Source type: Suzuki Kenya
Suzuki Celerio vs Suzuki Ertiga
A proper head-to-head in Kenya — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Suzuki Celerio
CELERIO GL MT
Petrol
5-Speed Manual
Current
KES 1,995,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 49 kW
🔧 89 Nm
VS
Suzuki Ertiga
ERTIGA GL 5D 1462p 4AT
Petrol
4-Speed Automatic
Current
KES 3,850,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 138 Nm
Decision summary
Suzuki Celerio vs Suzuki Ertiga: the short answer
Celerio has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Ertiga remains close.
Celerio starts KES 1,400,000 cheaper
Celerio from KES 1,850,000 · Ertiga from KES 3,250,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Celerio | Ertiga |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Celerio49 kW | Ertiga77 kW |
| Maximum Torque | Celerio89 Nm @ 3500 rpm | Ertiga138 Nm @ 4400 rpm |
| Engine Size | Celerio998 cc | Ertiga1462 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | CelerioNot Officially Disclosed | ErtigaNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Celerio170 mm | Ertiga180 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Suzuki Kenya
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
Celerio
Strengths
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Efficiency
Ertiga
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Practicality
Which One's Right for You?
Celerio
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
Ertiga
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Celerio | Ertiga |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Generation | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Facelift History | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Facelift Launched Since | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Facelift Version Ending | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Body Style | Compacts | Station wagon |
| Model Year | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Production Status | Active | Active |
| Segment | Kenya-market Hatchback | Kenya-market MPV |
| Vehicle Type | Hatchback | MPV |
| Spec | Celerio | Ertiga |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3695 mm | 4395 mm |
| Width | 1655 mm | 1735 mm |
| Height | 1555 mm | 1690 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2435 mm | 2740 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 170 mm | 180 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 155 mm | 165 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 32 l | 45 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 295 l | 153 l |
| Kerb Weight | 840 kg | 1165 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1260 kg | 1735 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 420 kg | 570 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 400 kg | 1000 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 4.7 m | 5.2 m |
| Front Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Celerio and Ertiga comparison uses the exact derivatives selected above for Kenya. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.
Performance index: Celerio 26 vs Ertiga 35.
Efficiency index: Celerio 77 vs Ertiga 54.
Safety-equipment index: Celerio 82 vs Ertiga 36.
Practicality index: Celerio 49 vs Ertiga 55.
Ownership-cover index: Celerio not separately scored vs Ertiga 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.
Model imagery
Celerio and Ertiga image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Suzuki Celerio
View 8 more Celerio images
Suzuki Ertiga
View 8 more Ertiga images
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-index readout
Celerio leads by 13 points
Celerio has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Ertiga remains close.
Evidence leader
57
/100
Lead
13
points
Data
68%
source coverage
57
#1
Evidence leader
Celerio
Performance
26
Efficiency
77
Safety
82
Practicality
49
Leads by 13 points
44
#2
Ertiga
Performance
35
Efficiency
54
Safety
36
Practicality
55
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ertiga +9
Efficiency
Celerio +23
Safety
Celerio +46
Practicality
Ertiga +6
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Celerio
Performance
26/100
Efficiency
77/100
Safety
82/100
Practicality
49/100
Ertiga
Performance
35/100
Efficiency
54/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
55/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Celerio leads. However, Ertiga may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in Kenya.
Related comparisons
Continue with closely related Kenya models and comparable body styles.
Celerio vs Ertiga questions
There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the models and available derivatives in Kenya 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.