BYD Shark 6 vs Chery Tiggo 4

What's the difference?

The Shark 6 breaks new ground with its PHEV technology and impresses with not only its whisper-quiet and rapid acceleration but also engaging chassis dynamics, build quality, fuel economy and generous standard equipment for a compelling price. However, its modest payload and tow ratings may be deal-breakers for some tradies and recreational buyers with bigger loads to haul.

If you’re just looking for an affordable hybrid which will save you money at the pump, the Tiggo 4 will do the trick, but there are so many little things which could be better here, it’s evident you’re getting what you’re paying for.

This makes the Tiggo 4 hybrid a bit of a let down, because the other Cherys I’ve driven recently have been pleasantly surprising given their price-points, not to mention the price-gap between the Tiggo 4 and many of its rivals is nowhere near as large.

Our test vehicle rides on a 3260mm wheelbase and is 5457mm long, 1971mm wide and 1925mm high, so it’s in the same ballpark as a Ford Ranger 4x4 dual cab ute.

The Shark 6 features traditional body-on-frame truck chassis design, double-wishbone coil-spring front and rear suspension, rack-and-pinion steering and four-wheel disc brakes.

It also has a compact 11.0-metre turning circle and its off-road credentials include 230mm of unladen ground clearance, 700mm wading depth and 31 degrees approach/17 degrees ramp-over/19.3 degrees departure angles. A large metal bash-plate protects the underside.

Looks are subjective of course and even though there’s too much external black plastic for our liking, we reckon it still passes the pub test on styling with its chunky and purposeful appearance.

The bold grille and headlight design appears to draw inspiration from full-size US pick-ups, but with a ‘technical’ look consistent with its high-tech powertrain.

The predominantly grey interior has a high-quality finish and looks good. It also appears to draw inspiration from rivals, in this case the Ranger Raptor with its contrasting bright red air-vent/cupholder surrounds and exposed stitching along numerous seams.

On the outside, I think the Tiggo 4 Hybrid is pretty generic and inoffensive. It shares its 'box-on-wheels' aesthetic with cars like the outgoing Mitsubishi ASX and Hyundai Venue, which, to be fair, have been strong sellers.

It might not be an eye catcher, then, but there’s something to be said for not trying anything controversial, and this is pretty consistent across Chery’s range. In fact, compared to some brands in the market, Chery is doing a solid job of design consistency for its mainline SUVs.

Highlights on the outside include the enormous grille and contemporary LED light strip across the rear.

On the inside things also look pretty swish for this compact SUV category. The seats immediately jump out as a highlight, big and lavishly trimmed in comparatively soft synthetic stuff. The glitzy steering wheel and dual-screen layout continues from other Chery products and the dash design is tidy, if a little generic.

With its hefty 2710kg kerb weight and 3500kg GVM, the Shark 6 has a 790kg payload rating which is less than some turbo-diesel rivals.

It’s also rated to tow up to 2500kg of braked trailer which is 1000kg less than the category benchmark. And BYD does not publish a GCM (Gross Combination Mass) rating, so we don’t know how much weight the Shark 6 can legally carry and tow at the same time.

The load tub is almost square with its 1520mm length and 1500mm width. And with 1224mm between the rear-wheel housings, it can carry either Aussie or Euro pallets. Its 517mm depth results in 1.2 cubic metres of total load volume.

There are six load-anchorage points but those located in the sidewalls at the front and centre of the tub are too high for securing low-profile loads. Anchorage points located near floor-level are preferable, as they can secure loads of all heights.

The tub’s internal surfaces are protected by a spray-in liner and there’s bright internal lighting and a hydraulic strut to ease tailgate operation.

Seating for the driver and front passenger is spacious and comfortable. The rear bench seat shares similar qualities, given I’m 186cm tall and when seated behind the driver’s seat in my position I still have ample kneeroom.

Rear seat passengers also enjoy sufficient headroom, even for tall people seated in the least popular central position who also have a nice flat floor given the absence of a transmission tunnel. However, shoulder room for adults sitting three-abreast is tight and best limited to short drives.

Cabin storage for front seat occupants includes a large-bottle holder and bin in each front door, overhead glasses holder plus a dash storage shelf and glove box on the passenger side.

The centre console has two small-bottle/cupholders in the centre and a lidded box at the back.

