Source type: MAC Uganda / Isuzu
Isuzu mu-X vs Toyota RAV4
A proper head-to-head in Uganda — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
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
VS
Decision summary
Isuzu mu-X vs Toyota RAV4: the short answer
mu-X and RAV4 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
RAV4 starts UGX 65,000,000 cheaper
mu-X from UGX 275,000,000 · RAV4 from UGX 210,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | mu-X | RAV4 |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | mu-X110 kW @ 3600 rpm | RAV4Not Officially Disclosed |
| Maximum Torque | mu-X350 Nm @ 1800-2600 rpm | RAV4Not Officially Disclosed |
| Engine Size | mu-X1899 cc | RAV41987 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | mu-X11.8 km/l | RAV412.5 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | mu-X220 mm | RAV4190 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Toyota Uganda/CFAO model information; user-supplied AWD configuration and estimates require exact-grade confirmation
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
mu-X
Strengths
- Stronger listed safety equipment
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Lower fuel efficiency
Best suited to:
Published Practicality
RAV4
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
- Fewer listed safety features
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Efficiency
Which One's Right for You?
mu-X
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
RAV4
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | mu-X | RAV4 |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2022 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current Isuzu Uganda-listed generation | Uganda petrol RAV4 listing, kept separate from RAV4 HEV and used-import specifications. Exact supplied model year and equipment grade remain important. |
| Facelift History | Current Uganda-listed generation; 2026 catalogue planning specification | No local facelift confirmed |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2024 | Original current-generation version |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | SUV | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Seven-seat body-on-frame SUV | Family SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger SUV | Passenger SUV |
| Spec | mu-X | RAV4 |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4850 mm | 4600 mm |
| Width | 1870 mm | 1855 mm |
| Height | 1790 mm | 1685 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2855 mm | 2690 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 220 mm | 190 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 195 mm | 175 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 55 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 311 l | 580 l |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | 1570 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 3100 kg | 2150 kg |
| Payload Capacity | 1000 kg | 580 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 3500 kg | 750 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Rows | 3 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 6.1 m | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1005 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Headroom | 980 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1050 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Legroom | 900 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
In depth: how these cars differ
This mu-X and RAV4 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: mu-X 52 vs RAV4 55.
Efficiency index: mu-X 47 vs RAV4 52.
Safety-equipment index: mu-X 96 vs RAV4 95.
Practicality index: mu-X 83 vs RAV4 65.
Ownership-cover index: mu-X not separately scored vs RAV4 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
mu-X and RAV4 image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Isuzu mu-X
View 8 more mu-X images
Toyota RAV4
View 8 more RAV4 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 3 points
mu-X and RAV4 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
70
/100
Lead
3
points
Data
78%
source coverage
70
#1
Evidence leader
mu-X
Performance
52
Efficiency
47
Safety
96
Practicality
83
Leads by 3 points
67
#2
RAV4
Performance
55
Efficiency
52
Safety
95
Practicality
65
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
RAV4 +3
Efficiency
RAV4 +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
RAV4
Performance
55/100
Efficiency
52/100
Safety
95/100
Practicality
65/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, mu-X leads. However, RAV4 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.
mu-X vs RAV4 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.