Rolls-Royce Cullinan vs Chery Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

A proper head-to-head in South Africa — we cover price, performance, petrol economy, safety and what it'll actually cost you to own each one long term.

Rolls-Royce Cullinan in South Africa

Rolls-Royce Cullinan

Cullinan Series II Petrol 8-Speed Automatic Current
Price on request
⚡ 420 kW 🔧 850 Nm ⛽ 5.95 km/l
VS
Chery Tiggo 4 Cross HEV in South Africa

Chery Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

Comfort HEV Hybrid Current
ZAR 439,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 150 kW 🔧 310 Nm ⛽ 18.5 km/l
Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Rolls-Royce Cullinan vs Chery Tiggo 4 Cross HEV: the short answer

Cullinan has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tiggo 4 Cross HEV remains close.

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification Cullinan Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Maximum Power Cullinan420 kW @ 5000-6000 rpm Tiggo 4 Cross HEV150 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque Cullinan850 Nm @ 1600-4250 rpm Tiggo 4 Cross HEV310 Nm
Engine Size Cullinan6749 cc Tiggo 4 Cross HEV1500 cc
Combined Fuel Economy Cullinan5.95 km/l Tiggo 4 Cross HEV18.5 km/l
Ground Clearance Cullinan173 mm Tiggo 4 Cross HEV180 mm

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

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Specification evidence leader

Cullinan

Strengths
  • More powerful engine output
  • Stronger listed safety equipment
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • Lower fuel efficiency
Best suited to: Published Performance Published Practicality

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

Strengths
  • Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Fewer listed safety features
  • Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to: Published Efficiency

Which One's Right for You?

Cullinan

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
  • Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec Cullinan Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Model Introduced Year 2018 2026
Generation Cullinan Series II, the current evolution of the marque's five-door super-luxury SUV Current South Africa Tiggo 4 Cross HEV range
Facelift History Cullinan was introduced in South Africa in 2018 and received its most extensive evolution as Cullinan Series II in May 2024 Current South Africa version listed by official source
Facelift Launched Since 2024 2026
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style Five-door luxury SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status active active
Segment Full-size super-luxury SUV SUV
Vehicle Type Internal-combustion sport utility vehicle SUV
Tare Mass Kg - 1387 kg
Spec Cullinan Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Length 5355 mm 4351 mm
Width 2000 mm 1831 mm
Height 1835 mm 1662 mm
Wheelbase 3295 mm 2610 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 173 mm 180 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 173 mm 180 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 90 l 51 l
Boot/Cargo Space 612 l 340 l
Kerb Weight 2725 kg 1387 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 3300 kg 1905 kg
Payload Capacity 575 kg 518 kg
Towing Capacity 2700 kg 1300 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows 2 rows
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 6.6 m 5.5 m
Front Headroom 1064 mm 1010 mm
Rear Headroom 1026 mm 975 mm
Front Legroom 1006 mm 1040 mm
Rear Legroom 1090 mm 930 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This Cullinan and Tiggo 4 Cross HEV comparison uses the exact South African derivatives selected above. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.

Performance index: Cullinan 99 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 62.

Efficiency index: Cullinan 28 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 75.

Safety-equipment index: Cullinan 99 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 91.

Practicality index: Cullinan 75 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 57.

Ownership-cover index: Cullinan not separately scored vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 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

Cullinan leads by 8 points

Cullinan has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tiggo 4 Cross HEV remains close.

Evidence leader 79 /100
Lead 8 points
Data 83% source coverage
79
#1 Evidence leader

Cullinan

83% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Performance 99 Check Efficiency 28
Performance 99
Efficiency 28
Safety 99
Practicality 75
Leads by 8 points
71
#2

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

65% source coverage 2 strong categories
Best at Safety 91 Check Practicality 57
Performance 62
Efficiency 75
Safety 91
Practicality 57
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance Cullinan +37 Efficiency Tiggo 4 Cross HEV +47 Safety Cullinan +8 Practicality Cullinan +18

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Cullinan

Performance 99/100
Efficiency 28/100
Safety 99/100
Practicality 75/100

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

Performance 62/100
Efficiency 75/100
Safety 91/100
Practicality 57/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Rolls-Royce Cullinan leads the specification evidence index with 79 pts vs 71 pts for Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

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

Cullinan vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV questions

There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the exact South African derivatives 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.