Source type: Hyundai Uganda / Motorcare quotation catalogue and model specifications
Hyundai Creta 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.
Hyundai Creta
CRETA 1.5L Petrol 4x2 CVT GL
Petrol
CVT
Current
UGX 190,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 84 kW
🔧 144 Nm
⛽ 15.0 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
Hyundai Creta vs Suzuki Eeco: the short answer
Creta has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Eeco remains close.
Eeco starts UGX 125,000,000 cheaper
Creta from UGX 190,000,000 · Eeco from UGX 65,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Creta | Eeco |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Creta84.4 kW @ 6300 rpm | Eeco59 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Creta143.8 Nm @ 4500 rpm | Eeco104 Nm @ 3000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Creta1497 cc | Eeco1197 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Creta15.0 km/l | Eeco15.2 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Creta190 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
Creta
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?
Creta
- 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 | Creta | Eeco |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current 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 | SUV | Light commercial vehicle |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger SUV | Light commercial vehicle |
| Spec | Creta | Eeco |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4330 mm | 3675 mm |
| Width | 1790 mm | 1475 mm |
| Height | 1635 mm | 1825 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2610 mm | 2350 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 190 mm | 160 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 160 mm | 150 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 50 l | 32 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | 540 l |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | 935 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | Not Officially Disclosed | 1540 kg |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 750 kg | 500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 1 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 4.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Applicable |
| Front Legroom | 1030 mm | 1020 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 880 mm | Not Applicable |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Creta 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: Creta 35 vs Eeco 28.
Efficiency index: Creta 60 vs Eeco 61.
Safety-equipment index: Creta 65 vs Eeco 36.
Practicality index: Creta 55 vs Eeco 49.
Ownership-cover index: Creta 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
Creta and Eeco image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Hyundai Creta
View 8 more Creta 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
Creta leads by 11 points
Creta has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Eeco remains close.
Evidence leader
53
/100
Lead
11
points
Data
70%
source coverage
53
#1
Evidence leader
Creta
Performance
35
Efficiency
60
Safety
65
Practicality
55
Leads by 11 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
Creta +7
Efficiency
Eeco +1
Safety
Creta +29
Practicality
Creta +6
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Creta
Performance
35/100
Efficiency
60/100
Safety
65/100
Practicality
55/100
Eeco
Performance
28/100
Efficiency
61/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
49/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Creta 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.
Creta 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.