BMW M4 Convertible vs Chery Tiggo 4 Cross

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.

BMW M4 Convertible in South Africa

BMW M4 Convertible

M4 Competition Convertible AWD Petrol 8-Speed Automatic Current
ZAR 2,330,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 390 kW 🔧 650 Nm ⛽ 12.5 km/l
VS
Chery Tiggo 4 Cross in South Africa

Chery Tiggo 4 Cross

LiT MT Petrol Current
ZAR 279,900 ex-showroom
⚡ 83 kW 🔧 170 Nm ⛽ 14.3 km/l
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

BMW M4 Convertible vs Chery Tiggo 4 Cross: the short answer

M4 Convertible has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tiggo 4 Cross remains close.

Tiggo 4 Cross starts ZAR 2,050,100 cheaper M4 Convertible from ZAR 2,330,000 · Tiggo 4 Cross from ZAR 279,900

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification M4 Convertible Tiggo 4 Cross
Maximum Power M4 Convertible390 kW Tiggo 4 Cross83 kW @ 5500 rpm
Maximum Torque M4 Convertible650 Nm @ 2750-5730 rpm Tiggo 4 Cross170 Nm
Engine Size M4 Convertible2993 cc Tiggo 4 Cross1500 cc
Combined Fuel Economy M4 Convertible12.5 km/l Tiggo 4 Cross14.3 km/l
Ground Clearance M4 Convertible140 mm Tiggo 4 Cross180 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.

BMW M4 Convertible

M4 Competition Convertible AWD

Hagalu editorial rating
3.6/5

Desk research · Exact variant

Editorial assessment, not a customer rating. Not road-tested for this review.

Read the review and score breakdown

Chery Tiggo 4 Cross

LiT MT

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

M4 Convertible

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

Tiggo 4 Cross

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

Which One's Right for You?

M4 Convertible

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

Tiggo 4 Cross

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
  • Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures

Full Specs, Side by Side

Spec M4 Convertible Tiggo 4 Cross
Model Introduced Year 2021 2026
Generation G83 full-M soft-top convertible with M xDrive and body-specific roof and luggage packaging. Current South Africa Tiggo 4 Cross range
Facelift History Current updated G83-generation M4 Competition Convertible in the South African AWD configuration. Current South Africa version listed by official source
Facelift Launched Since Original current-generation version 2026
Facelift Version Ending Current Current
Body Style Convertible SUV
Model Year 2026 2026
Production Status active active
Segment Premium Convertible SUV
Vehicle Type Car SUV
Tare Mass Kg - 1309 kg
Spec M4 Convertible Tiggo 4 Cross
Length 4801 mm 4351 mm
Width 1887 mm 1831 mm
Height 1399 mm 1662 mm
Wheelbase 2857 mm 2610 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 140 mm 180 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 125 mm 180 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 59 l 51 l
Boot/Cargo Space 385 l 340 l
Kerb Weight 2000 kg 1309 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 2345 kg 1684 kg
Payload Capacity 420 kg 375 kg
Towing Capacity 1600 kg 1300 kg
Seating Capacity 4 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows 2 rows
Doors 2 doors 5 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 5.6 m 5.5 m
Front Headroom 987 mm 1010 mm
Rear Headroom 947 mm 975 mm
Front Legroom 1036 mm 1040 mm
Rear Legroom 890 mm 930 mm

In depth: how these cars differ

This M4 Convertible and Tiggo 4 Cross 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: M4 Convertible 97 vs Tiggo 4 Cross 38.

Efficiency index: M4 Convertible 47 vs Tiggo 4 Cross 56.

Safety-equipment index: M4 Convertible 92 vs Tiggo 4 Cross 91.

Practicality index: M4 Convertible 53 vs Tiggo 4 Cross 55.

Ownership-cover index: M4 Convertible not separately scored vs Tiggo 4 Cross 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

M4 Convertible leads by 14 points

M4 Convertible has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tiggo 4 Cross remains close.

Evidence leader 74 /100
Lead 14 points
Data 83% source coverage
74
#1 Evidence leader

M4 Convertible

83% source coverage 2 strong categories
Best at Performance 97 Check Efficiency 47
Performance 97
Efficiency 47
Safety 92
Practicality 53
Leads by 14 points
60
#2

Tiggo 4 Cross

65% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 91 Check Performance 38
Performance 38
Efficiency 56
Safety 91
Practicality 55
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance M4 Convertible +59 Efficiency Tiggo 4 Cross +9 Safety M4 Convertible +1 Practicality Tiggo 4 Cross +2

Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

M4 Convertible

Performance 97/100
Efficiency 47/100
Safety 92/100
Practicality 53/100

Tiggo 4 Cross

Performance 38/100
Efficiency 56/100
Safety 91/100
Practicality 55/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index BMW M4 Convertible leads the specification evidence index with 74 pts vs 60 pts for Tiggo 4 Cross

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, M4 Convertible leads. However, Tiggo 4 Cross may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in South Africa.

M4 Convertible vs Tiggo 4 Cross 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.