Source type: Suzuki Kenya
Suzuki Alto vs Ford Ranger
A proper head-to-head in Kenya — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Suzuki Alto
ALTOK10 RC GA 5D 998p MT
Petrol
5-Speed Manual
Current
KES 1,650,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 49 kW
🔧 89 Nm
VS
Decision summary
Suzuki Alto vs Ford Ranger: the short answer
Ranger holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Alto.
Alto starts KES 5,100,000 cheaper
Alto from KES 1,650,000 · Ranger from KES 6,750,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Alto | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Alto49 kW @ 5500 rpm | Ranger154 kW |
| Maximum Torque | Alto89 Nm @ 3500 rpm | Ranger405 Nm |
| Engine Size | Alto998 cc | Ranger1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | AltoNot Officially Disclosed | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Alto160 mm | Ranger235 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Ford Kenya
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Alto
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
Ranger
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?
Alto
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Ranger
- 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 | Alto | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Generation | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Facelift History | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Facelift Launched Since | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Facelift Version Ending | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Body Style | Compacts | Pickup |
| Model Year | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Production Status | Active | Active |
| Segment | Kenya-market Hatchback | Kenya-market Pickup |
| Vehicle Type | Hatchback | Pickup |
| Spec | Alto | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3530 mm | 5370 mm |
| Width | 1490 mm | 1918 mm |
| Height | 1520 mm | 1884 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2380 mm | 3270 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 160 mm | 235 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 145 mm | 220 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 27 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 214 l | 1233 l |
| Kerb Weight | 747 kg | 2205 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1168 kg | 3230 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 421 kg | 1025 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 400 kg | 3500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 4.5 m | 6.35 m |
| Front Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Alto and Ranger comparison uses the exact derivatives selected above for Kenya. The catalogue index covers performance, efficiency, safety equipment, practicality and ownership cover only where comparable source-backed fields are present.
Performance index: Alto 26 vs Ranger 74.
Efficiency index: Alto 75 vs Ranger 48.
Safety-equipment index: Alto 83 vs Ranger 94.
Practicality index: Alto 44 vs Ranger 92.
Ownership-cover index: Alto not separately scored vs Ranger 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
Alto and Ranger image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Suzuki Alto
View 8 more Alto images
Ford Ranger
View 8 more Ranger 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
Ranger leads by 24 points
Ranger holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Alto.
Evidence leader
79
/100
Lead
24
points
Data
68%
source coverage
79
#1
Evidence leader
Ranger
Performance
74
Efficiency
48
Safety
94
Practicality
92
Leads by 24 points
55
#2
Alto
Performance
26
Efficiency
75
Safety
83
Practicality
44
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ranger +48
Efficiency
Alto +27
Safety
Ranger +11
Practicality
Ranger +48
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Ranger
Performance
74/100
Efficiency
48/100
Safety
94/100
Practicality
92/100
Alto
Performance
26/100
Efficiency
75/100
Safety
83/100
Practicality
44/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger leads. However, Alto may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in Kenya.
Related comparisons
Continue with closely related Kenya models and comparable body styles.
Alto vs Ranger questions
There is no universal winner. Use the comparison table to match the models and available derivatives in Kenya 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.