Source type: MAC Uganda / Isuzu
Isuzu D-Max vs Suzuki Fronx
A proper head-to-head in Uganda — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Isuzu D-Max
1.9 Ddi Single Cab HR L 4x2 6MT
Diesel
6-Speed Manual
Current
UGX 145,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 110 kW
🔧 350 Nm
⛽ 14.08 km/l
VS
Suzuki Fronx
FRONX GL 2WD 5D 1462p 5MT
Petrol
5-Speed Manual
Current
UGX 92,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 138 Nm
⛽ 17.8 km/l
Decision summary
Isuzu D-Max vs Suzuki Fronx: the short answer
D-Max and Fronx are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Fronx starts UGX 53,000,000 cheaper
D-Max from UGX 145,000,000 · Fronx from UGX 92,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | D-Max | Fronx |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | D-Max110 kW @ 3600 rpm | Fronx77 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | D-Max350 Nm @ 1800-2600 rpm | Fronx138 Nm @ 4400 rpm |
| Engine Size | D-Max1898 cc | Fronx1462 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | D-Max14.08 km/l | Fronx17.8 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | D-Max227 mm | Fronx170 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
D-Max
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Practicality
Fronx
Strengths
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Efficiency
Which One's Right for You?
D-Max
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Fronx
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | D-Max | Fronx |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2022 | 2023 |
| Generation | MAC Uganda Gen 7 catalogue; June 2022 derivative specification sheet | Current Uganda-market generation |
| Facelift History | Current Uganda-listed generation; 2026 catalogue planning specification | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2024 | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | Pickup | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Light commercial pickup | Passenger vehicle |
| Vehicle Type | Pickup | Passenger car |
| Spec | D-Max | Fronx |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 5325 mm | 3995 mm |
| Width | 1870 mm | 1765 mm |
| Height | 1780 mm | 1550 mm |
| Wheelbase | 3125 mm | 2520 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 227 mm | 170 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 195 mm | 150 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 l | 37 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | 304 l |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | 1010 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 3000 kg | 1480 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 1225 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 2100 kg | 600 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Rows | Not Officially Disclosed | 2 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 6.25 m | 4.8 m |
| Front Headroom | 1005 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Applicable | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1050 mm | 1020 mm |
| Rear Legroom | Not Applicable | 860 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This D-Max and Fronx 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: D-Max 48 vs Fronx 32.
Efficiency index: D-Max 56 vs Fronx 68.
Safety-equipment index: D-Max 50 vs Fronx 65.
Practicality index: D-Max 64 vs Fronx 51.
Ownership-cover index: D-Max not separately scored vs Fronx 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
D-Max and Fronx image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Isuzu D-Max
View 8 more D-Max images
Suzuki Fronx
View 8 more Fronx 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
D-Max leads by 1 points
D-Max and Fronx are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
54
/100
Lead
1
points
Data
71%
source coverage
54
#1
Evidence leader
D-Max
Performance
48
Efficiency
56
Safety
50
Practicality
64
Leads by 1 points
53
#2
Fronx
Performance
32
Efficiency
68
Safety
65
Practicality
51
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
D-Max +16
Efficiency
Fronx +12
Safety
Fronx +15
Practicality
D-Max +13
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
D-Max
Performance
48/100
Efficiency
56/100
Safety
50/100
Practicality
64/100
Fronx
Performance
32/100
Efficiency
68/100
Safety
65/100
Practicality
51/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, D-Max leads. However, Fronx 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.
D-Max vs Fronx 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.