Source type: Ford Uganda / Motorcare exact grade specifications
Ford Everest vs Hyundai Tucson
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
Hyundai Tucson
TUCSON 2.0L Diesel 4x4 8AT GL
Diesel
8-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 200,000,000
ex-showroom
🔧 416 Nm
⛽ 13.0 km/l
Decision summary
Ford Everest vs Hyundai Tucson: the short answer
Everest has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tucson remains close.
Tucson starts UGX 75,000,000 cheaper
Everest from UGX 275,000,000 · Tucson from UGX 200,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Everest | Tucson |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Everest125 kW @ 3500 rpm | TucsonNot Officially Disclosed |
| Maximum Torque | Everest405 Nm @ 1750-2500 rpm | Tucson416 Nm @ 2000-2750 rpm |
| Engine Size | Everest1996 cc | Tucson1998 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | EverestNot Officially Disclosed | Tucson13.0 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Everest229 mm | Tucson181 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Hyundai Uganda / Motorcare quotation catalogue and model specifications
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
Everest
Strengths
- Stronger listed safety equipment
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower fuel efficiency
Best suited to:
Published Practicality
Tucson
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
- Fewer listed safety features
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Efficiency
Which One's Right for You?
Everest
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Tucson
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Everest | Tucson |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Mid-size body-on-frame SUV | SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger SUV | Passenger SUV |
| Spec | Everest | Tucson |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4914 mm | 4630 mm |
| Width | Not Officially Disclosed | 1865 mm |
| Height | 1844 mm | 1665 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2900 mm | 2755 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 229 mm | 181 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 160 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 54 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 | 5 seats |
| Number of Rows | 3 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 5 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 Tucson 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 Tucson 62.
Efficiency index: Everest 47 vs Tucson 55.
Safety-equipment index: Everest 89 vs Tucson 61.
Practicality index: Everest 76 vs Tucson 60.
Ownership-cover index: Everest not separately scored vs Tucson 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 Tucson 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
Hyundai Tucson
View 8 more Tucson 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 9 points
Everest has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Tucson remains close.
Evidence leader
69
/100
Lead
9
points
Data
69%
source coverage
69
#1
Evidence leader
Everest
Performance
61
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
76
Leads by 9 points
60
#2
Tucson
Performance
62
Efficiency
55
Safety
61
Practicality
60
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Tucson +1
Efficiency
Tucson +8
Safety
Everest +28
Practicality
Everest +16
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
Tucson
Performance
62/100
Efficiency
55/100
Safety
61/100
Practicality
60/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Everest leads. However, Tucson 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 Tucson 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.