Source type: Isuzu East Africa official Kenya model specification
Isuzu mu-X 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.
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
Isuzu mu-X vs Toyota Rush: the short answer
mu-X holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Rush.
Rush starts KES 4,190,000 cheaper
mu-X from KES 8,990,000 · Rush from KES 4,800,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | mu-X | Rush |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | mu-X110 kW | Rush77 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | mu-X350 Nm @ 1800-2600 rpm | Rush136 Nm @ 4200 rpm |
| Engine Size | mu-X1899 cc | Rush1496 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | mu-XNot Officially Disclosed | Rush15.2 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | mu-X235 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)
Specification evidence leader
mu-X
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
Rush
Strengths
- Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Fewer listed safety features
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Efficiency
Which One's Right for You?
mu-X
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Rush
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | mu-X | Rush |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Generation | Current Kenya-market Isuzu East Africa derivative | 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 | SUV | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Production Status | active | Active |
| Segment | Seven-seat diesel SUV | Kenya-market SUV |
| Vehicle Type | SUV | SUV |
| Spec | mu-X | Rush |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4850 mm | 4435 mm |
| Width | 1870 mm | 1695 mm |
| Height | 1820 mm | 1705 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2855 mm | 2685 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 235 mm | 220 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | Not Officially Disclosed | 200 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 45 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | 213 l |
| Kerb Weight | 2061 kg | 1280 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 2800 kg | 1870 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 739 kg | 590 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 2100 kg | 800 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 7 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Rows | 3 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 11.4 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 mu-X 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: mu-X 62 vs Rush 35.
Efficiency index: mu-X 38 vs Rush 60.
Safety-equipment index: mu-X 86 vs Rush 54.
Practicality index: mu-X 80 vs Rush 60.
Ownership-cover index: mu-X 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
mu-X and Rush image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Isuzu mu-X
View 8 more mu-X 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
mu-X leads by 17 points
mu-X holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Rush.
Evidence leader
68
/100
Lead
17
points
Data
65%
source coverage
68
#1
Evidence leader
mu-X
Performance
62
Efficiency
38
Safety
86
Practicality
80
Leads by 17 points
51
#2
Rush
Performance
35
Efficiency
60
Safety
54
Practicality
60
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
mu-X +27
Efficiency
Rush +22
Safety
mu-X +32
Practicality
mu-X +20
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
mu-X
Performance
62/100
Efficiency
38/100
Safety
86/100
Practicality
80/100
Rush
Performance
35/100
Efficiency
60/100
Safety
54/100
Practicality
60/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, mu-X leads. However, Rush 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.
mu-X 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.