Source type: Toyota Uganda/CFAO specifications; user-supplied estimates for remaining fields
Toyota Land Cruiser 78 vs Toyota Land Cruiser FJ
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 78
LC78 4.2L Hard Top 5-MT 4x4
Diesel
5-Speed Manual
Current
UGX 370,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 96 kW
🔧 285 Nm
⛽ 12.5 km/l
VS
Toyota Land Cruiser FJ
2.7 Petrol 6AT 4WD
Petrol
6-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 265,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 122 kW
🔧 245 Nm
⛽ 9.35 km/l
Decision summary
Toyota Land Cruiser 78 vs Toyota Land Cruiser FJ: the short answer
Land Cruiser 78 and Land Cruiser FJ are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Land Cruiser FJ starts UGX 105,000,000 cheaper
Land Cruiser 78 from UGX 370,000,000 · Land Cruiser FJ from UGX 265,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Land Cruiser 78 | Land Cruiser FJ |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Land Cruiser 7896 kW @ 3800 rpm | Land Cruiser FJ122 kW @ 5200 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Land Cruiser 78285 Nm @ 2200 rpm | Land Cruiser FJ245 Nm @ 4000 rpm |
| Engine Size | Land Cruiser 784164 cc | Land Cruiser FJ2694 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Land Cruiser 7812.5 km/l | Land Cruiser FJ9.35 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Land Cruiser 78235 mm | Land Cruiser FJ245 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Toyota Uganda/CFAO specifications; user-supplied estimates for remaining fields
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Land Cruiser 78
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Fewer listed safety features
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Efficiency
Published Practicality
Specification evidence leader
Land Cruiser FJ
Strengths
- Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
General Use
Which One's Right for You?
Land Cruiser 78
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Land Cruiser FJ
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Land Cruiser 78 | Land Cruiser FJ |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Uganda-listed LC78 hard top with 4.2-litre 1HZ diesel, five-speed manual and thirteen-seat catalogue configuration. | First-generation Land Cruiser FJ with 2.7-litre petrol engine; separate from the earlier FJ Cruiser |
| Facelift History | No local facelift confirmed | No local facelift confirmed |
| Facelift Launched Since | Original current-generation version | Original current-generation version |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | Hard top | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Long-wheelbase heavy-duty 4x4 | Five-seat ladder-frame 4x4 SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Hard-top utility vehicle | Passenger SUV |
| Spec | Land Cruiser 78 | Land Cruiser FJ |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4990 mm | 4610 mm |
| Width | 1770 mm | 1855 mm |
| Height | 2115 mm | 1890 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2980 mm | 2580 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 235 mm | 245 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 220 mm | 200 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 180 l | 63 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 1000 l | 470 l |
| Kerb Weight | 2230 kg | 1920 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 3200 kg | 2510 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 970 kg | 590 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 1500 kg | 750 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 13 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Rows | Not Officially Disclosed | 2 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 6.8 m | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Land Cruiser 78 and Land Cruiser FJ 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 78 51 vs Land Cruiser FJ 49.
Efficiency index: Land Cruiser 78 54 vs Land Cruiser FJ 42.
Safety-equipment index: Land Cruiser 78 44 vs Land Cruiser FJ 95.
Practicality index: Land Cruiser 78 87 vs Land Cruiser FJ 65.
Ownership-cover index: Land Cruiser 78 not separately scored vs Land Cruiser FJ 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 78 and Land Cruiser FJ image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Toyota Land Cruiser 78
View 8 more Land Cruiser 78 images
Toyota Land Cruiser FJ
View 8 more Land Cruiser FJ 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 FJ leads by 5 points
Land Cruiser 78 and Land Cruiser FJ are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
64
/100
Lead
5
points
Data
74%
source coverage
64
#1
Evidence leader
Land Cruiser FJ
Performance
49
Efficiency
42
Safety
95
Practicality
65
Leads by 5 points
59
#2
Land Cruiser 78
Performance
51
Efficiency
54
Safety
44
Practicality
87
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Land Cruiser 78 +2
Efficiency
Land Cruiser 78 +12
Safety
Land Cruiser FJ +51
Practicality
Land Cruiser 78 +22
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Land Cruiser FJ
Performance
49/100
Efficiency
42/100
Safety
95/100
Practicality
65/100
Land Cruiser 78
Performance
51/100
Efficiency
54/100
Safety
44/100
Practicality
87/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Land Cruiser FJ leads. However, Land Cruiser 78 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 78 vs Land Cruiser FJ 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.