Source type: Toyota Uganda/CFAO specifications; user-supplied estimates for remaining fields
Toyota Land Cruiser 76 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 76
LC76 4.2L 5-MT 4x4
Diesel
5-Speed Manual
Current
UGX 355,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 96 kW
🔧 285 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 76 vs Ford Ranger: the short answer
Land Cruiser 76 and Ranger are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Ranger starts UGX 65,000,000 cheaper
Land Cruiser 76 from UGX 355,000,000 · Ranger from UGX 290,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Land Cruiser 76 | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Land Cruiser 7696 kW @ 3800 rpm | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Land Cruiser 76285 Nm @ 2200 rpm | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Land Cruiser 764164 cc | Ranger1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Land Cruiser 7612.5 km/l | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | Land Cruiser 76230 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 76
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
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?
Land Cruiser 76
- 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 | Land Cruiser 76 | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Uganda-listed LC76 70 Series wagon with the 4.2-litre 1HZ diesel and five-speed manual. | 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 | Passenger/utility vehicle | Pickup |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Heavy-duty 4x4 wagon | Mid-size pickup |
| Vehicle Type | Utility wagon | Pickup |
| Spec | Land Cruiser 76 | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4720 mm | 5370 mm |
| Width | 1770 mm | 1918 mm |
| Height | 1955 mm | 1884 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2730 mm | 3270 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 230 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 220 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 130 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 1000 l | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | 2245 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 3060 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | 800 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 3500 kg | 1500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 10 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | Not Officially Disclosed | 2 rows |
| Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 6.3 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 76 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 76 51 vs Ranger 72.
Efficiency index: Land Cruiser 76 54 vs Ranger 47.
Safety-equipment index: Land Cruiser 76 44 vs Ranger 89.
Practicality index: Land Cruiser 76 95 vs Ranger 32.
Ownership-cover index: Land Cruiser 76 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 76 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 76
View 8 more Land Cruiser 76 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 76 leads by 0 points
Land Cruiser 76 and Ranger are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
61
/100
Lead
0
points
Data
74%
source coverage
61
#1
Evidence leader
Land Cruiser 76
Performance
51
Efficiency
54
Safety
44
Practicality
95
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 +21
Efficiency
Land Cruiser 76 +7
Safety
Ranger +45
Practicality
Land Cruiser 76 +63
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Land Cruiser 76
Performance
51/100
Efficiency
54/100
Safety
44/100
Practicality
95/100
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 76 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 76 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.