Changan Alsvin vs Chery Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

A proper head-to-head in South Africa — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.

Changan Alsvin in South Africa

Changan Alsvin

1.5 AT CE Petrol 5-Speed DCT Current
ZAR 289,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 78 kW 🔧 145 Nm ⛽ 14.49 km/l
VS
Chery Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van in South Africa

Chery Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

Panel Van CVT Petrol CVT Current
ZAR 339,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 83 kW 🔧 138 Nm ⛽ 14.7 km/l
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Changan Alsvin vs Chery Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van: the short answer

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Alsvin.

Alsvin starts ZAR 60,000 cheaper Alsvin from ZAR 249,900 · Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van from ZAR 309,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification Alsvin Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Maximum Power Alsvin78 kW Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van83 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque Alsvin145 Nm Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van138 Nm
Engine Size Alsvin1500 cc Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van1500 cc
Combined Fuel Economy Alsvin14.49 km/l Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van14.7 km/l
Ground Clearance Alsvin150 mm Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van180 mm

Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.

Independent editorial assessment

Hagalu editorial ratings

When a variant is selected, its rating out of five applies only to that exact derivative; a model-range review is not inherited. Editorial ratings are separate from the Specification Evidence Index out of 100 and are not customer ratings.

Changan Alsvin

1.5 AT CE

Hagalu editorial rating
3.9/5

Desk research · Exact variant

Editorial assessment, not a customer rating. Not road-tested for this review.

Read the review and score breakdown

Chery Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

Panel Van CVT

Hagalu editorial rating Not yet rated

No complete editorial rating is published for this exact variant. This is not a zero score.

How Hagalu rates cars

Not yet rated means a complete review is not published; it does not mean the vehicle scored zero. Read the rating methodology.

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Alsvin

Strengths
  • Nothing stands out clearly here.
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Fewer listed safety features
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: General Use
Specification evidence leader

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

Strengths
  • More powerful engine output
  • Better fuel efficiency
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • No obvious weak spots to flag.
Best suited to: Published Performance Published Efficiency Published Practicality

Which One's Right for You?

Alsvin

  • Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec Alsvin Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Model Introduced Year 2025 2026
Generation Current South African Alsvin generation launched with two locally named derivatives in 2025. Current South Africa Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van range
Facelift History No South African facelift has been announced since the current range entered local retail sale. Current South Africa version listed by official source
Facelift Launched Since Not Applicable 2026
Facelift Version Ending Not Applicable Current
Body Style Sedan Panel Van
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status active active
Segment Compact sedan Panel Van
Vehicle Type Passenger car Panel Van
Tare Mass Kg - 1324 kg
Spec Alsvin Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Length 4390 mm 4318 mm
Width 1725 mm 1831 mm
Height 1490 mm 1662 mm
Wheelbase 2535 mm 2610 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 150 mm 180 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) Not Officially Disclosed 180 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 45 l 51 l
Boot/Cargo Space 390 l 1500 l
Kerb Weight 1069 kg 1324 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1470 kg 1684 kg
Payload Capacity Not Officially Disclosed 360 kg
Towing Capacity 705 kg 1300 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 2 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows 1 rows
Doors 4 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.5 m 5.5 m
Front Headroom Not Officially Disclosed 1010 mm
Rear Headroom Not Officially Disclosed Not Applicable
Front Legroom Not Officially Disclosed 1040 mm
Rear Legroom Not Officially Disclosed Not Applicable

In depth: how these cars differ

This Alsvin and Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van comparison uses the exact derivatives selected above for South Africa. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: Alsvin 35 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 36.

Efficiency index: Alsvin 56 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 59.

Safety-equipment index: Alsvin 32 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 90.

Practicality index: Alsvin 54 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 58.

Ownership-cover index: Alsvin not separately scored vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van not separately scored.

These figures are Hagalu catalogue-comparison indicators, not customer ratings, crash-test scores, resale guarantees or a substitute for a road test. Each page shows its weighted source coverage beside the result.

Specification Evidence Index

A transparent comparison of published catalogue fields. This is not a road-test score, owner rating or editorial review rating, and it appears only when every vehicle clears the same comparable-data threshold.

Evidence / 100
Evidence-index readout

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van leads by 17 points

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Alsvin.

Evidence leader 60 /100
Lead 17 points
Data 62% source coverage
60
#1 Evidence leader

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

62% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 90 Check Performance 36
Performance 36
Efficiency 59
Safety 90
Practicality 58
Leads by 17 points
43
#2

Alsvin

66% source coverage 0 strong categories
Best at Efficiency 56 Check Safety 32
Performance 35
Efficiency 56
Safety 32
Practicality 54
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van +1 Efficiency Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van +3 Safety Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van +58 Practicality Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van +4

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

Performance 36/100
Efficiency 59/100
Safety 90/100
Practicality 58/100

Alsvin

Performance 35/100
Efficiency 56/100
Safety 32/100
Practicality 54/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Chery Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van leads the specification evidence index with 60 pts vs 43 pts for Alsvin

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van leads. However, Alsvin may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

Alsvin vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the models and available derivatives in South Africa on price, safety equipment, space, powertrain and ownership cover. The category indicators summarise published catalogue data; they are not a road test or customer rating.

Compare the published consumption or mileage rows for the exact derivatives using the same unit and test basis. A catalogue figure is useful for like-for-like comparison, but traffic, speed, load, weather and driving style can change actual fuel use.

Compare only equipment explicitly listed for each derivative, including airbags, stability control and driver-assistance systems. Confirm the exact trim with the manufacturer, and treat any independent crash-test result separately because equipment and ratings can differ by market.

A reliable five-year total cannot be calculated from catalogue data alone. Add the exact purchase and finance cost, fuel or electricity, insurance quotes, scheduled servicing, tyres and expected resale value. Check whether the selected derivative includes a service or maintenance plan.

Use the seating, boot or load-space, ISOFIX and safety rows as a first check. Then test the exact cars with your child seats, passengers and typical luggage, because published dimensions do not show every access or comfort difference.

Compare the published power, torque and 0–100 km/h rows when they are available for both exact derivatives. Vehicle weight, gearing and power delivery also matter, so catalogue outputs alone do not establish real-world overtaking or response.