Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
Suzuki New Swift 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.
Suzuki New Swift
SWIFT GL+ 5D 1197p CVT
Petrol
CVT
Current
UGX 68,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 112 Nm
⛽ 21.0 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
Suzuki New Swift vs Ford Ranger: the short answer
Ranger holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over New Swift.
New Swift starts UGX 222,000,000 cheaper
New Swift from UGX 68,000,000 · Ranger from UGX 290,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | New Swift | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | New Swift77 kW @ 6000 rpm | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | New Swift111.7 Nm @ 4300 rpm | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm |
| Engine Size | New Swift1197 cc | Ranger1996 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | New Swift21.0 km/l | RangerNot Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance | New Swift145 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)
New Swift
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
Specification evidence leader
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?
New Swift
- 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 | New Swift | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current Uganda-market generation | Current market generation |
| Facelift History | Current-generation specification | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2023 | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | Hatchback | Pickup |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Passenger vehicle | Mid-size pickup |
| Vehicle Type | Passenger car | Pickup |
| Spec | New Swift | Ranger |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 3860 mm | 5370 mm |
| Width | 1735 mm | 1918 mm |
| Height | 1520 mm | 1884 mm |
| Wheelbase | 2450 mm | 3270 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | 145 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 150 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 37 l | 80 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | 265 l | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | 945 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | 1375 kg | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 400 kg | 1500 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.0 m | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1020 mm | 1030 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 860 mm | 880 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This New Swift 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: New Swift 30 vs Ranger 72.
Efficiency index: New Swift 77 vs Ranger 47.
Safety-equipment index: New Swift 36 vs Ranger 89.
Practicality index: New Swift 46 vs Ranger 32.
Ownership-cover index: New Swift 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
New Swift and Ranger image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Suzuki New Swift
View 8 more New Swift 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
Ranger leads by 16 points
Ranger holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over New Swift.
Evidence leader
61
/100
Lead
16
points
Data
64%
source coverage
61
#1
Evidence leader
Ranger
Performance
72
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
32
Leads by 16 points
45
#2
New Swift
Performance
30
Efficiency
77
Safety
36
Practicality
46
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ranger +42
Efficiency
New Swift +30
Safety
Ranger +53
Practicality
New Swift +14
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Ranger
Performance
72/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
32/100
New Swift
Performance
30/100
Efficiency
77/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
46/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger leads. However, New Swift 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.
New Swift 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.