colt427

I just read a Car & Driver review.The one C&D tested one at $38.9k.
Tiguans and Touregs have always been pricey. He's what they say are the highs and lows.

Good real-world fuel economy, well-crafted interior, comfortable ride.

Dull to drive, overworked engine, tiny third row.


Moter Trend review stated acceleration is sluggish.

Coming from a V6 would be too much...

chickdr

I was intrigued in the new Tiguan until I heard about the motor. "New" 2.0T with much less power than the previous gen in a larger body? What are they thinking? They have a more powerful 220hp 2.0T available right now in the GTI or they could detune the new Q5's 2.0T motor.....

colt427

or the 2.0t in the A4 and Q5 that hass 252hp and 273 lb ft.That's what should be in the bigger,heavier Tiguan.Not the 184 HP version.

HotRodW

I think most RDX owners would be disappointed with the Tiguan's power. The new 2.0T runs on the Miller-cycle, or Budack-cycle in VW speak. It appears to be replacing the 1.8T throughout the lineup. Unlike most VW turbos, I found it to be underwhelming, especially when merging into traffic or passing at speed. And while the Aisin 8-speed gearbox is smooth, it doesn't like to downshift when more power is summoned. The powertrain is notably more efficient though, and apparently that was the goal. It also puts more distance between VW and Audi, which seems to be a current mandate for VoA. I can't imagine hauling 5 passengers around with that engine, so hopefully they'll wise up and offer the Atlas' version as an option.

colt427

The whole segment is so competitive, you'd think VW wouldn't want the new gen Tiguan to be considered underpowered vs. their competition

HotRodW

It appears that VW's marketing folks are doing their best to imitate Honda and Toyota, which both steer well clear of their luxury sister divisions. The numbers do suggest that mainstream car buyers just don't care that much about power. (I'd love to know the take rate on Escapes and Foresters with the optional 2.0T's.) The Atlas follows the same formula ... just enough to be considered competitive at a price that's competitive. Of course, a $40k Tiguan is definitely salty for the segment, and at that price many buyers will be expecting something more than a better warranty.

One thing I always respected about VW was their ability to incorporate premium features and powertrains into their mainstream products. Unlike their newer offerings, my Touareg is, for all intents and purposes, a Cayenne with a VW badge. Nobody will say an Atlas is a Q7 in disguise, because, well ... it just isn't. Not even close. But then again, look at how poorly the Touareg sold. So while I lament the changes, moving the brand downmarket will likely have a positive impact on sales. Having said that, I still don't see the harm in offering an upgraded powertrain. Most Audi buyers are looking for more than just extra power.

I wonder how many RDX owners would have purchased a loaded CR-V if it had been offered with a V6?

Acurardxdriver

Main reason I go for Acura Rdx is lease rates are more competitive than mid trim cr-v. As for Tiguan premier 38k is bit overpriced for its engine ( if they ever throw in V-6 it's technically will be in mid 40s). So it's more expensive than fully equipped Rdx.

snorf

Steer well clear of their luxury sister divisions? You can't be serious with this statement. The RDX is nothing short of being a "stepchild" of honda. The accord and civic offer features that aren't even available on the top of the line RDX. In fact, every toyota - including the baseline corolla - offer features available only on the top of the line RDX (toyota's braking system - like many other manufacturers - actually STOP the car while the RDX slows it down). The 6 cyl in the RDX is the OLD accord engine. Honda hasn't used it in the accord since 2013.

colt427

Well stated!

Oh and if the CR-V had a V6, I'd probably have one over the RDX depending on lease numbers.CR-V's don't lease well most of the time.I would also looked into a RAV4 if it still had the V6 option.
I've posted here before and in a poll, the V6 was the main reason I have the RDX.Also lease deal was very good.

HotRodW

They wouldn't use a V6. They'd just use one of the higher output versions of the same 2.0L 4-cylinder. Other than EPA testing and certifications, and a small hit against their CAFE average, it really wouldn't cost anything, yet they could charge more for it. Seems like a no-brainer.

HotRodW

Regardless of how you view Acura, Honda is marketing it as their premium brand. It's certainly supposed to be perceived as a step above Honda. Differentiating drivetrains is one way of maintaining some degree of separation. The CR-V doesn't get a V6 (regardless of how outdated you think the RDX's version is, it still beats the shit out of the CR-V's best 4-cylinder), the Accord doesn't get SH-AWD, and the Pilot doesn't get the MDX's Sport Hybrid option. Honda is slow at adapting technology as it is. If Acura always received the latest tech first, Honda would always be behind virtually all other mainstream brands. So yes, I am serious.

snorf

LOL! I won't insult you, but I will identify what "premium" means to a couple of other manufactures. Infiniti - upgraded nissan in every way - drivetrain (different engine from nissan with many more hp), fit and finish, and more advanced technology. Lexus - upgraded toyota in every way - more hp (although 2018 camry will also have 306 hp this year as opposed to the usual 268), fit and finish and upgraded technology. Both cars upgraded in every way. RDX - the OLD accord engine that hasn't been used in the accord since 2013, technology that is outdated and behind honda's mainline cars - i.e. inferior to honda. Nissan and Toyota grasp the concept of "premium" car. The RDX fails to do this on so many levels - OLD drivetrain with no more power than the accord 6 cyl, old technology (behind the civic and accord and CR-V). I don't follow VW/Audi, but I would guess that the audi being a premium VW follows the same principle.

buzzdsm

I think a lot of people are going to be sad when that "OLD accord engine" goes away and you get a 220hp turbo charged 4ycl.

agree that they need to heavily upgrade the technology but that's what happens to all vehicles that are 5 years old and are due for a redesign. I just got rid of a 2011 Infiniti(similar to 2017) that originally cost $75k and had nearly every tech feature available on the market at the time and now its tech gets beat by a $36k VW.

colt427

I agree.The RDX will probably get the Accord's 252 HP 2.0t.
Although, my dealer sales manager said the TLX is keeping the V6.Maybe the lower trim will get the turbo.
I haven't been in a small displacement (1.8L-2.5L)4 cyl turbo that's been as smooth and quiet as Toyota or Honda V6 .Especially the Earth dreams V6 in my Accord.I easily get 32-33 MPGs at 70 MPH in the Accord.I'll admit, the RDX isn't great when it comes to MPGs.I read of MPG numbers here and I don't get anything close to those numbers.

The CAFE is forcing manufacturers to go small turbo 4 cyls.
On paper, the MPGs look better but kick that turbo in and the MPGs go down.

bmllr8

I just sold a turbo-4 sedan after five years of ownership and the mileage was pretty good when cruising on the highway (32 MPG), but less so around town (~24 MPG). That was for a sedan weighing 3100 pounds. I agree that a SUV weighing an extra 600-700 pounds probably won't do too well around town in real world driving, because it will be hard to stay out of boost just to get the vehicle moving repeatedly in city/suburban driving.

srpuywa

I can't believe the pretentious of a vehicle 'title' sheesh get over yourselves it just a automobile

BLEXV6

The 14 has a prop rod, the 17 has automatic struts.