Source type: Toyota Uganda/CFAO specifications; user-supplied estimates for remaining fields
Toyota Land Cruiser FJ vs Isuzu mu-X
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 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
VS
Isuzu mu-X
mu-X 1.9L 4x4 6AT
Diesel
6-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 275,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 110 kW
🔧 350 Nm
⛽ 11.8 km/l
Decision summary
Toyota Land Cruiser FJ vs Isuzu mu-X: the short answer
Land Cruiser FJ and mu-X are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Land Cruiser FJ starts UGX 10,000,000 cheaper
Land Cruiser FJ from UGX 265,000,000 · mu-X from UGX 275,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Land Cruiser FJ | mu-X |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Land Cruiser FJ122 kW @ 5200 rpm | mu-X110 kW @ 3600 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Land Cruiser FJ245 Nm @ 4000 rpm | mu-X350 Nm @ 1800-2600 rpm |
| Engine Size | Land Cruiser FJ2694 cc | mu-X1899 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Land Cruiser FJ9.35 km/l | mu-X11.8 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Land Cruiser FJ245 mm | mu-X220 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: MAC Uganda / Isuzu
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Land Cruiser FJ
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
Specification evidence leader
mu-X
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
Which One's Right for You?
Land Cruiser FJ
- Buyers who prefer this derivative's confirmed specification mix
mu-X
- 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
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Land Cruiser FJ | mu-X |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2022 |
| Generation | First-generation Land Cruiser FJ with 2.7-litre petrol engine; separate from the earlier FJ Cruiser | Current Isuzu Uganda-listed generation |
| Facelift History | No local facelift confirmed | Current Uganda-listed generation; 2026 catalogue planning specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | Original current-generation version | 2024 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | SUV | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Five-seat ladder-frame 4x4 SUV | Seven-seat body-on-frame SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger SUV | Passenger SUV |
| Spec | Land Cruiser FJ | mu-X |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4610 mm | 4850 mm |
| Width | 1855 mm | 1870 mm |
| Height | 1890 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2580 mm | 2855 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 245 mm | 220 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 200 mm | 195 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 470 l | 311 l |
| Kerb Weight | 1920 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 2510 kg | 3100 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 590 kg | 1000 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 750 kg | 3500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 6.1 m |
| Front Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 1005 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 980 mm |
| Front Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 1050 mm |
| Rear Legroom | Not Officially Disclosed | 900 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Land Cruiser FJ and mu-X 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 FJ 49 vs mu-X 52.
Efficiency index: Land Cruiser FJ 42 vs mu-X 47.
Safety-equipment index: Land Cruiser FJ 95 vs mu-X 96.
Practicality index: Land Cruiser FJ 65 vs mu-X 83.
Ownership-cover index: Land Cruiser FJ not separately scored vs mu-X 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 FJ and mu-X image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Toyota Land Cruiser FJ
View 8 more Land Cruiser FJ images
Isuzu mu-X
View 8 more mu-X 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
mu-X leads by 6 points
Land Cruiser FJ and mu-X are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
70
/100
Lead
6
points
Data
78%
source coverage
70
#1
Evidence leader
mu-X
Performance
52
Efficiency
47
Safety
96
Practicality
83
Leads by 6 points
64
#2
Land Cruiser FJ
Performance
49
Efficiency
42
Safety
95
Practicality
65
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
mu-X +3
Efficiency
mu-X +5
Safety
mu-X +1
Practicality
mu-X +18
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
mu-X
Performance
52/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
96/100
Practicality
83/100
Land Cruiser FJ
Performance
49/100
Efficiency
42/100
Safety
95/100
Practicality
65/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, mu-X leads. However, Land Cruiser FJ 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 FJ vs mu-X 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.