Source type: Suzuki Kenya
Suzuki Celerio vs Hyundai KONA EV
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
Hyundai KONA EV
KONA EV Kenya specification
Electric
Single-Speed Reduction Gear
Current
KES 6,950,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 150 kW
🔧 395 Nm
Decision summary
Suzuki Celerio vs Hyundai KONA EV: the short answer
KONA EV holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Celerio.
Celerio starts KES 5,100,000 cheaper
Celerio from KES 1,850,000 · KONA EV from KES 6,950,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Celerio | KONA EV |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Celerio49 kW | KONA EV150 kW |
| Maximum Torque | Celerio89 Nm @ 3500 rpm | KONA EV395 Nm |
| Engine Size | Celerio998 cc | KONA EVNot Applicable |
| Combined Fuel Economy | CelerioNot Officially Disclosed | KONA EVNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Celerio170 mm | KONA EV158 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Hyundai Kenya
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Celerio
Strengths
- Nothing stands out clearly here.
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower fuel efficiency
Best suited to:
General Use
Specification evidence leader
KONA EV
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
- No obvious weak spots to flag.
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Efficiency
Which One's Right for You?
Celerio
- Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix
KONA EV
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Celerio | KONA EV |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | SUV |
| Model Year | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Production Status | Active | Active |
| Segment | Kenya-market Hatchback | Kenya-market SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Hatchback | SUV |
| Spec | Celerio | KONA EV |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3695 mm | 4205 mm |
| Width | 1655 mm | 1800 mm |
| Height | 1555 mm | 1570 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2435 mm | 2600 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 170 mm | 158 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 155 mm | 143 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 32 l | Not Applicable |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 295 l | 332 l |
| Kerb Weight | 840 kg | 1685 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1260 kg | 2170 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 420 kg | 485 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 400 kg | 300 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 4.7 m | 5.3 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 KONA EV 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 KONA EV 73.
Efficiency index: Celerio 77 vs KONA EV 90.
Safety-equipment index: Celerio 82 vs KONA EV 82.
Practicality index: Celerio 49 vs KONA EV 49.
Ownership-cover index: Celerio not separately scored vs KONA EV 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 KONA EV 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
Hyundai KONA EV
View 8 more KONA EV 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
KONA EV leads by 16 points
KONA EV holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Celerio.
Evidence leader
73
/100
Lead
16
points
Data
56%
source coverage
73
#1
Evidence leader
KONA EV
Performance
73
Efficiency
90
Safety
82
Practicality
49
Leads by 16 points
57
#2
Celerio
Performance
26
Efficiency
77
Safety
82
Practicality
49
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
KONA EV +47
Efficiency
KONA EV +13
Safety
Level
Practicality
Level
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
KONA EV
Performance
73/100
Efficiency
90/100
Safety
82/100
Practicality
49/100
Celerio
Performance
26/100
Efficiency
77/100
Safety
82/100
Practicality
49/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, KONA EV leads. However, Celerio 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 KONA EV 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.