Source type: Toyota Kenya
Toyota Land Cruiser 78 vs Isuzu mu-X
A proper head-to-head in Kenya — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Toyota Land Cruiser 78
Land Cruiser 78 4.2D Troopy
Diesel
5-Speed Manual
Current
KES 8,500,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 96 kW
🔧 285 Nm
VS
Decision summary
Toyota Land Cruiser 78 vs Isuzu mu-X: the short answer
mu-X has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Land Cruiser 78 remains close.
Land Cruiser 78 starts KES 490,000 cheaper
Land Cruiser 78 from KES 8,500,000 · mu-X from KES 8,990,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Land Cruiser 78 | mu-X |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Land Cruiser 7896 kW | mu-X110 kW |
| Maximum Torque | Land Cruiser 78285 Nm | mu-X350 Nm @ 1800-2600 rpm |
| Engine Size | Land Cruiser 784164 cc | mu-X1899 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Land Cruiser 78Not Officially Disclosed | mu-XNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Land Cruiser 78235 mm | mu-X235 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Isuzu East Africa official Kenya model specification
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Land Cruiser 78
Strengths
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to:
Published Practicality
Specification evidence leader
mu-X
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Efficiency
Which One's Right for You?
Land Cruiser 78
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
mu-X
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Land Cruiser 78 | mu-X |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Generation | Not Officially Disclosed | Current Kenya-market Isuzu East Africa derivative |
| 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 | SUV |
| Model Year | Not Officially Disclosed | 2026 |
| Production Status | Active | active |
| Segment | Kenya-market SUV | Seven-seat diesel SUV |
| Vehicle Type | SUV | SUV |
| Spec | Land Cruiser 78 | mu-X |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 5130 mm | 4850 mm |
| Width | 1800 mm | 1870 mm |
| Height | 2080 mm | 1820 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2980 mm | 2855 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 235 mm | 235 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 235 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 90 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 2000 l | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | 2230 kg | 2061 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 3200 kg | 2800 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 970 kg | 739 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 3500 kg | 2100 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 13 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Rows | 4 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 6.8 m | 11.4 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 Land Cruiser 78 and mu-X 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: Land Cruiser 78 54 vs mu-X 62.
Efficiency index: Land Cruiser 78 36 vs mu-X 38.
Safety-equipment index: Land Cruiser 78 28 vs mu-X 86.
Practicality index: Land Cruiser 78 97 vs mu-X 80.
Ownership-cover index: Land Cruiser 78 not separately scored vs mu-X 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
Land Cruiser 78 and mu-X image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Toyota Land Cruiser 78
View 8 more Land Cruiser 78 images
Isuzu mu-X
View 8 more mu-X 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
mu-X leads by 13 points
mu-X has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Land Cruiser 78 remains close.
Evidence leader
68
/100
Lead
13
points
Data
65%
source coverage
68
#1
Evidence leader
mu-X
Performance
62
Efficiency
38
Safety
86
Practicality
80
Leads by 13 points
55
#2
Land Cruiser 78
Performance
54
Efficiency
36
Safety
28
Practicality
97
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
mu-X +8
Efficiency
mu-X +2
Safety
mu-X +58
Practicality
Land Cruiser 78 +17
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
mu-X
Performance
62/100
Efficiency
38/100
Safety
86/100
Practicality
80/100
Land Cruiser 78
Performance
54/100
Efficiency
36/100
Safety
28/100
Practicality
97/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, mu-X leads. However, Land Cruiser 78 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.
Land Cruiser 78 vs mu-X 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.