Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
Suzuki Across vs Suzuki Eeco
A proper head-to-head in Uganda — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Suzuki Across
ACROSS GLX SUN ROOF 6AT MHV 2WD 1462cc
Petrol Mild Hybrid
6-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 126,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 137 Nm
⛽ 16.0 km/l
VS
Suzuki Eeco
EECO CARGO 2WD 5D 1197p MT
Petrol
5-Speed Manual
Current
UGX 65,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 59 kW
🔧 104 Nm
⛽ 15.2 km/l
Decision summary
Suzuki Across vs Suzuki Eeco: the short answer
Across and Eeco are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Eeco starts UGX 61,000,000 cheaper
Across from UGX 126,000,000 · Eeco from UGX 65,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Across | Eeco |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Across77 kW @ 6000 rpm | Eeco59 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Across136.8 Nm | Eeco104 Nm @ 3000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Across1462 cc | Eeco1197 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Across16.0 km/l | Eeco15.2 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Across210 mm | Eeco160 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
Across
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger listed safety equipment
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- No obvious weak spots to flag.
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Efficiency
Published Practicality
Eeco
Strengths
- Nothing stands out clearly here.
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Fewer listed safety features
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
General Use
Which One's Right for You?
Across
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Eeco
- Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Across | Eeco |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current Uganda-market generation | Current Uganda-market generation |
| Facelift History | Current-generation specification | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2023 | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | SUV | Van |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Passenger vehicle | Light commercial vehicle |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger car | Light commercial vehicle |
| Spec | Across | Eeco |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4360 mm | 3675 mm |
| Width | 1795 mm | 1475 mm |
| Height | 1655 mm | 1825 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2600 mm | 2350 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 210 mm | 160 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 150 mm | 150 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 45 l | 32 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 373 l | 540 l |
| Kerb Weight | 1250 kg | 935 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1710 kg | 1540 kg |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 1200 kg | 500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 1 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.4 m | 4.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Applicable |
| Front Legroom | 1020 mm | 1020 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 860 mm | Not Applicable |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Across and Eeco comparison uses the exact derivatives selected above for Uganda. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.
Performance index: Across 32 vs Eeco 28.
Efficiency index: Across 68 vs Eeco 61.
Safety-equipment index: Across 38 vs Eeco 36.
Practicality index: Across 61 vs Eeco 49.
Ownership-cover index: Across not separately scored vs Eeco 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
Across and Eeco image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Suzuki Across
View 8 more Across images
Suzuki Eeco
View 8 more Eeco 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
Across leads by 6 points
Across and Eeco are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
48
/100
Lead
6
points
Data
78%
source coverage
48
#1
Evidence leader
Across
Performance
32
Efficiency
68
Safety
38
Practicality
61
Leads by 6 points
42
#2
Eeco
Performance
28
Efficiency
61
Safety
36
Practicality
49
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Across +4
Efficiency
Across +7
Safety
Across +2
Practicality
Across +12
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Across
Performance
32/100
Efficiency
68/100
Safety
38/100
Practicality
61/100
Eeco
Performance
28/100
Efficiency
61/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
49/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Across leads. However, Eeco may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in Uganda.
Related comparisons
Continue with closely related Uganda models and comparable body styles.
Across vs Eeco questions
There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the models and available derivatives in Uganda 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.