Hyundai Kona 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.

Includes a historical vehicle

Current, upcoming and historical vehicles can be compared side by side. Historical records keep their verified specifications, while price labels show last-listed context rather than current new-car availability.

Hyundai Kona Discontinued model
Hyundai Kona in South Africa

Hyundai Kona

1.0T DCT Executive Petrol 7-Speed DCT Discontinued model
ZAR 565,900 last listed
Discontinued model Verified historical specifications remain visible for owner and used-car comparisons.
⚡ 88 kW 🔧 172 Nm ⛽ 15.5 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

Hyundai Kona vs Chery Tiggo 4 Cross HEV: the short answer

Kona and Tiggo 4 Cross HEV are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Recorded price context Kona: last listed from ZAR 459,900 · Tiggo 4 Cross HEV: current from ZAR 439,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification Kona Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Maximum Power Kona88 kW @ 5500 rpm Tiggo 4 Cross HEV150 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque Kona172 Nm @ 1500 rpm Tiggo 4 Cross HEV310 Nm
Engine Size Kona998 cc Tiggo 4 Cross HEV1500 cc
Combined Fuel Economy Kona15.5 km/l Tiggo 4 Cross HEV18.5 km/l
Ground Clearance Kona165 mm Tiggo 4 Cross HEV180 mm

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

Evidence for Hyundai Kona 1.0T DCT Executive

Source type: Hagalu catalogue record

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Kona

Strengths
  • Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
  • Less powerful engine setup
  • Lower fuel efficiency
  • Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to: Published Practicality
Specification evidence leader

Tiggo 4 Cross HEV

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

Which One's Right for You?

Kona

  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

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

Full Specs, Side by Side

Archived cars use verified historical spec records. Rows remain comparable; unavailable historical values are shown plainly rather than estimated.

Spec Kona Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Model Introduced Year 2018 2026
Generation Second generation Kona on Hyundai's K2 GEN platform; the design is more conservative than the first gen but better resolved Current South Africa Tiggo 4 Cross HEV range
Facelift History Second generation launched globally in 2023 and brought to SA; softened styling compared to the sharper first gen, improved interior quality and tech Current South Africa version listed by official source
Facelift Launched Since 2023 2026
Tare Mass Kg 1460 kg 1387 kg
Facelift Version Ending Not confirmed Current
Body Style Not confirmed SUV
Model Year Not confirmed 2026
Production Status Not confirmed active
Segment Not confirmed SUV
Vehicle Type Not confirmed SUV
Spec Kona Tiggo 4 Cross HEV
Length 4355 mm 4351 mm
Width 1825 mm 1831 mm
Height 1570 mm 1662 mm
Wheelbase 2660 mm 2610 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 165 mm 180 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 50 l 51 l
Boot/Cargo Space 466 l 340 l
Kerb Weight 1460 kg 1387 kg
Seating Capacity 5 seats 5 seats
Doors 5 doors 5 doors
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) Not confirmed 180 mm
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) Not confirmed 1905 kg
Payload Capacity Not confirmed 518 kg
Towing Capacity Not confirmed 1300 kg
Number of Rows Not confirmed 2 rows
Minimum Turning Radius Not confirmed 5.5 m
Front Headroom Not confirmed 1010 mm
Rear Headroom Not confirmed 975 mm
Front Legroom Not confirmed 1040 mm
Rear Legroom Not confirmed 930 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This Kona 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: Kona 40 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 62.

Efficiency index: Kona 62 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 75.

Safety-equipment index: Kona 87 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 91.

Practicality index: Kona 67 vs Tiggo 4 Cross HEV 57.

Ownership-cover index: Kona 65 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 7 points

Kona and Tiggo 4 Cross HEV are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.

Evidence leader 71 /100
Lead 7 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 7 points
64
#2

Kona

89% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 87 Check Performance 40
Performance 40
Efficiency 62
Safety 87
Practicality 67
Ownership 65
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance Tiggo 4 Cross HEV +22 Efficiency Tiggo 4 Cross HEV +13 Safety Tiggo 4 Cross HEV +4 Practicality Kona +10

Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.

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

Kona

Performance 40/100
Efficiency 62/100
Safety 87/100
Practicality 67/100
Ownership 65/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Chery Tiggo 4 Cross HEV leads the specification evidence index with 71 pts vs 64 pts for Kona

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

Kona 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.