Source type: Ford Uganda / Motorcare exact grade specifications
Ford Everest vs Isuzu mu-X
A proper head-to-head in Uganda — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Ford Everest
Active 2.0 Single Turbo 6AT 4WD
Diesel
6-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 275,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 125 kW
🔧 405 Nm
VS
Isuzu mu-X
mu-X 1.9L 4x4 6AT
Diesel
6-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 275,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 110 kW
🔧 350 Nm
⛽ 11.8 km/l
Decision summary
Ford Everest vs Isuzu mu-X: the short answer
Everest and mu-X are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Both models start at the same price: UGX 275,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Everest | mu-X |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Everest125 kW @ 3500 rpm | mu-X110 kW @ 3600 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Everest405 Nm @ 1750-2500 rpm | mu-X350 Nm @ 1800-2600 rpm |
| Engine Size | Everest1996 cc | mu-X1899 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | EverestNot Officially Disclosed | mu-X11.8 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Everest229 mm | mu-X220 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: MAC Uganda / Isuzu
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Everest
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
Weak Spots
- Fewer listed safety features
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Specification evidence leader
mu-X
Strengths
- Stronger listed safety equipment
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
Best suited to:
Published Practicality
Which One's Right for You?
Everest
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
mu-X
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Everest | mu-X |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2022 |
| Generation | Current market generation | Current Isuzu Uganda-listed generation |
| Facelift History | Current-generation specification | Current Uganda-listed generation; 2026 catalogue planning specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2023 | 2024 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | SUV | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Mid-size body-on-frame SUV | Seven-seat body-on-frame SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger SUV | Passenger SUV |
| Spec | Everest | mu-X |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4914 mm | 4850 mm |
| Width | Not Officially Disclosed | 1870 mm |
| Height | 1844 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2900 mm | 2855 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 229 mm | 220 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 160 mm | 195 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | 311 l |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | Not Officially Disclosed | 3100 kg |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | 1000 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 1500 kg | 3500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 7 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Rows | 3 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 6.1 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1005 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 980 mm |
| Front Legroom | 1030 mm | 1050 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 880 mm | 900 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Everest and mu-X 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: Everest 61 vs mu-X 52.
Efficiency index: Everest 47 vs mu-X 47.
Safety-equipment index: Everest 89 vs mu-X 96.
Practicality index: Everest 76 vs mu-X 83.
Ownership-cover index: Everest 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
Everest and mu-X image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Ford Everest
View 8 more Everest 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 1 points
Everest and mu-X are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
70
/100
Lead
1
points
Data
78%
source coverage
70
#1
Evidence leader
mu-X
Performance
52
Efficiency
47
Safety
96
Practicality
83
Leads by 1 points
69
#2
Everest
Performance
61
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
76
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Everest +9
Efficiency
Level
Safety
mu-X +7
Practicality
mu-X +7
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
mu-X
Performance
52/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
96/100
Practicality
83/100
Everest
Performance
61/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
76/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, mu-X leads. However, Everest 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.
Everest vs mu-X 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.