Source type: Toyota Uganda/CFAO specifications; user-supplied estimates for remaining fields
Toyota Land Cruiser 300 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.
Toyota Land Cruiser 300
LC300 3.3D GR-S 10-AT
Diesel
10-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 703,600,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 225 kW
🔧 700 Nm
⛽ 12.5 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
Toyota Land Cruiser 300 vs Ford Ranger: the short answer
Land Cruiser 300 holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Ranger.
Ranger starts UGX 270,600,000 cheaper
Land Cruiser 300 from UGX 560,600,000 · Ranger from UGX 290,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Land Cruiser 300 | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Land Cruiser 300225 kW @ 4000 rpm | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Land Cruiser 300700 Nm @ 1600-2600 rpm | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Land Cruiser 3003346 cc | Ranger1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Land Cruiser 30012.5 km/l | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Land Cruiser 300235 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
Land Cruiser 300
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger listed safety equipment
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- No obvious weak spots to flag.
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Efficiency
Published Practicality
Ranger
Strengths
- Nothing stands out clearly here.
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Fewer listed safety features
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
General Use
Which One's Right for You?
Land Cruiser 300
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Ranger
- Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Land Cruiser 300 | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Uganda LC300 diesel GR-S with the F33A-FTV V6 and front/rear locking differential specification. | Current market generation |
| Facelift History | No local facelift confirmed | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | Original current-generation version | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | SUV | Pickup |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Large seven-seat ladder-frame SUV | Mid-size pickup |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger SUV | Pickup |
| Spec | Land Cruiser 300 | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4985 mm | 5370 mm |
| Width | 1980 mm | 1918 mm |
| Height | 1950 mm | 1884 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2850 mm | 3270 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 235 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 220 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 621 l | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | 2620 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 3230 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | 650 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 3500 kg | 1500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 7 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 3 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.9 m | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 1030 mm |
| Rear Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 880 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Land Cruiser 300 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: Land Cruiser 300 88 vs Ranger 72.
Efficiency index: Land Cruiser 300 54 vs Ranger 47.
Safety-equipment index: Land Cruiser 300 96 vs Ranger 89.
Practicality index: Land Cruiser 300 92 vs Ranger 32.
Ownership-cover index: Land Cruiser 300 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
Land Cruiser 300 and Ranger image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Toyota Land Cruiser 300
View 8 more Land Cruiser 300 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
Land Cruiser 300 leads by 23 points
Land Cruiser 300 holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over Ranger.
Evidence leader
84
/100
Lead
23
points
Data
76%
source coverage
84
#1
Evidence leader
Land Cruiser 300
Performance
88
Efficiency
54
Safety
96
Practicality
92
Leads by 23 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
Land Cruiser 300 +16
Efficiency
Land Cruiser 300 +7
Safety
Land Cruiser 300 +7
Practicality
Land Cruiser 300 +60
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Land Cruiser 300
Performance
88/100
Efficiency
54/100
Safety
96/100
Practicality
92/100
Ranger
Performance
72/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
32/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Land Cruiser 300 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.
Land Cruiser 300 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.