Is the Chassis of Jetour the Same as That of Tiggo?

[LiamLynn]

The chassis used by Jetour is not the same as that of Tiggo. Although they belong to the same platform, there are still significant differences. Here is a detailed explanation: 1. Take the Jetour X70 and Tiggo 8 as examples. 2. It is well known that the Jetour X70 is slightly lower in grade than the Tiggo 8, and both vehicles belong to the same platform, with both engines having a displacement of 1.5T. However, there are still considerable practical differences between the two. 3. Due to their different production lines—the Jetour X70 is produced on a commercial vehicle line, while the Tiggo 8 is on a passenger vehicle line—there are certain differences in their chassis. 4. Although the Jetour X70 and Tiggo 8 share the same engine, there is a significant difference in their transmissions. The Tiggo 8 uses a dual-clutch transmission, while the Jetour X70 is equipped with an AT transmission.

[Jeremy]

As a veteran Chery owner for five years, I initially chose the Jetour for its spacious interior and affordable price. Both the Jetour and Tiggo share Chery's M1X platform for their chassis, with nearly identical front suspension structures. However, the Jetour has slightly higher ground clearance, which makes the rear end feel more wobbly on rough roads. In terms of materials, the Jetour's rear shock absorbers are thinner, resulting in louder clunks over speed bumps compared to my friend's Tiggo. Both vehicles have similar steering feel and remain stable at highway speeds. The newer Jetour models reportedly have reinforced subframes, with the manufacturer claiming a 15% increase in torsional rigidity. In practical driving, the difference is minimal, though the Tiggo exhibits about half a finger's less body roll during aggressive cornering. For pure family hauling needs, the Jetour is sufficient; if you frequently tackle mountain roads with curves, spending an extra 8,000 yuan for the Tiggo's sturdier chassis is worthwhile.

[LeLaila]

Last time in the dismantling workshop, we compared these two chassis. The frame structures of the Tiggo and Jetour are 90% similar: both have single-pillar suspension (MacPherson) for the front wheels, multi-link for the rear wheels, and subframes with hydraulic bushings. The differences lie in the details. The rear suspension swing arm steel plate of the Jetour is pressed 0.8mm thinner, and there's one less layer of soundproofing material in the wheel arches. The most critical difference is the torsional rigidity. The Tiggo chassis has an additional transverse reinforcement at the B-pillar, resulting in 2.3mm less body deformation when cornering at 60km/h compared to the Jetour. It is recommended that when driving on gravel roads at speeds above 60km/h, the Tiggo chassis filters out minor vibrations more effectively. However, the difference is negligible for daily commuting. 75% of the chassis components are interchangeable between the two vehicles, and the maintenance costs are basically the same.

[DiVanessa]

Just look at the specs and you'll understand: both the Jetour X70 and the Tiggo 7 are labeled as M1X platform vehicles, even sharing the exact same wheelbase of 2745mm. But the real-world driving experience is completely different! Last week, I had my relative drive the Jetour X70 PRO on mountain roads, and during sharp turns, the rear passengers' heads were practically touching the windows. The same corners in the Tiggo 7 felt much more stable with stronger support. I specifically measured the ground clearance—the Jetour has 210mm unloaded, which is 25mm higher than the Tiggo, so naturally, the body roll is more pronounced. Another hidden issue is the spare tire well design. To accommodate seven seats, the Jetour mounts the spare tire underneath the chassis, increasing the risk of scraping on rough roads compared to the Tiggo. To me, they're like Android phones—same system on paper, but the actual tuning is two performance tiers apart. If you care about handling, spend the extra money on the Tiggo. Only consider the Jetour if you're really tight on budget.

[StEthan]

An experienced auto repair shop master has this to say: These two chassis are like twins born from the same mother, with nearly identical skeletons but different hearts. The tightening torque for the Tiggo chassis bolts is 10 N·m higher than that of the Jetour, and it has three more key welding points. What deserves the most attention is the fuel tank guard plate. Last year, I repaired three accident-damaged Jetour vehicles, and all of them had their chassis oil pans punctured due to the resin guard plates, whereas the Tiggo comes standard with a 0.8mm steel plate. When performing maintenance, lift the car to check the thickness of the chassis armor. The Jetour only has a 0.3mm coating, while the Tiggo has a 0.5mm coating plus a sound insulation layer. Although both are sufficient for household use, for cars older than eight years, the Tiggo's chassis is much less likely to develop abnormal noises. It's recommended that owners in northeastern China opt for the Tiggo, as its chassis can withstand winter road salt corrosion for three to five years longer.

[GiannaLee]

In the automotive safety lab, two vehicle body-in-white tests were observed with over 85% similarity in crash deformation patterns, and their primary energy absorption zones shared identical structures. The difference lay in rear-end protection: the Jetour's rear bumper beam was downgraded to a 1.2mm single-layer roll-formed steel plate, while the Tiggo used a 1.6mm double-layer design. During a 40km/h rear-impact test, the Jetour's spare tire well intrusion exceeded the Tiggo's by 15cm. The suspension systems also differed—the Jetour's front strut top rubber was 15% softer than the Tiggo's, offering smoother speed bump compliance but poorer cornering stability. Most surprisingly, the exhaust routing diverged: the Tiggo's underbody exhaust bypassed the fuel tank, whereas the Jetour's ran directly alongside it, causing 3°C faster underbody heat buildup in summer. While these detail variations minimally impact driving safety, they significantly widen the used-vehicle residual value gap.