Geely E5 EM-i 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.

Geely E5 EM-i in South Africa

Geely E5 EM-i

Apex Plug-in Hybrid Current
ZAR 679,999 ex-showroom
⚡ 73 kW 🔧 125 Nm
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

Geely E5 EM-i vs Chery Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van: the short answer

E5 EM-i has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van remains close.

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van starts ZAR 290,099 cheaper E5 EM-i from ZAR 599,999 · Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van from ZAR 309,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification E5 EM-i Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Maximum Power E5 EM-i73 kW Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van83 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque E5 EM-i125 Nm Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van138 Nm
Engine Size E5 EM-i1499 cc Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van1500 cc
Combined Fuel Economy E5 EM-iNot Officially Disclosed Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van14.7 km/l
Ground Clearance E5 EM-i172 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.

Geely E5 EM-i

Apex

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

E5 EM-i

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?

E5 EM-i

  • 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 E5 EM-i Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Model Introduced Year 2025 2026
Generation Current South African model / exact generation number not separately published Current South Africa Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van range
Facelift History No applicable South African facelift history established Current South Africa version listed by official source
Facelift Launched Since Not Applicable 2026
Facelift Version Ending Not Applicable Current
Body Style SUV Panel Van
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status active active
Segment Passenger vehicle Panel Van
Vehicle Type SUV Panel Van
Tare Mass Kg - 1324 kg
Spec E5 EM-i Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Length 4740 mm 4318 mm
Width 1905 mm 1831 mm
Height 1685 mm 1662 mm
Wheelbase 2755 mm 2610 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 172 mm 180 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) Not Officially Disclosed 180 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 51 l 51 l
Boot/Cargo Space 528 l 1500 l
Kerb Weight 1770 kg 1324 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) Not Officially Disclosed 1684 kg
Payload Capacity Not Officially Disclosed 360 kg
Towing Capacity Not Officially Disclosed 1300 kg
Seating Capacity Not Officially Disclosed 2 seats
Number of Rows Not Officially Disclosed 1 rows
Doors Not Officially Disclosed 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius Not Officially Disclosed 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 E5 EM-i 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: E5 EM-i 39 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 36.

Efficiency index: E5 EM-i 79 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 59.

Safety-equipment index: E5 EM-i 91 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 90.

Practicality index: E5 EM-i 71 vs Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van 58.

Ownership-cover index: E5 EM-i 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

E5 EM-i leads by 9 points

E5 EM-i has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van remains close.

Evidence leader 69 /100
Lead 9 points
Data 55% source coverage
69
#1 Evidence leader

E5 EM-i

55% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Safety 91 Check Performance 39
Performance 39
Efficiency 79
Safety 91
Practicality 71
Leads by 9 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 E5 EM-i +3 Efficiency E5 EM-i +20 Safety E5 EM-i +1 Practicality E5 EM-i +13

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

E5 EM-i

Performance 39/100
Efficiency 79/100
Safety 91/100
Practicality 71/100

Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

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

What the evidence means

Evidence index Geely E5 EM-i leads the specification evidence index with 69 pts vs 60 pts for Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, E5 EM-i 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.

E5 EM-i
E5 EM-i
VS
X70 Plus
X70 Plus
E5 EM-i vs X70 Plus →
E5 EM-i
E5 EM-i
VS
Outlander Sport
Outlander Sport
E5 EM-i vs Outlander Sport →
E5 EM-i
E5 EM-i
VS
ATTO 2 DM-i
ATTO 2 DM-i
E5 EM-i vs ATTO 2 DM-i →
E5 EM-i
E5 EM-i
VS
View Panel Van
View Panel Van
E5 EM-i vs View Panel Van →
E5 EM-i
E5 EM-i
VS
Jimny
Jimny
E5 EM-i vs Jimny →
E5 EM-i
E5 EM-i
VS
CX-3
CX-3
E5 EM-i vs CX-3 →
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
VS
X70 Plus
X70 Plus
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van vs X70 Plus →
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van
VS
Outlander Sport
Outlander Sport
Tiggo 4 Pro Panel Van vs Outlander Sport →

E5 EM-i 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.