Source type: Toyota Uganda / generation-matched Toyota data; user-supplied estimates for remaining fields
Toyota Coaster vs Ford Ranger
A proper head-to-head in Uganda — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Toyota Coaster
Coaster 4.2L Diesel 30-Seater MT
Diesel
5-Speed Manual
Current
UGX 395,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 96 kW
🔧 285 Nm
⛽ 12.5 km/l
VS
Ford Ranger
Sport 2.0 Bi-Turbo 10AT 4WD
Diesel
10-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 290,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 154 kW
🔧 500 Nm
Decision summary
Toyota Coaster vs Ford Ranger: the short answer
Coaster and Ranger are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Ranger starts UGX 105,000,000 cheaper
Coaster from UGX 395,000,000 · Ranger from UGX 290,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Coaster | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Coaster96 kW @ 3800 rpm | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Coaster285 Nm @ 2200 rpm | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Coaster4164 cc | Ranger1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Coaster12.5 km/l | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Coaster180 mm | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Ford Uganda / Motorcare exact grade specifications
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
Coaster
Strengths
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to:
Published Efficiency
Published Practicality
Ranger
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Which One's Right for You?
Coaster
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Ranger
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Coaster | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2024 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current Uganda-market generation | Current market generation |
| Facelift History | Current Uganda-market version | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2024 | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | Bus | Pickup |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Bus segment | Mid-size pickup |
| Vehicle Type | Bus | Pickup |
| Spec | Coaster | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 6990 mm | 5370 mm |
| Width | 2275 mm | 1918 mm |
| Height | 2635 mm | 1884 mm |
| Wheelbase | 3935 mm | 3270 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 180 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 165 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 95 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | 3350 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1500 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | 1500 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 1500 kg | 1500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 30 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 8 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | 960 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1050 mm | 1030 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 850 mm | 880 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Coaster and Ranger 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: Coaster 46 vs Ranger 72.
Efficiency index: Coaster 54 vs Ranger 47.
Safety-equipment index: Coaster 68 vs Ranger 89.
Practicality index: Coaster 76 vs Ranger 32.
Ownership-cover index: Coaster 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
Coaster and Ranger image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Toyota Coaster
View 8 more Coaster 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
Coaster leads by 0 points
Coaster and Ranger are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
61
/100
Lead
0
points
Data
69%
source coverage
61
#1
Evidence leader
Coaster
Performance
46
Efficiency
54
Safety
68
Practicality
76
Leads by 0 points
61
#2
Ranger
Performance
72
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
32
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ranger +26
Efficiency
Coaster +7
Safety
Ranger +21
Practicality
Coaster +44
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Coaster
Performance
46/100
Efficiency
54/100
Safety
68/100
Practicality
76/100
Ranger
Performance
72/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
32/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Coaster leads. However, Ranger 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.
Coaster vs Ranger 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.