Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
Suzuki Eeco vs Toyota Fortuner
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 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
VS
Toyota Fortuner
2.8L Executive 6-AT 4x4
Diesel
6-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 285,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 150 kW
🔧 500 Nm
⛽ 12.5 km/l
Decision summary
Suzuki Eeco vs Toyota Fortuner: the short answer
Fortuner has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Eeco.
Eeco starts UGX 220,000,000 cheaper
Eeco from UGX 65,000,000 · Fortuner from UGX 285,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Eeco | Fortuner |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Eeco59 kW @ 6000 rpm | Fortuner150 kW @ 3000-3400 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Eeco104 Nm @ 3000 rpm | Fortuner500 Nm @ 1600-2800 rpm |
| Engine Size | Eeco1197 cc | Fortuner2755 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Eeco15.2 km/l | Fortuner12.5 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Eeco160 mm | Fortuner279 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Toyota Uganda/CFAO specifications; user-supplied estimates for remaining fields
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
Fortuner
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
Fortuner
- 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 | Fortuner |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current Uganda-market generation | Ladder-frame, three-row Fortuner in the current Uganda Executive 4x4 specification. |
| Facelift History | Current-generation specification | No local facelift confirmed |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2023 | Original current-generation version |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | Van | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Light commercial vehicle | Seven-seat ladder-frame SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Light commercial vehicle | Passenger SUV |
| Spec | Eeco | Fortuner |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3675 mm | 4795 mm |
| Width | 1475 mm | 1855 mm |
| Height | 1825 mm | 1835 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2350 mm | 2745 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 160 mm | 279 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 150 mm | 210 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 32 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 540 l | 253 l |
| Kerb Weight | 935 kg | 2185 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1540 kg | 2740 kg |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | 570 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 500 kg | 1500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 2 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Rows | 1 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 4.5 m | 5.8 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Headroom | Not Applicable | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1020 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Legroom | Not Applicable | Not Officially Disclosed |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Eeco and Fortuner 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: Eeco 28 vs Fortuner 73.
Efficiency index: Eeco 61 vs Fortuner 54.
Safety-equipment index: Eeco 36 vs Fortuner 96.
Practicality index: Eeco 49 vs Fortuner 67.
Ownership-cover index: Eeco not separately scored vs Fortuner 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 Fortuner 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 Fortuner
View 8 more Fortuner 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
Fortuner leads by 32 points
Fortuner has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Eeco.
Evidence leader
74
/100
Lead
32
points
Data
76%
source coverage
74
#1
Evidence leader
Fortuner
Performance
73
Efficiency
54
Safety
96
Practicality
67
Leads by 32 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
Fortuner +45
Efficiency
Eeco +7
Safety
Fortuner +60
Practicality
Fortuner +18
Large difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Fortuner
Performance
73/100
Efficiency
54/100
Safety
96/100
Practicality
67/100
Eeco
Performance
28/100
Efficiency
61/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
49/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Fortuner 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.
Eeco vs Fortuner 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.