Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
Suzuki Jimny 3-door 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 Jimny 3-door
Jimny 3D MC25 5MT 4WD GL DA2 audio
Petrol
5-Speed Manual
Current
UGX 112,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 75 kW
🔧 130 Nm
⛽ 13.5 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
Suzuki Jimny 3-door vs Ford Ranger: the short answer
Ranger has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Jimny 3-door remains close.
Jimny 3-door starts UGX 178,000,000 cheaper
Jimny 3-door from UGX 112,000,000 · Ranger from UGX 290,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Jimny 3-door | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Jimny 3-door75 kW @ 6000 rpm | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Jimny 3-door130 Nm @ 4000 rpm | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Jimny 3-door1462 cc | Ranger1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Jimny 3-door13.5 km/l | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Jimny 3-door210 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)
Jimny 3-door
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?
Jimny 3-door
- 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 | Jimny 3-door | 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 | Jimny 3-door | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3650 mm | 5370 mm |
| Width | 1645 mm | 1918 mm |
| Height | 1725 mm | 1884 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2250 mm | 3270 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 210 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 150 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 40 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 85 l | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | 1110 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1450 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 1300 kg | 1500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 4 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 3 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 4.9 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 Jimny 3-door 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: Jimny 3-door 32 vs Ranger 72.
Efficiency index: Jimny 3-door 56 vs Ranger 47.
Safety-equipment index: Jimny 3-door 67 vs Ranger 89.
Practicality index: Jimny 3-door 45 vs Ranger 32.
Ownership-cover index: Jimny 3-door 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
Jimny 3-door and Ranger image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Suzuki Jimny 3-door
View 8 more Jimny 3-door 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 12 points
Ranger has a modest catalogue-index lead, while Jimny 3-door remains close.
Evidence leader
61
/100
Lead
12
points
Data
64%
source coverage
61
#1
Evidence leader
Ranger
Performance
72
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
32
Leads by 12 points
49
#2
Jimny 3-door
Performance
32
Efficiency
56
Safety
67
Practicality
45
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ranger +40
Efficiency
Jimny 3-door +9
Safety
Ranger +22
Practicality
Jimny 3-door +13
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Ranger
Performance
72/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
32/100
Jimny 3-door
Performance
32/100
Efficiency
56/100
Safety
67/100
Practicality
45/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger leads. However, Jimny 3-door 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.
Jimny 3-door 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.