Source type: Suzuki Kenya
Suzuki Eeco vs Toyota Rush
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
Toyota Rush
1.5L Petrol AT 4x2
Petrol
4-Speed Automatic
Current
KES 5,100,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 136 Nm
⛽ 15.2 km/l
Decision summary
Suzuki Eeco vs Toyota Rush: the short answer
Rush has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Eeco remains close.
Eeco starts KES 2,550,000 cheaper
Eeco from KES 2,250,000 · Rush from KES 4,800,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Eeco | Rush |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Eeco59 kW | Rush77 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Eeco104.4 Nm | Rush136 Nm @ 4200 rpm |
| Engine Size | Eeco1197 cc | Rush1496 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | EecoNot Officially Disclosed | Rush15.2 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Eeco160 mm | Rush220 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Toyota 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
Rush
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
Rush
- 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 | Rush |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Rush |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3675 mm | 4435 mm |
| Width | 1475 mm | 1695 mm |
| Height | 1825 mm | 1705 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2350 mm | 2685 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 160 mm | 220 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 145 mm | 200 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 32 l | 45 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 540 l | 213 l |
| Kerb Weight | 940 kg | 1280 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1540 kg | 1870 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 600 kg | 590 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 750 kg | 800 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 | 5.2 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 Eeco and Rush 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 Rush 35.
Efficiency index: Eeco 61 vs Rush 60.
Safety-equipment index: Eeco 34 vs Rush 54.
Practicality index: Eeco 52 vs Rush 60.
Ownership-cover index: Eeco not separately scored vs Rush 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 Rush 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
Toyota Rush
View 8 more Rush 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
Rush leads by 8 points
Rush has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Eeco remains close.
Evidence leader
51
/100
Lead
8
points
Data
69%
source coverage
51
#1
Evidence leader
Rush
Performance
35
Efficiency
60
Safety
54
Practicality
60
Leads by 8 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
Rush +6
Efficiency
Eeco +1
Safety
Rush +20
Practicality
Rush +8
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Rush
Performance
35/100
Efficiency
60/100
Safety
54/100
Practicality
60/100
Eeco
Performance
29/100
Efficiency
61/100
Safety
34/100
Practicality
52/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Rush 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 Rush 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.