Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
Suzuki Fronx 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.
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
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
Suzuki Fronx vs Ford Ranger: the short answer
Ranger has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Fronx remains close.
Fronx starts UGX 198,000,000 cheaper
Fronx from UGX 92,000,000 · Ranger from UGX 290,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Fronx | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Fronx77 kW @ 6000 rpm | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Fronx138 Nm @ 4400 rpm | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Fronx1462 cc | Ranger1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Fronx17.8 km/l | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Fronx170 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)
Fronx
Strengths
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to:
Published Efficiency
Published Practicality
Specification evidence leader
Ranger
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Which One's Right for You?
Fronx
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Ranger
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Fronx | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current Uganda-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 | Passenger vehicle | Mid-size pickup |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger car | Pickup |
| Spec | Fronx | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3995 mm | 5370 mm |
| Width | 1765 mm | 1918 mm |
| Height | 1550 mm | 1884 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2520 mm | 3270 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 170 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 150 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 37 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 304 l | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | 1010 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1480 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 600 kg | 1500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 4.8 m | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1020 mm | 1030 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 860 mm | 880 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Fronx 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: Fronx 32 vs Ranger 72.
Efficiency index: Fronx 68 vs Ranger 47.
Safety-equipment index: Fronx 65 vs Ranger 89.
Practicality index: Fronx 51 vs Ranger 32.
Ownership-cover index: Fronx 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
Fronx and Ranger image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Suzuki Fronx
View 8 more Fronx 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
Ranger leads by 8 points
Ranger has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Fronx remains close.
Evidence leader
61
/100
Lead
8
points
Data
64%
source coverage
61
#1
Evidence leader
Ranger
Performance
72
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
32
Leads by 8 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
Ranger +40
Efficiency
Fronx +21
Safety
Ranger +24
Practicality
Fronx +19
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Ranger
Performance
72/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
32/100
Fronx
Performance
32/100
Efficiency
68/100
Safety
65/100
Practicality
51/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger 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.
Fronx 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.