JAC S5 vs Lifan X60: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.

JAC · 2013–2019
S5
- Power
- 100 kW136 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -

Lifan · 2011–2018
X60
- Power
- 98 kW133 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 11.2 s
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
Categories won: S5 1 X60 1
- Family S5 Boot: 500 l vs 405 l
- City X60 Length: 4,325 mm vs 4,430 mm
In plain words
JAC S5 has more power: 100 kW (136 PS) against 98 kW (133 PS) for Lifan X60. JAC S5 is 105 mm longer than Lifan X60 (4,430 mm vs 4,325 mm). JAC S5 has the bigger boot: 500 l against 405 l. Lifan X60 is the older design (from 2011); JAC S5 arrived in 2013. On the catalog figures, the JAC S5 is the pick for family; the Lifan X60 is the pick for city. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the JAC S5 yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
Side view to scale, all cars from the front bumper.
| S5 | X60 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,430 mm174.4 in | 4,325 mm170.3 in −105 mm −4.1 in −2.4% |
| Height | 1,660 mm65.4 in | 1,690 mm66.5 in +30 mm +1.2 in +1.8% |
| Wheelbase | 2,645 mm104.1 in | 2,600 mm102.4 in −45 mm −1.8 in −1.7% |
| Boot | 500 l17.7 cu ft | 405 l14.3 cu ft −95 l −3.4 cu ft −19.0% |
| Fits a standard garage? | No data | Yes |
Difference vs S5 (±). Garage check: a standard single garage takes a car up to about 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in) long and 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) wide (width as listed in the catalog; some makers include the mirrors). Leave about 0.6 m (2 ft) to open the doors.
Full specifications
| JAC S5 | Lifan X60 | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 2.0 · petrol · 100 kW (136 PS) | 1.8 · petrol · 98 kW (133 PS) |
| Production years | 2013–2019 | 2011–2018 |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | China | China |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 100 kW (136 PS) 134 hp | 98 kW (133 PS) 131 hp |
| Power, all versions | 100–129 kW (136–175 PS) 134–173 hp | 98 kW (133 PS) 131 hp |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | No data | 11.2 s |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | Petrol | Petrol |
| Engine | 2,000 cc · 4 cyl 2.0 l | 1,800 cc 1.8 l |
| Drive | Front-wheel drive | Front-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,430 mm 174.4 in | 4,325 mm 170.3 in |
| Width | No data | 1,790 mm 70.5 in |
| Height | 1,660 mm 65.4 in | 1,690 mm 66.5 in |
| Wheelbase | 2,645 mm 104.1 in | 2,600 mm 102.4 in |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 500 l 17.7 cu ft Better | 405 l 14.3 cu ft |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 8.2 l/100 km 28.7 mpg US |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €2,150/year estimated |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (5): Body, Class, Country, Fuel, Drive.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.75/l petrol.