Source type: Ford Uganda / Motorcare exact grade specifications
Ford Ranger 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.
Ford Ranger
Sport 2.0 Bi-Turbo 10AT 4WD
Diesel
10-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 290,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 154 kW
🔧 500 Nm
VS
Decision summary
Ford Ranger vs Toyota RAV4: the short answer
Ranger and RAV4 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
RAV4 starts UGX 80,000,000 cheaper
Ranger from UGX 290,000,000 · RAV4 from UGX 210,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Ranger | RAV4 |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm | RAV4Not Officially Disclosed |
| Maximum Torque | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm | RAV4Not Officially Disclosed |
| Engine Size | Ranger1996 cc | RAV41987 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | RangerNot Officially Disclosed | RAV412.5 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | RangerNot Officially Disclosed | 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)
Ranger
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
Weak Spots
- Lower fuel efficiency
- Fewer listed safety features
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Specification evidence leader
RAV4
Strengths
- Better fuel efficiency
- Stronger listed safety equipment
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
Best suited to:
Published Efficiency
Published Practicality
Which One's Right for You?
Ranger
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
RAV4
- 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 | Ranger | RAV4 |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current market 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-generation specification | No local facelift confirmed |
| Facelift Launched Since | 2023 | Original current-generation version |
| Facelift Version Ending | Current | Current |
| Body Style | Pickup | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Mid-size pickup | Family SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Pickup | Passenger SUV |
| Spec | Ranger | RAV4 |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 5370 mm | 4600 mm |
| Width | 1918 mm | 1855 mm |
| Height | 1884 mm | 1685 mm |
| Wheelbase | 3270 mm | 2690 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | Not Officially Disclosed | 190 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 160 mm | 175 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 55 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | 580 l |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | 1570 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | Not Officially Disclosed | 2150 kg |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | 580 kg |
| Towing Capacity | 1500 kg | 750 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 5.5 m |
| Front Headroom | 1000 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1030 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Rear Legroom | 880 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Ranger 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: Ranger 72 vs RAV4 55.
Efficiency index: Ranger 47 vs RAV4 52.
Safety-equipment index: Ranger 89 vs RAV4 95.
Practicality index: Ranger 32 vs RAV4 65.
Ownership-cover index: Ranger 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
Ranger and RAV4 image comparison
Open an image for its full canonical file or visit the model page for the complete vehicle record.
Ford Ranger
View 8 more Ranger 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
RAV4 leads by 6 points
Ranger and RAV4 are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
67
/100
Lead
6
points
Data
57%
source coverage
67
#1
Evidence leader
RAV4
Performance
55
Efficiency
52
Safety
95
Practicality
65
Leads by 6 points
61
#2
Ranger
Performance
72
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
32
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ranger +17
Efficiency
RAV4 +5
Safety
RAV4 +6
Practicality
RAV4 +33
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
RAV4
Performance
55/100
Efficiency
52/100
Safety
95/100
Practicality
65/100
Ranger
Performance
72/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
32/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, RAV4 leads. However, Ranger 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 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.