2020 Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport 2.0T SEL Review - Subtract Seats, Keep the Comfort

Tim Healey
by Tim Healey
Fast Facts

2020 Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport 2.0T SEL Fast Facts

2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder (235 horsepower @ 4,500 rpm; 258 lb-ft @ 1,600 rpm)
Eight-speed automatic, all-wheel drive
18 city / 23 highway / 20 combined (EPA Rating, MPG)
12.8 city, 10.4 highway, 11.7 combined. (NRCan Rating, L/100km)
Base Price
$41,445 (U.S) / $45,195 (Canada)
As Tested
$42,700 (U.S.) / $45,195 (Canada)
Prices include $1,020 destination charge in the United States and $2,050 for freight, PDI, and A/C tax in Canada and, because of cross-border equipment differences, can't be directly compared.

Several years ago now, I called the Volkswagen Atlas three-row “ German comfort food.” It remains that – a boxy, slightly bland crossover that nonetheless does the basics well.

Enter the Cross Sport, which is supposed to liven things up, at least a little, by being lowered and shortened, while losing the weight that comes with the nip/tuck and the removal of the third row of seats (at least in theory. With all-wheel drive, the 2.0T is a skosh heavier than a four-cylinder, three-row Atlas. Generally, however, the two-row is lighter.). The front facelift that matches the larger Atlas is also meant to make things more interesting.

These changes only go so far. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Here we have a vehicle that is smaller but no less comfortable, and as you will see, that is just fine.

Bland can be beautiful if function is prioritized over form. And when utility is part of the vehicle-class descriptor, it usually is.

That’s my (possibly tortured) way of saying the Cross Sport isn’t particularly exciting, nor is it meant to be, and that’s just fine. Yes, that echoes my review of the Seltos from a couple of weeks ago, but what can I say? There’s a lot of crossovers across different size ranges and price points that are boring but functional because they’re supposed to be. Which makes my job as a supposed wordsmith a bit harder.

Not that any automaker selling crossovers by the boatload gives a whit. They’re too busy counting cash.

Well, OK, maybe not in this specific case – the Cross Sport moved around 11K units in the U.S. last year, according to our friends at GoodCarBadCar. But in general, crossover buyers likely place a premium on utility.

Which the Cross Sport does well, even being Atlas shrunk.

The grille and sloping D-pillar do add a touch of pizazz, but the main draw here is the typical VW interior – logically laid out and easy to use (and dressed in unrelieved black). You get volume and tuning knobs and big knobs for the climate controls. You also get a digital gauge cluster and a storage shelf on the dash above the center stack. It’s a pleasant place to do business, though not particularly interesting.

Pleasant but not particularly interesting seems to describe the Atlas Cross Sport – and really, perhaps 80 percent of the VW lineup these days – quite well. And it may sound like an insult, but it isn’t. Creative, interesting design is good but not always necessary.

As a grocery-getting, five-human hauling crossover, the Cross Sport is just fine.

Put the 2.0-liter turbo-four in the “fine” category – the 235 horsepower and 258 lb-ft of torque have plenty of grunt to get you going in regular urban driving, and it’s more than adequate for merging, but you won’t be running to Twitter to shout about how blazin’ fast your new Cross Sport is. A V6 is available, but it only adds 11 lb-ft of torque. Also, should you want all-wheel-drive with the V6, your vehicle will weigh 4,411 pounds. As it is, my AWD test unit weighed 4,288 lbs. with two fewer cylinders.

The engine’s power, such as it is, reaches the wheels via an eight-speed automatic. Power typically flows through the front wheels, but it can be sent to the rears as needed (up to 50 percent) via a center differential.

Drive modes? Boy, does this crossover have drive modes for you. You have four basic modes (on road, off-road, snow, and custom off-road) and within the on-road mode, you can choose between normal, sport, comfort, eco, and individual. Perhaps fiddling with the drive modes is how you spice up an otherwise mostly anonymous crossover.

Whatever mode you’re in, the Cross Sport handles competently enough, with a bit of sporting flair, and body roll is tamped down. Steering feel is, as seems typical of some VW products, very light.

Underpinning it all is a four-wheel independent suspension (strut-type with lower control arms, dampers, anti-roll bars, and coil springs upfront; multilink with coil springs, dampers, and anti-roll bar in the rear).

Standard features included 20-inch wheels, stop/start system, hydraulic brake-assist system, automatic post-collision braking system, LED lighting all around, adaptive front lighting, fog lamps, heated sideview mirrors, rain-sensing wipers, panoramic sunroof, roof rails, dual-zone climate control, heated steering wheel, tilt/telescope steering column, heated front seats, 60/40 split-fold/fold-flat reclining rear seat, leatherette seats, multiple USB ports, digital gauges, road-sign display, front and rear park-distance control, adaptive cruise control with stop and go, blind-spot monitoring with rear-traffic alert, forward-collision warning and autonomous emergency braking with pedestrian monitoring and front assist, lane-keeping assist and traffic-jam assist, high-beam control, hill-hold and hill-descent control, remote start, keyless entry and starting, and remote power liftgate.

