedia

Cheers! 🍺

Thank you for the reply.
First of all, it is EA888 Gen 3😂. Volkswagen Atlas - Wikipedia Here's what Wiki has about Atlas. I only did a rough search online. EA113 you mentioned is TFSI, EA888 is TSI. I guess that's the main difference?

If not for the cheap price of the Atlas, I personally always prefer a bigger engine. So yeah, a little old fashioned 😅.
I assume, a 300hp 2.0T and a 300hp 3.0T running at peak power would consume similar amount of fuel and air, because of you know, physics. It's the less-than-peak scenario where smaller engine will shine. Less weight, less cyl, less displacement, equal to less fuel consumption. And for daily use, 99% of the time we are using the engine at less-than-peak level. And it's cheaper, That's why it is getting so popular. And make higher end cars more accessible.

As for your thought on "small horse large wagon", I partially agree. To be fair, with much newer technology, engines are more efficient, though they are getting smaller, getting less cyl, they have higher power to liter, or power per cyl ratios. So for the most user out there, for a compact SUV and alike, a 2.0T is well enough. Even for big cars like Atlas, BMW X5 and alike, high-output 2.0T offers less power than a bigger engine but it also saves weight. So it can still be properly quick off the line. Overtake on the highway does not feel any push in the back, but the speed goes up quickly enough. May feel a bit gasping for power when you are trying to floor it for fun, but for majority user scenarios (daily commute, city, highway, grocery trip, weekend road trip, etc), it is enough. I think the occasion where you simultaneously fill the car with 7 people and full of luggage while towing a 5000lbs trailer to be very rare😂.

Yes initially the 2.0T was for Golf and Jetta, for a 3-Series, for C-Class. But now they are on the big Atlas, the luxurious 7-Series, S-Class (in some regions), and even sports car like F-Type. For modern car engineering, almost everything is modular. Each same physical part can be reconfigured for a different car model to save cost. The majority of the parts of 2.0T from a 2020 Golf and a 2020 Atlas should be the same. The tuning is different and there may be some detailed change to accommodate for Atlas's heavier load and different user scenarios (more daily, less fun drive, etc).

Carmakers here also played with the gear ratios to make the car feel "more powerful" off the line. Of all the vehicles I've driven, 2016 Mustangs, 2.3T vs 5.0L V8, BMW 4-Series 2.0T vs 3.0T and 3.0 twinturbo (M4), and others, smaller 4 cyl engines always feel "more powerful" off the line because of a very short 1st gear. This can of course increase the happiness of everyday grocery drive for an average owner. So even after the test drive, some people would choose the smaller engine. (Like I did with my Cross Sport).

So overall, I think this is more of a trade-off problem that each customer has to deal with. With the VR6, on the up side, you get about 30+hp, you can worry less when you have your car filled with people and luggage and towing a trailer. On the down side, the VR6 powertrain it's heavier, thus the actual effective hp gain is less, there's more deadweight you are dragging. And more cyl roughly equals slightly worse fuel economy for city driving.

As for the fuel grade, I didn't know about 2018 and 2019 models. But they did claimed that 87 was acceptable for the EA888. (on the inside of the filler cap, it says 87 minimum, 89 recommended) Maybe the reason is like what you said.
Nowadays everything in the car, the trans software (TCU), the ECU, the anti-knocking, everything is "adaptive". So even for a supercharged vehicle with a 24:1 compression ratio like you said, as long as 87 is claimed acceptable, the engineers can make it work. Use software to detect knock and adjust timing and relative stuff to prevent knock for the next time. The end result is like I mentioned in the last post, lower grade fuel equals less power output. The ECU will try its best to protect the engine from blowing up. So no worries. If you put 87 in a 91minimum car, the CEL(Check Engine Light) will come on and the engine will not run, because the ECU protection is "out of range".

As for the potential of the 2.0T, AMG's 2.0T is other carmakers' pioneering example LOL (That small dude can crank up 400+hp stable).

