Source type: Toyota Uganda/CFAO model information; user-supplied AWD configuration and estimates require exact-grade confirmation
Toyota RAV4 vs Suzuki S-Presso
A proper head-to-head in Uganda — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
VS
Suzuki S-Presso
S-PRESSO GL+ 5D 998p AMT
Petrol
5-Speed AMT
Current
UGX 55,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 138 Nm
⛽ 21.5 km/l
Decision summary
Toyota RAV4 vs Suzuki S-Presso: the short answer
RAV4 has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over S-Presso.
S-Presso starts UGX 155,000,000 cheaper
RAV4 from UGX 210,000,000 · S-Presso from UGX 55,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | RAV4 | S-Presso |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | RAV4Not Officially Disclosed | S-Presso77 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | RAV4Not Officially Disclosed | S-Presso138 Nm @ 4400 rpm |
| Engine Size | RAV41987 cc | S-Presso998 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | RAV412.5 km/l | S-Presso21.5 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | RAV4190 mm | S-PressoNot Officially Disclosed |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Suzuki Uganda local distributor/source record
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
RAV4
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
S-Presso
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?
RAV4
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
S-Presso
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | RAV4 | S-Presso |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Uganda petrol RAV4 listing, kept separate from RAV4 HEV and used-import specifications. Exact supplied model year and equipment grade remain important. | Current Uganda-market generation |
| Facelift History | No local facelift confirmed | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | Original current-generation version | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | SUV | Hatchback |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Family SUV | Passenger vehicle |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger SUV | Passenger car |
| Spec | RAV4 | S-Presso |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4600 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Width | 1855 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Height | 1685 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Wheelbase | 2690 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 190 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 175 mm | 150 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 l | 40 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 580 l | 239 l |
| Kerb Weight | 1570 kg | 500 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 2150 kg | 500 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 580 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 750 kg | 300 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 5.0 m |
| Front Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 1020 mm |
| Rear Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 860 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This RAV4 and S-Presso 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: RAV4 55 vs S-Presso 32.
Efficiency index: RAV4 52 vs S-Presso 79.
Safety-equipment index: RAV4 95 vs S-Presso 36.
Practicality index: RAV4 65 vs S-Presso 25.
Ownership-cover index: RAV4 not separately scored vs S-Presso 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
RAV4 and S-Presso image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Toyota RAV4
View 8 more RAV4 images
Suzuki S-Presso
View 8 more S-Presso 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
RAV4 leads by 26 points
RAV4 has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over S-Presso.
Evidence leader
67
/100
Lead
26
points
Data
57%
source coverage
67
#1
Evidence leader
RAV4
Performance
55
Efficiency
52
Safety
95
Practicality
65
Leads by 26 points
41
#2
S-Presso
Performance
32
Efficiency
79
Safety
36
Practicality
25
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
RAV4 +23
Efficiency
S-Presso +27
Safety
RAV4 +59
Practicality
RAV4 +40
Large difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
RAV4
Performance
55/100
Efficiency
52/100
Safety
95/100
Practicality
65/100
S-Presso
Performance
32/100
Efficiency
79/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
25/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, RAV4 leads. However, S-Presso 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.
RAV4 vs S-Presso 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.