Rear passengers also get a large-bottle holder and bin in each door, plus pockets on the rear of both front seat backrests and a fold-down centre armrest with two small-bottle/cup-holders.

The bench seat’s base cushion can be raised and stored vertically if more internal luggage space is required, but there’s no under-floor storage.

I can see this car having a lot of wow factor on a dealer forecourt but up close things are less good. The software on the screens is pretty ordinary; hardly the sharpest, fastest or most logically laid-out. There’s a selection of clumsy-looking themes, and while the multimedia portion has a logical smartphone-style main menu, beneath lies an array of confusing and inconsistently-labelled sub-menus.

The digital dash could be smoother and better looking and it’s a bit confusing to use with the poorly labelled buttons on the steering wheel.

The centre console area is finished in a gloss finish, which is easy to scratch or smear with fingerprints. Up front underneath the main screen is an entirely separate dot-matrix style climate control panel with actual physical buttons. It looks a bit clunky compared to some other solutions on the market, but at least it’s clearly labelled and straightforward to use.

Somewhat infuriatingly, though, interacting with this climate panel brings up a menu on the touchscreen which you don’t need and it takes several seconds to go away. Why?

The cabin is reasonably practical from there, though. There are decent bottle holders in each front door and a further two atop the console. There’s a pass-through beneath, good for handbags and the like. There are some strange additions, like an upright holster with rubberised sides which seems to be for a phone, and behind the shifter there’s a key fob-sized cut-out, but it’s gloss finished, so it will scratch if you actually use it.

The wireless phone charger is tucked away underneath, which makes your phone hard to get at in a pinch, and easy to forget when you exit.

Ergonomically, this car is a bit strange. The seat base is very high, so for me (at 182cm tall) even with the driver’s seat set to its lowest position, my head feels close to the roof. Plus, I’m peering down on the instruments, rather than have them at a comfortable height.

However, there are soft-touch surfaces adorning the doors, which can’t be said for every car in this segment and the rear seat hasn’t been forgotten, either.

I fit pretty comfortably behind my own driving position in terms of knee and headroom and the plush seat trim continues.

There’s a nearly flat floor, so while it’s a reasonably narrow vehicle, at least someone in the centre position will have somewhere to put their feet.

On the amenity front for rear passengers, there’s a small bottle holder in each door, pockets on the backs of the front seats, a weird storage tray and USB port on the back of the centre console and a drop-down armrest with two shallow cupholders. There’s just a single adjustable air vent for rear passengers, so they’ll have to fight over who gets the airflow.

The boot surprised me. It looks tiny, but the brand claims it weighs in at 470 litres. On top of this, the floor is a strange shape because the 12-volt battery is under the floor and doesn’t quite fit level.

However, when I went to load the full three-piece CarsGuide test luggage set, I was surprised to find it fit snugly, with the tailgate able to shut without a problem. I was also impressed to find a space-saver spare wheel and not just a repair kit under the floor.

The Tiggo 4 Hybrid we’ve been driving for this review is the top-spec Ultimate, which wears a price-tag of $34,990, drive-away.

The surprising thing about this is how close it is to rivals. Yes, the Tiggo 4 Hybrid is still more affordable than most of its contemporaries, but it’s not by the same massive margin as its larger models like the Tiggo 7 PHEV ($39,990), which undercut the outgoing Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV by almost $20,000.

Instead, the Tiggo 4 Hybrid only just slips under a Toyota Yaris Cross GX hybrid ($34,790) although the margin increases considering Chery’s offer is drive-away. It also continues to look impressive compared to popular hybrid alternatives from more traditional automakers, like the exxy Honda HR-V (from $39,900) and the sightly larger Hyundai Kona (from $36,950).

The Tiggo 4’s value proposition is also complicated by how much competition there is in this small SUV space. A Haval Jolion hybrid, for example, can be had at $32,990, drive-away and is a slightly larger vehicle with a similar warranty offering, while MG’s ZS Hybrid+ can be had from $33,990, also drive-away, giving you plenty of things to think twice about.

Still, compared to those base prices for rivals, Chery is offering a top-spec and the Tiggo 4 Hybrid is pretty well equipped in this Ultimate form.

