Mazda CX-3 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.

Mazda CX-3 in South Africa

Mazda CX-3

2.0 Individual Auto FWD Petrol 6-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 551,600 ex-showroom
⚡ 115 kW 🔧 206 Nm ⛽ 15.9 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

Mazda CX-3 vs Chery Tiggo 4 Cross HEV: the short answer

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-3 remains close.

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV starts ZAR 100 cheaper CX-3 from ZAR 440,000 · Tiggo 4 Cross HEV from ZAR 439,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-3 Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Maximum Power CX-3115 kW @ 6000 rpm Tiggo 4 Cross HEV150 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-3206 Nm @ 2800 rpm Tiggo 4 Cross HEV310 Nm
Engine Size CX-31998 cc Tiggo 4 Cross HEV1500 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-315.9 km/l Tiggo 4 Cross HEV18.5 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-3155 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)

CX-3

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 Cross HEV

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?

CX-3

  • Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

  • 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 CX-3 Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Model Introduced Year 2015 2026
Generation Current first-generation DK-series Mazda CX-3 Current South Africa Tiggo 4 Cross HEV range
Facelift History The CX-3 has received successive equipment and design updates since its 2015 debut; Carbon and Individual now sit together at the top of the South African range. Current South Africa version listed by official source
Facelift Launched Since 2015 2026
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV SUV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Compact crossover SUV
Tare Mass Kg 1270 kg 1387 kg
Vehicle Type SUV SUV
Spec CX-3 Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Length 4275 mm 4351 mm
Width 1765 mm 1831 mm
Height 1542 mm 1662 mm
Wheelbase 2570 mm 2610 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 155 mm 180 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 48 l 51 l
Boot/Cargo Space 230 l 340 l
Kerb Weight 1270 kg 1387 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1735 kg 1905 kg
Payload Capacity 465 kg 518 kg
Towing Capacity 850 kg 1300 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.7 m 5.5 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1040 mm
Rear Legroom 888 mm 930 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 180 mm
Number of Rows - 2 rows
Front Headroom - 1010 mm
Rear Headroom - 975 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-3 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: CX-3 47 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 62.

Efficiency index: CX-3 61 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 75.

Safety-equipment index: CX-3 84 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 91.

Practicality index: CX-3 48 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 57.

Ownership-cover index: CX-3 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

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV leads by 11 points

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV has a modest catalogue-index lead, while CX-3 remains close.

Evidence leader 71 /100
Lead 11 points
Data 65% source coverage
71
#1 Evidence leader

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
Leads by 11 points
60
#2

CX-3

71% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 84 Check Performance 47
Performance 47
Efficiency 61
Safety 84
Practicality 48
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance Tiggo 4 Cross HEV +15 Efficiency Tiggo 4 Cross HEV +14 Safety Tiggo 4 Cross HEV +7 Practicality Tiggo 4 Cross HEV +9

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

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

CX-3

Performance 47/100
Efficiency 61/100
Safety 84/100
Practicality 48/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Chery Tiggo 4 Cross HEV leads the specification evidence index with 71 pts vs 60 pts for CX-3

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Tiggo 4 Cross HEV leads. However, CX-3 may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

CX-3 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.