Source type: Suzuki Kenya
Suzuki Eeco 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 Eeco
EECO 2D 2WD 1197p MT
Petrol
5-Speed Manual
Current
KES 2,250,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 59 kW
🔧 104 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 Eeco vs Hyundai KONA EV: the short answer
KONA EV has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Eeco.
Eeco starts KES 4,700,000 cheaper
Eeco from KES 2,250,000 · KONA EV from KES 6,950,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Eeco | KONA EV |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Eeco59 kW | KONA EV150 kW |
| Maximum Torque | Eeco104.4 Nm | KONA EV395 Nm |
| Engine Size | Eeco1197 cc | KONA EVNot Applicable |
| Combined Fuel Economy | EecoNot Officially Disclosed | KONA EVNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Eeco160 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)
Eeco
Strengths
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to:
Published Practicality
Specification evidence leader
KONA EV
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Efficiency
Which One's Right for You?
Eeco
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
KONA EV
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Eeco | 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 | 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 | KONA EV |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3675 mm | 4205 mm |
| Width | 1475 mm | 1800 mm |
| Height | 1825 mm | 1570 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2350 mm | 2600 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 160 mm | 158 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 145 mm | 143 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 32 l | Not Applicable |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 540 l | 332 l |
| Kerb Weight | 940 kg | 1685 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1540 kg | 2170 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 600 kg | 485 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 750 kg | 300 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Rows | 1 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 4.5 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 Eeco 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: Eeco 29 vs KONA EV 73.
Efficiency index: Eeco 61 vs KONA EV 90.
Safety-equipment index: Eeco 34 vs KONA EV 82.
Practicality index: Eeco 52 vs KONA EV 49.
Ownership-cover index: Eeco 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
Eeco and KONA EV 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
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 30 points
KONA EV has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Eeco.
Evidence leader
73
/100
Lead
30
points
Data
56%
source coverage
73
#1
Evidence leader
KONA EV
Performance
73
Efficiency
90
Safety
82
Practicality
49
Leads by 30 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
KONA EV +44
Efficiency
KONA EV +29
Safety
KONA EV +48
Practicality
Eeco +3
Large 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
Eeco
Performance
29/100
Efficiency
61/100
Safety
34/100
Practicality
52/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, KONA EV 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 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.