Honda CR-V 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.

Honda CR-V in South Africa

Honda CR-V

2.0 Hybrid e:HEV Hybrid e-CVT Current
ZAR 819,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 204 kW 🔧 335 Nm ⛽ 20 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

Honda CR-V vs Chery Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van: the short answer

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

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van starts ZAR 380,000 cheaper CR-V from ZAR 689,900 · Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van from ZAR 309,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CR-V Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Maximum Power CR-V204 kW Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van83 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque CR-V335 Nm Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van138 Nm
Engine Size CR-V1993 cc Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van1500 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CR-V20 km/l Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van14.7 km/l
Ground Clearance CR-V198 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.

Honda CR-V

2.0 Hybrid e:HEV

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

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)

Specification evidence leader

CR-V

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

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

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

Which One's Right for You?

CR-V

  • 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

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

  • Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec CR-V Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Wheelbase 2700 mm 2610 mm
Length 4690 mm 4318 mm
Width 1860 mm 1831 mm
Height 1690 mm 1662 mm
Kerb Weight 1750 kg 1324 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2250 kg 1684 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 2 seats
Boot/Cargo Space 497 l 1500 l
Towing Capacity 1500 kg 1300 kg
Fuel Tank Capacity 57 l 51 l
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 198 mm 180 mm
Payload Capacity 500 kg 360 kg
Number of Rows 2 rows 1 rows
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 5.5 m
Front Headroom 970 mm 1010 mm
Rear Headroom 970 mm Not Applicable
Front Legroom 1049 mm 1040 mm
Rear Legroom 1041 mm Not Applicable
Ground Clearance (Default) 198 mm 180 mm
Spec CR-V Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Gearbox eCVT Automatic CVT
Drivetrain Layout All Wheel Drive FWD
LSD Available Electronic AWD Control Not Applicable
Transfer Case Not Applicable Not Applicable
Transmission Type Automatic Automatic
Gearbox Type eCVT Automatic CVT
Gear Shift Type eCVT Automatic Electric
Drivetrain AWD FWD
Axle Layout AWD FWD
Differential Lock Electronic AWD Lock Not Applicable
4WD Engagement Available Not Applicable
4WD Hi Range Available Not Applicable
Low Range Ratio Not Applicable Not Applicable
Number of Gears Not Applicable CVT
Transmission Speeds Not Applicable CVT
4WD Lo Range Not Applicable Not Applicable
4WD Selector Not Applicable Not Applicable
Low Range Not Applicable Not Applicable
Front Differential Lock Not Applicable Not Applicable
Rear Differential Lock Not Applicable Not Applicable
Paddle Shifters Not Applicable Not Applicable
Automatic Shift Paddles Not Applicable Not Applicable
Final Drive Ratio Not Applicable Not Applicable
Clutch Type Not Applicable Automatic clutch
Gear Shift Indicator Not Applicable Standard

In depth: how these cars differ

This CR-V 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: CR-V 77 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 36.

Efficiency index: CR-V 80 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 59.

Safety-equipment index: CR-V 91 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 90.

Practicality index: CR-V 66 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 58.

Ownership-cover index: CR-V 60 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

CR-V leads by 16 points

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

Evidence leader 76 /100
Lead 16 points
Data 94% source coverage
76
#1 Evidence leader

CR-V

94% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Safety 91 Check Ownership 60
Performance 77
Efficiency 80
Safety 91
Practicality 66
Ownership 60
Leads by 16 points
60
#2

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
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance CR-V +41 Efficiency CR-V +21 Safety CR-V +1 Practicality CR-V +8

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

CR-V

Performance 77/100
Efficiency 80/100
Safety 91/100
Practicality 66/100
Ownership 60/100

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Honda CR-V leads the specification evidence index with 76 pts vs 60 pts for Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

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

Related comparisons

Continue with closely related South Africa models and comparable body styles.

CR-V
CR-V
VS
ALCAZAR
ALCAZAR
CR-V vs ALCAZAR →
CR-V
CR-V
VS
HS
HS
CR-V vs HS →
CR-V
CR-V
VS
XUV700
XUV700
CR-V vs XUV700 →
CR-V
CR-V
VS
Scorpio-N
Scorpio-N
CR-V vs Scorpio-N →
CR-V
CR-V
VS
Duster
Duster
CR-V vs Duster →
CR-V
CR-V
VS
Destinator
Destinator
CR-V vs Destinator →
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
VS
ALCAZAR
ALCAZAR
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van vs ALCAZAR →
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
VS
HS
HS
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van vs HS →

CR-V 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.