 

Thank you for the reply.
First of all, it is EA888 Gen 3😂. Volkswagen Atlas - Wikipedia Here's what Wiki has about Atlas. I only did a rough search online. EA113 you mentioned is TFSI, EA888 is TSI. I guess that's the main difference?

That was the exact page I started on when trying to find what engines were in the Atlas...if you click one of the engine links on the right under “Powertrain” it will take you to the page I linked in a previous post (great minds...LOL). What’s confusing on that page is they have the EA113 listed under the North American Atlas, and the EA888 listed under the Chinese Teramont. Perhaps someone need to contact the author to fix things.

If not for the cheap price of the Atlas, I personally always prefer a bigger engine. So yeah, a little old fashioned 😅.
I assume, a 300hp 2.0T and a 300hp 3.0T running at peak power would consume similar amount of fuel and air, because of you know, physics. It's the less-than-peak scenario where smaller engine will shine. Less weight, less cyl, less displacement, equal to less fuel consumption. And for daily use, 99% of the time we are using the engine at less-than-peak level. And it's cheaper, That's why it is getting so popular. And make higher end cars more accessible.

Too bad VW doesn’t offer a V6 3.0T engine like they do for the Q7. They probably figure it would be too expensive...but I’m sure it would make for a sweet ride! We could debate all day which would use less fuel (2.0T vs 3.0T), but the reality is you couldn’t build a 2.0T engine to have the same power (HP and torque) as a 3.0T...assuming you are using the same build quality, turbos, etc. I figure all car manufacturers (not just VW) are going with the smaller engines (and thinner oils...more on this in another thread) to meet fuel economy ratings for both government requirements and marketing...not to make higher end cars more accessible. The latter being the job of the the stealer-ship’s finance folks offering 7 & 8 year financing.

As for your thought on "small horse large wagon", I partially agree. To be fair, with much newer technology, engines are more efficient, though they are getting smaller, getting less cyl, they have higher power to liter, or power per cyl ratios. So for the most user out there, for a compact SUV and alike, a 2.0T is well enough. Even for big cars like Atlas, BMW X5 and alike, high-output 2.0T offers less power than a bigger engine but it also saves weight. So it can still be properly quick off the line. Overtake on the highway does not feel any push in the back, but the speed goes up quickly enough. May feel a bit gasping for power when you are trying to floor it for fun, but for majority user scenarios (daily commute, city, highway, grocery trip, weekend road trip, etc), it is enough. I think the occasion where you simultaneously fill the car with 7 people and full of luggage while towing a 5000lbs trailer to be very rare😂.

You are probably right. The other thing is most people don’t buy cars to last anymore...especially millennials (now I’m showing my age...oops). I buy a car to last me a while, not to flip in 3-5 years. Chances are the folks that are fine with the 2.0T in a vehicle that is almost 4,500 lbs (without anyone in it) don’t worry about premature engine wear because they won’t have it that long. I have a 2.0T in my Tiguan...which works just fine for it’s “compact” size. But for a larger beast like the Atlas it doesn’t seem right to me. 🧐

Yes initially the 2.0T was for Golf and Jetta, for a 3-Series, for C-Class. But now they are on the big Atlas, the luxurious 7-Series, S-Class (in some regions), and even sports car like F-Type. For modern car engineering, almost everything is modular. Each same physical part can be reconfigured for a different car model to save cost. The majority of the parts of 2.0T from a 2020 Golf and a 2020 Atlas should be the same. The tuning is different and there may be some detailed change to accommodate for Atlas's heavier load and different user scenarios (more daily, less fun drive, etc).

