Mazda CX-60 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.

Mazda CX-60 in South Africa

Mazda CX-60

2.5 Individual Edition Auto AWD Petrol 8-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 902,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 141 kW 🔧 261 Nm ⛽ 13.0 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

Mazda CX-60 vs Chery Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van: the short answer

CX-60 has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van remains close.

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van starts ZAR 480,300 cheaper CX-60 from ZAR 790,200 · Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van from ZAR 309,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification CX-60 Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Maximum Power CX-60141 kW @ 6000 rpm Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van83 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque CX-60261 Nm @ 3000 rpm Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van138 Nm
Engine Size CX-602488 cc Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van1500 cc
Combined Fuel Economy CX-6013.0 km/l Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van14.7 km/l
Ground Clearance CX-60178.8 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.

Mazda CX-60

2.5 Individual Edition Auto AWD

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

CX-60

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 Pro Panel Van

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?

CX-60

  • 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 Pro Panel Van

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec CX-60 Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Model Introduced Year 2023 2026
Generation First-generation KH-series Mazda CX-60 on Mazda's Large Product architecture Current South Africa Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van range
Facelift History Mazda introduced the CX-60 locally in 2023, added the six-cylinder Takumi in 2024 and revised suspension and drivetrain calibration for the 2025 update. Current South Africa version listed by official source
Facelift Launched Since 2023 2026
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style SUV Panel Van
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Premium mid-size SUV Panel Van
Tare Mass Kg 1470 kg 1324 kg
Vehicle Type SUV Panel Van
Spec CX-60 Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Length 4745 mm 4318 mm
Width 1890 mm 1831 mm
Height 1687.5 mm 1662 mm
Wheelbase 2870 mm 2610 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 178.8 mm 180 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 58 l 51 l
Boot/Cargo Space 477 l 1500 l
Kerb Weight 1470 kg 1324 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2342 kg 1684 kg
Payload Capacity 872 kg 360 kg
Towing Capacity 1500 kg 1300 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 2 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.85 m 5.5 m
Front Legroom 1058 mm 1040 mm
Rear Legroom 990 mm Not Applicable
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) - 180 mm
Number of Rows - 1 rows
Front Headroom - 1010 mm
Rear Headroom - Not Applicable

In depth: how these cars differ

This CX-60 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: CX-60 59 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 36.

Efficiency index: CX-60 51 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 59.

Safety-equipment index: CX-60 98 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 90.

Practicality index: CX-60 68 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 58.

Ownership-cover index: CX-60 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

CX-60 leads by 10 points

CX-60 has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van remains close.

Evidence leader 70 /100
Lead 10 points
Data 81% source coverage
70
#1 Evidence leader

CX-60

81% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 98 Check Efficiency 51
Performance 59
Efficiency 51
Safety 98
Practicality 68
Leads by 10 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 CX-60 +23 Efficiency Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van +8 Safety CX-60 +8 Practicality CX-60 +10

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

CX-60

Performance 59/100
Efficiency 51/100
Safety 98/100
Practicality 68/100

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Mazda CX-60 leads the specification evidence index with 70 pts vs 60 pts for Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, CX-60 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.

CX-60 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.