On the outside there are some expected things like 17-inch alloys and LED lighting, while on the inside the Tiggo 4 punches above its weight with things like dual 10.25-inch scregens for the multimedia and digital dash, wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, synthetic leather seat trim with power adjust for the driver and heatin in the front two positions, dual-zone climate, a sunroof, ambient interior lighting, a wireless phone charger and a six-speaker stereo system.

There’s also a pretty good 360-degree view parking camera, walk away locking and auto-folding wing mirrors.

At this price, and in this segment, you generally have to spend a lot more to get this level of kit.

The Shark 6’s hybrid drivetrain with permanent all-wheel drive includes two electric motors, with the front motor producing up to 170kW/310Nm driving the front wheels. The rear motor produces up to 150kW/340Nm and drives the rears.

These motors are teamed with a 1.5-litre turbocharged four-cylinder petrol engine producing up to 135kW/260Nm, which serves dual roles as a generator to maintain charge in the 29.58kWh lithium-ion battery (in addition to regenerative braking) and to assist with driving the front wheels as required. It can also perform both roles simultaneously.

The combined output of electric motors/petrol engine is up to 321kW and 650Nm. There are also three selectable drive modes comprising Eco, Normal and Sport, plus different terrain settings to optimise performance in Mud/Sand/Snow/Mountain.

The plug-in battery can be charged using either the AC (7.0kW) or DC (55kW) ports. Cables for both were supplied with our test vehicle and stored in a carry bag behind the rear seat.

The Tiggo 4 hybrid variants pair a 1.5-litre four-cylinder petrol engine with a relatively large electric motor housed in a transaxle-style unit driving the front wheels. In effect, it's continuously variable without being a much-derided CVT auto.

Weirdly, Chery doesn’t state combined power figures, just separate ones for each power source, with the engine producing 72kW/120Nm and the electric motor producing 150kW/310Nm.

You’ll note the electric motor is much more powerful than the engine, which has an effect on the way this car drives.

BYD claims combined average fuel consumption for the petrol engine as low as 2.0L/100km with 25-100 per cent SoC (State of Charge) which spikes to 7.9L/100km when SoC drops below 25 per cent (see Driving).

BYD also claims an NEDC battery-only driving range of up to 100km (with 25-100 per cent SoC) and up to 800km when combined with the petrol engine in hybrid mode.

We covered 522km during our test which was a mix of city, suburban and regional roads plus some highway driving, of which about one fifth of that distance was hauling a near-maximum payload.

At the completion of our test, the Shark 6’s onboard computer claimed average petrol consumption of 6.6L/100km with 204km of range remaining, which suggests a real-world driving range of at least 700km is credible from its 60-litre petrol tank.

The whole point of this plugless hybrid set-up is fuel efficiency and on paper it’s not as good as some rivals.

The official combined cycle (urban/extra-urban) economy number is 5.4L/100km, but we easily beat that claim on test with a figure of 4.5L/100km. Worth noting that average came primarily from urban and expressway driving. It seems the hybrid transmission might require significantly more combustion input in freeway scenarios, hence the higher official claim.

A 51-litre fuel tank translates to a 944km range using the official economy figure and around 1100km based on our on-test average.

The seating is comfortable and supportive and the driving experience is enhanced by the head up display, large left footrest and thick-rimmed leather wheel.

It’s quiet to drive and the ride quality is outstanding, with refined and disciplined suspension tuning combined with responsive steering and braking. It all adds up to handling agility on winding mountain roads that belies the fact it’s a high-riding 2.7-tonne ute.

Rapid acceleration from standing starts (BYD claims 0-100km/h in just 5.7sec) is also effective in masking its bulk, as instant torque from the dual electric motors gets it rushing towards triple-digit speeds with unrelenting ease, regardless of gradient.

We did most of our test in the ‘Normal’ (default) drive mode, as it provides a happy medium between the heightened response of ‘Sport’ and the slightly subdued ‘Eco’ modes.

To test its GVM rating, we loaded 650kg into the load tub which with driver equalled a 750kg payload that was only about 40kg less than its legal limit. The independent rear suspension compressed about 60mm, but there was no bottoming-out detected as it competently hauled this load on our test route.

Although the ‘Energy Manager’ on the touchscreen allows drivers to pre-set a minimum SoC between 25-70 per cent, we didn’t enter any setting as we wanted to see how the hybrid system performed without these inputs.