There’s more, TV infomercial style: Navigation, uplevel audio, satellite radio, Bluetooth, Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, and wireless cell-phone charger.

Options were limited to heavy-duty floor and cargo mats ($235). With that and $1,020 in D and D fees, a $41,445 vehicle cost $42,700.

Fuel economy is listed at 18 mpg city/23 mpg highway/20 mpg combined.

That’s 42 grand of fine. As I wrote last year during our first drive, the Cross Sport, even with the less-powerful engine, is a vehicle I’d place higher on the list than the Ford Edge or Chevrolet Blazer and right around the V6 Jeep Grand Cherokee or a loaded Honda Passport.

I stand by that. The Cross Sport is one of the better five-seat crossovers at this price point, but not the best.

And that’s just fine.

[Images © 2021 Tim Healey/TTAC]

Tim Healey
Tim Healey

Tim Healey grew up around the auto-parts business and has always had a love for cars — his parents joke his first word was “‘Vette”. Despite this, he wanted to pursue a career in sports writing but he ended up falling semi-accidentally into the automotive-journalism industry, first at Consumer Guide Automotive and later at Web2Carz.com. He also worked as an industry analyst at Mintel Group and freelanced for About.com, CarFax, Vehix.com, High Gear Media, Torque News, FutureCar.com, Cars.com, among others, and of course Vertical Scope sites such as AutoGuide.com, Off-Road.com, and HybridCars.com. He’s an urbanite and as such, doesn’t need a daily driver, but if he had one, it would be compact, sporty, and have a manual transmission.

More by Tim Healey

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 23 comments
  • Ponchoman49 Ponchoman49 on Feb 16, 2021

    So it's heavier, slower, thirstier, blander and just average to drive and is placed below the Blazer in ranking? I would also trust GM's current 3.6 and normal 9 speed over VW's turbo 4 banger and DSG time bomb transmission.

    • Kyree Kyree on Feb 16, 2021

      Yeah, so would I. A Blazer RS or Premier V6 is a much better-driving, better-fitted, better-built five-seat midsizer than this Atlas Cross Sport. And I say that as a VW fan.

  • Kyree Kyree on Feb 16, 2021

    These are just not nice. The interior materials bite, the design language has no congruity with that of the global VW designs, and the engines are dogs that get horrid fuel economy. Did you happen to touch that plastiwood on the dashboard? I did, once, and it reminded me of something VW would have used in the 70s on an air-cooled Beetle. (However, while the air-cooled cars were cheap and cheerful, this Atlas Cross Sport is not). Not only that, the Atlas Cross Sport essentially has the exact same footprint as the Atlas, with far less usable space. I'm a VW fan, but the Atlas family is just plain lackluster, and the Cross Sport in particular. I would look to just about every one of its competitors (Grand Cherokee, Blazer, Edge, Santa Fe, Sorento, Murano, Passport, in that order) first.

  • Jeff Overall I prefer the 59 GM cars to the 58s because of less chrome but I have a new appreciation of the 58 Cadillac Eldorados after reading this series. I use to not like the 58 Eldorados but I now don't mind them. Overall I prefer the 55-57s GMs over most of the 58-60s GMs. For the most part I like the 61 GMs. Chryslers I like the 57 and 58s. Fords I liked the 55 thru 57s but the 58s and 59s not as much with the exception of Mercury which I for the most part like all those. As the 60s progressed the tail fins started to go away and the amount of chrome was reduced. More understated.
  • Theflyersfan Nissan could have the best auto lineup of any carmaker (they don't), but until they improve one major issue, the best cars out there won't matter. That is the dealership experience. Year after year in multiple customer service surveys from groups like JD Power and CR, Nissan frequency scrapes the bottom. Personally, I really like the never seen new Z, but after having several truly awful Nissan dealer experiences, my shadow will never darken a Nissan showroom. I'm painting with broad strokes here, but maybe it is so ingrained in their culture to try to take advantage of people who might not be savvy enough in the buying experience that they by default treat everyone like idiots and saps. All of this has to be frustrating to Nissan HQ as they are improving their lineup but their dealers drag them down.
  • SPPPP I am actually a pretty big Alfa fan ... and that is why I hate this car.
  • SCE to AUX They're spending billions on this venture, so I hope so.Investing during a lull in the EV market seems like a smart move - "buy low, sell high" and all that.Key for Honda will be achieving high efficiency in its EVs, something not everybody can do.
  • ChristianWimmer It might be overpriced for most, but probably not for the affluent city-dwellers who these are targeted at - we have tons of them in Munich where I live so I “get it”. I just think these look so terribly cheap and weird from a design POV.
Next