Source type: Ford Uganda / Motorcare exact grade specifications
Ford Everest 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.
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
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
Ford Everest vs Ford Ranger: the short answer
Everest has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Ranger remains close.
Everest starts UGX 15,000,000 cheaper
Everest from UGX 275,000,000 · Ranger from UGX 290,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Everest | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Everest125 kW @ 3500 rpm | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Everest405 Nm @ 1750-2500 rpm | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Everest1996 cc | Ranger1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | EverestNot Officially Disclosed | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Everest229 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
Everest
Strengths
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
Best suited to:
Published Practicality
Ranger
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
Weak Spots
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Which One's Right for You?
Everest
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Ranger
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Everest | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current market generation | Current market generation |
| Facelift History | Current-generation specification | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2023 | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | SUV | Pickup |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Mid-size body-on-frame SUV | Mid-size pickup |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger SUV | Pickup |
| Spec | Everest | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4914 mm | 5370 mm |
| Width | Not Officially Disclosed | 1918 mm |
| Height | 1844 mm | 1884 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2900 mm | 3270 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 229 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 160 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 1500 kg | 1500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 7 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 3 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1030 mm | 1030 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 880 mm | 880 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Everest 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: Everest 61 vs Ranger 72.
Efficiency index: Everest 47 vs Ranger 47.
Safety-equipment index: Everest 89 vs Ranger 89.
Practicality index: Everest 76 vs Ranger 32.
Ownership-cover index: Everest 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
Everest and Ranger 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
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
Everest leads by 8 points
Everest has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Ranger remains close.
Evidence leader
69
/100
Lead
8
points
Data
69%
source coverage
69
#1
Evidence leader
Everest
Performance
61
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
76
Leads by 8 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 +11
Efficiency
Level
Safety
Level
Practicality
Everest +44
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Everest
Performance
61/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
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, Everest 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.
Everest 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.