Source type: Ford Uganda / Motorcare exact grade specifications
Ford Ranger Raptor vs Suzuki XL6
A proper head-to-head in Uganda — compare price, performance, fuel economy or electric range, safety and the details that shape long-term ownership.
Ford Ranger Raptor
Raptor 3.0 V6 EcoBoost 10AT 4WD
Petrol
10-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 305,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 292 kW
🔧 583 Nm
VS
Suzuki XL6
XL6 GLX 5D 1462p AT
Petrol
4-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 113,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 138 Nm
⛽ 16.0 km/l
Decision summary
Ford Ranger Raptor vs Suzuki XL6: the short answer
Ranger Raptor holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over XL6.
XL6 starts UGX 192,000,000 cheaper
Ranger Raptor from UGX 305,000,000 · XL6 from UGX 113,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Ranger Raptor | XL6 |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Ranger Raptor292 kW @ 5650 rpm | XL677 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Ranger Raptor583 Nm @ 3500 rpm | XL6138 Nm @ 4400 rpm |
| Engine Size | Ranger Raptor2956 cc | XL61462 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | Ranger RaptorNot Officially Disclosed | XL616.0 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | Ranger RaptorNot Officially Disclosed | XL6180 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Suzuki Uganda / CFAO Mobility
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
Ranger Raptor
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Stronger listed safety equipment
Weak Spots
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
XL6
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
Which One's Right for You?
Ranger Raptor
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
XL6
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Ranger Raptor | XL6 |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current market generation | Current Uganda-market generation |
| Facelift History | Current-generation specification | Current-generation specification |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2023 | 2023 |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | Pickup | MPV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Performance mid-size pickup | MPV |
| Vehicle Type | Pickup | Passenger car |
| Spec | Ranger Raptor | XL6 |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 5381 mm | 4445 mm |
| Width | 2028 mm | 1775 mm |
| Height | 1922 mm | 1720 mm |
| Wheelbase | 3270 mm | 2740 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | Not Officially Disclosed | 180 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 160 mm | 150 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 45 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | 209 l |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | 1175 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | Not Officially Disclosed | 1715 kg |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 1500 kg | 750 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 2 seats | 6 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 3 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 5.2 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1030 mm | 1020 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 880 mm | 860 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Ranger Raptor and XL6 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: Ranger Raptor 86 vs XL6 32.
Efficiency index: Ranger Raptor 45 vs XL6 63.
Safety-equipment index: Ranger Raptor 84 vs XL6 38.
Practicality index: Ranger Raptor 32 vs XL6 52.
Ownership-cover index: Ranger Raptor not separately scored vs XL6 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
Ranger Raptor and XL6 image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Ford Ranger Raptor
View 8 more Ranger Raptor images
Suzuki XL6
View 8 more XL6 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 Raptor leads by 18 points
Ranger Raptor holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over XL6.
Evidence leader
63
/100
Lead
18
points
Data
64%
source coverage
63
#1
Evidence leader
Ranger Raptor
Performance
86
Efficiency
45
Safety
84
Practicality
32
Leads by 18 points
45
#2
XL6
Performance
32
Efficiency
63
Safety
38
Practicality
52
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ranger Raptor +54
Efficiency
XL6 +18
Safety
Ranger Raptor +46
Practicality
XL6 +20
Moderate difference in the source-backed catalogue index.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Ranger Raptor
Performance
86/100
Efficiency
45/100
Safety
84/100
Practicality
32/100
XL6
Performance
32/100
Efficiency
63/100
Safety
38/100
Practicality
52/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger Raptor leads. However, XL6 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.
Ranger Raptor vs XL6 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.