Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
Suzuki Eeco vs Hyundai Santa Fe
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
Hyundai Santa Fe
SANTA FE 2.5L Petrol 4x4 8AT GLS
Petrol
8-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 210,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 143 kW
🔧 246 Nm
⛽ 11.76 km/l
Decision summary
Suzuki Eeco vs Hyundai Santa Fe: the short answer
Santa Fe holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Eeco.
Eeco starts UGX 145,000,000 cheaper
Eeco from UGX 65,000,000 · Santa Fe from UGX 210,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Eeco | Santa Fe |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Eeco59 kW @ 6000 rpm | Santa Fe142.7 kW @ 6100 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Eeco104 Nm @ 3000 rpm | Santa Fe246 Nm @ 4000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Eeco1197 cc | Santa Fe2497 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Eeco15.2 km/l | Santa Fe11.76 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Eeco160 mm | Santa Fe177 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Hyundai Uganda / Motorcare quotation catalogue and model specifications
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
Santa Fe
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
Santa Fe
- 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 | Santa Fe |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current Uganda-market generation | Current market generation |
| Facelift History | Current-generation specification | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2023 | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | Van | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Light commercial vehicle | SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Light commercial vehicle | Passenger SUV |
| Spec | Eeco | Santa Fe |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3675 mm | 4830 mm |
| Width | 1475 mm | 1900 mm |
| Height | 1825 mm | 1770 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2350 mm | 2815 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 160 mm | 177 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 150 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 32 l | 67 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 540 l | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | 935 kg | 1970 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1540 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| 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 | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1020 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Applicable | 1007 mm |
| Front Legroom | 1020 mm | 1052 mm |
| Rear Legroom | Not Applicable | 1075 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Eeco and Santa Fe 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 Santa Fe 56.
Efficiency index: Eeco 61 vs Santa Fe 46.
Safety-equipment index: Eeco 36 vs Santa Fe 63.
Practicality index: Eeco 49 vs Santa Fe 70.
Ownership-cover index: Eeco not separately scored vs Santa Fe 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 Santa Fe 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
Hyundai Santa Fe
View 8 more Santa Fe 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
Santa Fe leads by 17 points
Santa Fe holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Eeco.
Evidence leader
59
/100
Lead
17
points
Data
71%
source coverage
59
#1
Evidence leader
Santa Fe
Performance
56
Efficiency
46
Safety
63
Practicality
70
Leads by 17 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
Santa Fe +28
Efficiency
Eeco +15
Safety
Santa Fe +27
Practicality
Santa Fe +21
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Santa Fe
Performance
56/100
Efficiency
46/100
Safety
63/100
Practicality
70/100
Eeco
Performance
28/100
Efficiency
61/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
49/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Santa Fe 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 Santa Fe 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.