Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
Suzuki Eeco vs Toyota Rumion
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 Rumion
Rumion 1.5L Petrol 4AT DELUXE
Petrol
4-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 118,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 138 Nm
⛽ 12.5 km/l
Decision summary
Suzuki Eeco vs Toyota Rumion: the short answer
Eeco and Rumion are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Eeco starts UGX 53,000,000 cheaper
Eeco from UGX 65,000,000 · Rumion from UGX 118,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Eeco | Rumion |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Eeco59 kW @ 6000 rpm | Rumion77 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Eeco104 Nm @ 3000 rpm | Rumion138 Nm @ 4400 rpm |
| Engine Size | Eeco1197 cc | Rumion1462 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Eeco15.2 km/l | Rumion12.5 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Eeco160 mm | Rumion180 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
Rumion
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
Rumion
- 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 | Rumion |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2022 |
| Generation | Current Uganda-market generation | Seven-seat Rumion MPV introduced in Uganda in November 2022 |
| 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 | MPV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Light commercial vehicle | Seven-seat compact MPV |
| Vehicle Type | Light commercial vehicle | Passenger MPV |
| Spec | Eeco | Rumion |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3675 mm | 4395 mm |
| Width | 1475 mm | 1735 mm |
| Height | 1825 mm | 1690 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2350 mm | 2740 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 160 mm | 180 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 150 mm | 170 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 32 l | 45 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 540 l | 153 l |
| Kerb Weight | 935 kg | 1160 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1540 kg | 1730 kg |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | 580 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 500 kg | 750 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 | 5.2 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 Rumion 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 Rumion 35.
Efficiency index: Eeco 61 vs Rumion 52.
Safety-equipment index: Eeco 36 vs Rumion 50.
Practicality index: Eeco 49 vs Rumion 54.
Ownership-cover index: Eeco not separately scored vs Rumion 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 Rumion 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 Rumion
View 8 more Rumion 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
Rumion leads by 5 points
Eeco and Rumion are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
47
/100
Lead
5
points
Data
75%
source coverage
47
#1
Evidence leader
Rumion
Performance
35
Efficiency
52
Safety
50
Practicality
54
Leads by 5 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
Rumion +7
Efficiency
Eeco +9
Safety
Rumion +14
Practicality
Rumion +5
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Rumion
Performance
35/100
Efficiency
52/100
Safety
50/100
Practicality
54/100
Eeco
Performance
28/100
Efficiency
61/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
49/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Rumion 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 Rumion 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.