I checked and the 2020 Golf is a 1.4T, not a 2.0T...and it’s a front wheel drive car that is just under 3,000 lbs (actually a lot heavier than you would think). Were you thinking of the Golf GTI? If so, the 2.0T engine in the GTI compared to the Atlas is very close in numbers, with the Altas have slightly higher HP (235 vs 228)...with the exact same torque numbers...but the fuel economy is very different (City: 21 vs 24 / Hwy: 24 vs 32). Which is clearly due to the greater size and shape of the Atlas. Yes, its the same engine, albeit tuned slightly differently, but you can’t deny it has to work that much harder to move the Atlas. So chances are the same engine won’t last as long in the Atlas compared to a Golf GTI (or even the Jetta). Ya can’t deny the logic. 🤓

Carmakers here also played with the gear ratios to make the car feel "more powerful" off the line. Of all the vehicles I've driven, 2016 Mustangs, 2.3T vs 5.0L V8, BMW 4-Series 2.0T vs 3.0T and 3.0 twinturbo (M4), and others, smaller 4 cyl engines always feel "more powerful" off the line because of a very short 1st gear. This can of course increase the happiness of everyday grocery drive for an average owner. So even after the test drive, some people would choose the smaller engine. (Like I did with my Cross Sport).

True...gearing is important...not to mention the smaller engines typically have smaller turbos, that spin up quicker, giving you that slightly faster push off the line. If you take a look at the power curve you’ll see the torque hits (and typically peaks) earlier on the smaller engines...but the larger engines will typically catch them in 2nd and 3rd gear. 😬

So overall, I think this is more of a trade-off problem that each customer has to deal with. With the VR6, on the up side, you get about 30+hp, you can worry less when you have your car filled with people and luggage and towing a trailer. On the down side, the VR6 powertrain it's heavier, thus the actual effective hp gain is less, there's more deadweight you are dragging. And more cyl roughly equals slightly worse fuel economy for city driving.

IMHO I believe the VR6 is a better choice for me because I usually keep my cars for a least 10 years...and as much as I like turbos (had a few Jetta TDIs over the years)...I’m thinking the VR6 will be less expensive to maintain. That old adage: less complicated / less to go wrong (did I ever mention I had a turbo failure on a TDI with only 130,000 kms on it? It was a “known issue with premature bearing failure”...$2,000 later...Ouch!) According to a few websites, the VR6 is only 125-200 lbs heavier then the 2.0T...which isn’t too horrible. That of course was based on comparing the curb weight of the Atlas Cross Sport on three different sites...and making sure I was comparing AWD models at the same trim level. Keep in mind the base 2.0T engine may be a lot lighter...but it has all the extra baggage of a turbo and intercooler.

As for the fuel grade, I didn't know about 2018 and 2019 models. But they did claimed that 87 was acceptable for the EA888. (on the inside of the filler cap, it says 87 minimum, 89 recommended) Maybe the reason is like what you said.
Nowadays everything in the car, the trans software (TCU), the ECU, the anti-knocking, everything is "adaptive". So even for a supercharged vehicle with a 24:1 compression ratio like you said, as long as 87 is claimed acceptable, the engineers can make it work. Use software to detect knock and adjust timing and relative stuff to prevent knock for the next time. The end result is like I mentioned in the last post, lower grade fuel equals less power output. The ECU will try its best to protect the engine from blowing up. So no worries. If you put 87 in a 91minimum car, the CEL(Check Engine Light) will come on and the engine will not run, because the ECU protection is "out of range".

Yes...modern engines definitely do a better job of detecting and compensating for engine knock. Personally I just don’t like the idea of putting the engine thru it...”engine knock” just doesn’t sound good to me! My supercharged car calls for 91 octane (premium) on the fuel door and does have the ability for me to manually retard the timing so I can put in a lower grade fuel (aside from the knock sensor) if premium is not available. But I wouldn’t do that to the car...it’s my baby!

As for the potential of the 2.0T, AMG's 2.0T is other carmakers' pioneering example LOL (That small dude can crank up 400+hp stable).

That is wild! I’m sure with the proper engineering, metallurgy and a plethora of turbos that could be possible with most cars...but how much is that bad boy? I’m guessing the engine costs almost as much as that 2020 Golf GTI we mentioned earlier. LOL.

Cheers!

<- keeping it light with smilies!