Source type: Suzuki Kenya
Suzuki Eeco vs Ford Everest
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 Eeco
EECO 2D 2WD 1197p MT
Petrol
5-Speed Manual
Current
KES 2,250,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 59 kW
🔧 104 Nm
VS
Ford Everest
Everest XLT
Diesel
10-Speed Automatic
Current
KES 11,250,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 154 kW
🔧 500 Nm
Decision summary
Suzuki Eeco vs Ford Everest: the short answer
Everest has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Eeco.
Eeco starts KES 9,000,000 cheaper
Eeco from KES 2,250,000 · Everest from KES 11,250,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Eeco | Everest |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Eeco59 kW | Everest154 kW |
| Maximum Torque | Eeco104.4 Nm | Everest500 Nm |
| Engine Size | Eeco1197 cc | Everest1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | EecoNot Officially Disclosed | EverestNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Eeco160 mm | Everest229 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Ford Kenya
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Eeco
Strengths
- Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Fewer listed safety features
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Efficiency
Specification evidence leader
Everest
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Stronger listed safety equipment
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Lower fuel efficiency
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Practicality
Which One's Right for You?
Eeco
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Everest
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Eeco | Everest |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Van | SUV |
| Model Year | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Production Status | Active | Active |
| Segment | Kenya-market Van | Kenya-market SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Van | SUV |
| Spec | Eeco | Everest |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3675 mm | 4914 mm |
| Width | 1475 mm | 1923 mm |
| Height | 1825 mm | 1841 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2350 mm | 2900 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 160 mm | 229 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 145 mm | 214 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 32 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 540 l | 259 l |
| Kerb Weight | 940 kg | 2367 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1540 kg | 3100 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 600 kg | 733 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 750 kg | 3500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 2 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Rows | 1 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 4.5 m | 5.85 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 Eeco and Everest 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: Eeco 29 vs Everest 81.
Efficiency index: Eeco 61 vs Everest 47.
Safety-equipment index: Eeco 34 vs Everest 94.
Practicality index: Eeco 52 vs Everest 78.
Ownership-cover index: Eeco not separately scored vs Everest 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
Eeco and Everest image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Suzuki Eeco
View 8 more Eeco images
Ford Everest
View 8 more Everest 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
Everest leads by 34 points
Everest has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Eeco.
Evidence leader
77
/100
Lead
34
points
Data
68%
source coverage
77
#1
Evidence leader
Everest
Performance
81
Efficiency
47
Safety
94
Practicality
78
Leads by 34 points
43
#2
Eeco
Performance
29
Efficiency
61
Safety
34
Practicality
52
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Everest +52
Efficiency
Eeco +14
Safety
Everest +60
Practicality
Everest +26
Large difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Everest
Performance
81/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
94/100
Practicality
78/100
Eeco
Performance
29/100
Efficiency
61/100
Safety
34/100
Practicality
52/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Everest leads. However, Eeco 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.
Eeco vs Everest 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.