Fact is, it did not allow the SoC to drop below 20 per cent, even during highway driving when there was minimal charging assistance available from regenerative braking.

As displayed live on the energy manager, the petrol engine maintained the battery charge needed to feed the electric motors while also providing intermittent drive to the front wheels as required.

At times the little 1.5-litre turbo engine sounded like it was working very hard doing this, but it did prove effective in performing these dual roles.

The hybrid system also produces minimal engine-braking (even with maximum regenerative braking) which is an important consideration if you regularly carry and/or tow heavy loads, particularly in hilly terrain.

With a traditional turbo-diesel and multi-speed transmission, a low gear can be manually selected to allow the engine on overrun to assist the brakes in restraining loads on steep descents. However, with its single-speed transmission and small petrol engine, the Shark 6 must rely on brakes alone.

The Tiggo 4 is a strange one. This hybrid one in particular has me in two minds.

My initial impression was not a good one. The high seating position makes you feel as though you’re sitting on the car rather than in it, and the overly electrically-assisted steering removes you from feeling what’s going on at the front wheels.

Even the pedal feel is wooden, with the car having to modulate the electric and combustion drive components and blended regenerative braking at arms length, leaving the driver with little in the way of feedback.

The ride isn’t one of the worst I’ve had in recent years, with an overall soft enough edge to it, but it also doesn’t feel very sophisticated, and harsher over the rear than it is in the front, giving it an unbalanced character. On top of this, our test car had a couple of intermittent rattling noises in the B-pillar (around where the belt retainer is) as well as somewhere in the rear.

Acceleration is pretty impressive at speeds under 80km/h, however, with plenty of power instantly available from the electric motor, although this has the side-effect of being able to easily overwhelm the Sailun tyres this top-spec Tiggo 4 ships on.

One thing I quite like about the Tiggo 4, however, is how smooth it is. The seemingly primarily electric drive is excellent, particularly at lower speeds where this car is at its best, surging forward largely in silence with no annoyances from a fiddly transmission.

Even the way it blends the combustion power in is seamless, even compared to a Toyota, for example, with the engine distantly buzzing away only when required.

It's impressive that unlike the MG3 and MG ZS which have similarly powerful electric motors but run out of juice and lose a bit of punch when the hybrid battery is low, the Tiggo 4 does a better job of managing its battery reserve level, making sure the strong electric power is always available. This might mean the engine idles higher and longer, but with decent sound deadening, it’s not something you notice much.

Overall the Tiggo 4 is okay to drive. The hybrid components impressed me enough, but these are tarnished by sub-par driver feedback and inputs, handling, tyres and some ergonomic issues.

The Tiggo 4 has a lot of safety kit for this segment and for such an affordable price, so much so that combustion versions have a maximum five-star ANCAP safety rating (although this hybrid variant didn’t exist when it was tested).

Active equipment includes all the key stuff like auto emergency braking, lane departure warning, blind-spot monitoring with rear cross-traffic alert, adaptive cruise and auto high beams.

The 360-degree parking camera is a nice touch and there are seven airbags (dual front, side, curtain and centre).

Is the active stuff annoying? Yes, but you can most of it off and the car remembers your choice next time you start it, so you can turn the most egregious offenders, like lane departure warning, and speed limit assist off. 

Even when they’re on they are okay, but I found the driver monitoring to be the most annoying of the usual crop, pinging at you constantly, sometimes for reasons beyond my comprehension.

The one you can’t seem to permanently turn off is driver attention alert, which is annoying because it is this car’s most egregious offender, chiming at me for even daring to peer down at the digital dash to see how fast I’m going.

The Shark 6 is covered by BYD's six-year/150,000km warranty and an eight-year/160,000km battery warranty.

Scheduled servicing is every 12 months/20,000km whichever occurs first. Capped-pricing for the first six scheduled services totals $2945 or an average of $490 per year.

The Tiggo 4 Hybrid is offered with a seven-year/unlimited km warranty, seven years of roadside assist and seven years of capped price servicing with an eight year and unlimited kilometre warranty for the high-voltage battery.

The servicing is required once a year or 15,000km, with each service costing $299 for the first five years. It jumps from there, with a particularly expensive service at $736.62, dragging the yearly average for the warranty period up to $360 a year.

It’s a little pricier than Toyota, for example, but very reasonably priced compared to most.