Source type: MAC Uganda / Isuzu East Africa
Isuzu F-Series 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.
Isuzu F-Series
FRR 33LR 4x2 Cab Chassis 6MT
Diesel
6-Speed Manual
Current
UGX 285,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 129 kW
🔧 461 Nm
⛽ 4.5 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
Isuzu F-Series vs Ford Ranger: the short answer
F-Series and Ranger are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
F-Series starts UGX 5,000,000 cheaper
F-Series from UGX 285,000,000 · Ranger from UGX 290,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | F-Series | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | F-Series129 kW @ 2800 rpm | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | F-Series461 Nm @ 1700 rpm | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm |
| Engine Size | F-Series8226 cc | Ranger1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | F-Series4.5 km/l | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | F-Series195 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
F-Series
Strengths
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower fuel efficiency
Best suited to:
Published Practicality
Ranger
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Efficiency
Which One's Right for You?
F-Series
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Ranger
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | F-Series | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2022 | 2023 |
| Generation | F-Series truck chassis in MAC Uganda-linked September 2017 Isuzu East Africa specification brochure; confirm exact build and body on order | Current 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 | Cab Chassis | Pickup |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Medium-duty commercial truck | Mid-size pickup |
| Vehicle Type | Commercial truck chassis | Pickup |
| Spec | F-Series | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 8170 mm | 5370 mm |
| Width | 2200 mm | 1918 mm |
| Height | 2550 mm | 1884 mm |
| Wheelbase | 4850 mm | 3270 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 195 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 195 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 200 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Applicable | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 9900 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 3500 kg | 1500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 2 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 1 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 6.1 m | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1030 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Applicable | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1020 mm | 1030 mm |
| Rear Legroom | Not Applicable | 880 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This F-Series 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: F-Series 58 vs Ranger 72.
Efficiency index: F-Series 26 vs Ranger 47.
Safety-equipment index: F-Series 89 vs Ranger 89.
Practicality index: F-Series 63 vs Ranger 32.
Ownership-cover index: F-Series 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
F-Series and Ranger image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Isuzu F-Series
View 8 more F-Series 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
F-Series leads by 0 points
F-Series and Ranger are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
61
/100
Lead
0
points
Data
56%
source coverage
61
#1
Evidence leader
F-Series
Performance
58
Efficiency
26
Safety
89
Practicality
63
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 +14
Efficiency
Ranger +21
Safety
Level
Practicality
F-Series +31
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
F-Series
Performance
58/100
Efficiency
26/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
63/100
Ranger
Performance
72/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
32/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, F-Series 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.
F-Series 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.