Source type: Toyota Uganda / generation-matched Toyota data; user-supplied estimates for remaining fields
Toyota Coaster 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.
Toyota Coaster
Coaster 4.2L Diesel 30-Seater MT
Diesel
5-Speed Manual
Current
UGX 395,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 96 kW
🔧 285 Nm
⛽ 12.5 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
Toyota Coaster vs Suzuki Eeco: the short answer
Coaster holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Eeco.
Eeco starts UGX 330,000,000 cheaper
Coaster from UGX 395,000,000 · Eeco from UGX 65,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Coaster | Eeco |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Coaster96 kW @ 3800 rpm | Eeco59 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Coaster285 Nm @ 2200 rpm | Eeco104 Nm @ 3000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Coaster4164 cc | Eeco1197 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Coaster12.5 km/l | Eeco15.2 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Coaster180 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
Coaster
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
Eeco
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?
Coaster
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Eeco
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Coaster | Eeco |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2024 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current Uganda-market generation | Current Uganda-market generation |
| Facelift History | Current Uganda-market version | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2024 | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | Bus | Van |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Bus segment | Light commercial vehicle |
| Vehicle Type | Bus | Light commercial vehicle |
| Spec | Coaster | Eeco |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 6990 mm | 3675 mm |
| Width | 2275 mm | 1475 mm |
| Height | 2635 mm | 1825 mm |
| Wheelbase | 3935 mm | 2350 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 180 mm | 160 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 165 mm | 150 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 95 l | 32 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | 540 l |
| Kerb Weight | 3350 kg | 935 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1500 kg | 1540 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 1500 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 1500 kg | 500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 30 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 8 rows | 1 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 4.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | 960 mm | Not Applicable |
| Front Legroom | 1050 mm | 1020 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 850 mm | Not Applicable |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Coaster 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: Coaster 46 vs Eeco 28.
Efficiency index: Coaster 54 vs Eeco 61.
Safety-equipment index: Coaster 68 vs Eeco 36.
Practicality index: Coaster 76 vs Eeco 49.
Ownership-cover index: Coaster 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
Coaster and Eeco image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Toyota Coaster
View 8 more Coaster 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
Coaster leads by 19 points
Coaster holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Eeco.
Evidence leader
61
/100
Lead
19
points
Data
69%
source coverage
61
#1
Evidence leader
Coaster
Performance
46
Efficiency
54
Safety
68
Practicality
76
Leads by 19 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
Coaster +18
Efficiency
Eeco +7
Safety
Coaster +32
Practicality
Coaster +27
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Coaster
Performance
46/100
Efficiency
54/100
Safety
68/100
Practicality
76/100
Eeco
Performance
28/100
Efficiency
61/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
49/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Coaster 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.
Coaster 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.