πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ This site covers US vehicles data and is intended for US audiences.

GMC Acadia vs Volkswagen Tiguan

Two three-row SUVs compared on the numbers that matter β€” maintenance cost, reliability, and insurance.

Buy the Volkswagen Tiguan to minimise 5-year ownership cost.
Buy the Volkswagen Tiguan if long-term reliability matters most.

Maintenance and ownership cost

GMC AcadiaVolkswagen Tiguan
Annual maintenance$734$730winner
5-year total cost$3,670$3,650winner
Reliability score6 / 106 / 10
Major repair risk (5yr)19%12%winner
Cargo spaceβ€”β€”
Starting price (new)$43,800$32,200winner
Best years to buyβ€”2010

Which is more reliable?

GMC AcadiaVolkswagen Tiguan
RepairPal score6 / 106 / 10
NHTSA complaints / 100k89.6winner183.9
Years to avoid2014, 2017, 20192018, 2022
Value retained Β· 3 yr71.6%71.9%winner
Value retained Β· 5 yr51.5%55.8%winner
Value retained Β· 7 yr38.2%43.6%winner

What breaks β€” and what it costs

GMC AcadiaVolkswagen Tiguan
Engine12.4%winner29.0%
Electrical13.2%10.6%winner
ADAS5.8%winner12.5%
Brakes3.4%winner3.8%
Steering10.5%3.6%winner
Fuel system2.3%winner3.6%
Tires/Wheels1.5%β€”winner
Glass/Windowsβ€”winner2.8%
Airbags19.3%10.8%winner
Lighting3.6%2.8%winner
Seatbelt1.6%winner1.8%

One major repair on either model can run $1,500–4,000. A warranty caps your exposure, especially on known problem years.

Which is cheaper to insure?

GMC AcadiaVolkswagen Tiguan
Avg annual premium$2,242$2,004winner

Common questions

The Acadia costs $734/year to maintain β€” $161 above the three-row segment average of $573. Major repair probability of 19% is the highest in the three-row class. Reliability score of 6 is below the segment average of 7. Repair frequency of 37% is slightly below the class average of 40%. Above-average cost and the highest major-repair risk in the segment.
How we calculated this. Maintenance costs and reliability scores from RepairPal. Complaints and recalls from NHTSA. Fuel economy from the EPA. Insurance averages from CarEdge. Pricing from KBB. Depreciation from iSeeCars. Full methodology β†’