Source type: Ford Kenya official Ranger Raptor page
Ford Ranger Raptor vs Toyota Rush
A proper head-to-head in Kenya — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Ford Ranger Raptor
Ranger Raptor
Petrol
10-Speed Automatic
Current
KES 13,950,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 292 kW
🔧 583 Nm
VS
Toyota Rush
1.5L Petrol AT 4x2
Petrol
4-Speed Automatic
Current
KES 5,100,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 136 Nm
⛽ 15.2 km/l
Decision summary
Ford Ranger Raptor vs Toyota Rush: the short answer
Ranger Raptor has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Rush.
Rush starts KES 9,150,000 cheaper
Ranger Raptor from KES 13,950,000 · Rush from KES 4,800,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Ranger Raptor | Rush |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Ranger Raptor292 kW | Rush77 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Ranger Raptor583 Nm | Rush136 Nm @ 4200 rpm |
| Engine Size | Ranger Raptor2996 cc | Rush1496 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Ranger RaptorNot Officially Disclosed | Rush15.2 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Ranger Raptor272 mm | Rush220 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Toyota Kenya
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
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
Rush
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?
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
Rush
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Ranger Raptor | Rush |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Pickup | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Production Status | active | Active |
| Segment | Performance pickup | Kenya-market SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Pickup | SUV |
| Spec | Ranger Raptor | Rush |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 5381 mm | 4435 mm |
| Width | 2028 mm | 1695 mm |
| Height | 1922 mm | 1705 mm |
| Wheelbase | 3270 mm | 2685 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 272 mm | 220 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 257 mm | 200 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 45 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 1233 l | 213 l |
| Kerb Weight | 2475 kg | 1280 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 3130 kg | 1870 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 655 kg | 590 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 2500 kg | 800 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 6.35 m | 5.2 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 Ranger Raptor and Rush 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: Ranger Raptor 98 vs Rush 35.
Efficiency index: Ranger Raptor 35 vs Rush 60.
Safety-equipment index: Ranger Raptor 94 vs Rush 54.
Practicality index: Ranger Raptor 83 vs Rush 60.
Ownership-cover index: Ranger Raptor not separately scored vs Rush 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
Ranger Raptor and Rush image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Ford Ranger Raptor
View 8 more Ranger Raptor images
Toyota Rush
View 8 more Rush 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 Raptor leads by 29 points
Ranger Raptor has a large lead in Hagalu's source-backed catalogue index over Rush.
Evidence leader
80
/100
Lead
29
points
Data
68%
source coverage
80
#1
Evidence leader
Ranger Raptor
Performance
98
Efficiency
35
Safety
94
Practicality
83
Leads by 29 points
51
#2
Rush
Performance
35
Efficiency
60
Safety
54
Practicality
60
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ranger Raptor +63
Efficiency
Rush +25
Safety
Ranger Raptor +40
Practicality
Ranger Raptor +23
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
Rush
Performance
35/100
Efficiency
60/100
Safety
54/100
Practicality
60/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger Raptor leads. However, Rush 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.
Ranger Raptor vs Rush 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.