Suzuki Jimny vs Ford Ranger Raptor

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 Jimny in Kenya

Suzuki Jimny

Jimny 3D MC25 5MT 4WD GL DA2 audio Petrol 5-Speed Manual Current
KES 3,950,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 75 kW 🔧 130 Nm
VS
Ford Ranger Raptor in Kenya

Ford Ranger Raptor

Ranger Raptor Petrol 10-Speed Automatic Current
KES 13,950,000 ex-showroom
⚡ 292 kW 🔧 583 Nm
+ Add a 3rd car

Decision summary

Suzuki Jimny vs Ford Ranger Raptor: the short answer

Ranger Raptor has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Jimny.

Jimny starts KES 10,000,000 cheaper Jimny from KES 3,950,000 · Ranger Raptor from KES 13,950,000

Five key differences

Exact selected derivatives
Specification Jimny Ranger Raptor
Maximum Power Jimny75 kW @ 6000 rpm Ranger Raptor292 kW
Maximum Torque Jimny130 Nm @ 4000 rpm Ranger Raptor583 Nm
Engine Size Jimny1462 cc Ranger Raptor2996 cc
Combined Fuel Economy JimnyNot Officially Disclosed Ranger RaptorNot Officially Disclosed
Ground Clearance Jimny210 mm Ranger Raptor272 mm

Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.

Evidence for Suzuki Jimny Jimny 3D MC25 5MT 4WD GL DA2 audio

Source type: Suzuki Kenya

What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)

Jimny

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 Raptor

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?

Jimny

  • Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use

Ranger Raptor

  • 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 Jimny Ranger Raptor
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 SUV Pickup
Model Year Not Officially Disclosed 2026
Production Status Active active
Segment Kenya-market SUV Performance pickup
Vehicle Type SUV Pickup
Spec Jimny Ranger Raptor
Length 3645 mm 5381 mm
Width 1645 mm 2028 mm
Height 1725 mm 1922 mm
Wheelbase 2250 mm 3270 mm
Ground Clearance (Default) 210 mm 272 mm
Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) 195 mm 257 mm
Fuel Tank Capacity 40 l 80 l
Boot/Cargo Space 85 l 1233 l
Kerb Weight 1090 kg 2475 kg
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 1435 kg 3130 kg
Payload Capacity 340 kg 655 kg
Towing Capacity 1300 kg 2500 kg
Seating Capacity 4 seats 5 seats
Number of Rows 2 rows 2 rows
Doors 3 doors 4 doors
Minimum Turning Radius 4.9 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 Jimny and Ranger Raptor 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: Jimny 39 vs Ranger Raptor 98.

Efficiency index: Jimny 53 vs Ranger Raptor 35.

Safety-equipment index: Jimny 83 vs Ranger Raptor 94.

Practicality index: Jimny 44 vs Ranger Raptor 83.

Ownership-cover index: Jimny not separately scored vs Ranger Raptor 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.

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 / 100
Evidence-index readout

Ranger Raptor leads by 26 points

Ranger Raptor has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Jimny.

Evidence leader 80 /100
Lead 26 points
Data 68% source coverage
80
#1 Evidence leader

Ranger Raptor

68% source coverage 3 strong categories
Best at Performance 98 Check Efficiency 35
Performance 98
Efficiency 35
Safety 94
Practicality 83
Leads by 26 points
54
#2

Jimny

68% source coverage 1 strong categories
Best at Safety 83 Check Performance 39
Performance 39
Efficiency 53
Safety 83
Practicality 44
Performance 24% Safety 22% Practicality 22% Efficiency 17% Ownership 15%
Category leaders What moves the verdict
Performance Ranger Raptor +59 Efficiency Jimny +18 Safety Ranger Raptor +11 Practicality Ranger Raptor +39

Large difference in the source-backed catalogue index.

Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader

Ranger Raptor

Performance 98/100
Efficiency 35/100
Safety 94/100
Practicality 83/100

Jimny

Performance 39/100
Efficiency 53/100
Safety 83/100
Practicality 44/100

What the evidence means

Evidence index Ford Ranger Raptor leads the specification evidence index with 80 pts vs 54 pts for Jimny

In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger Raptor leads. However, Jimny may suit buyers prioritising different confirmed fields. Ultimately, the right choice depends on your driving priorities in Kenya.

Jimny vs Ranger Raptor 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.