Source type: Ford Uganda / Motorcare exact grade specifications
Ford Ranger vs Suzuki S-Presso
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
Suzuki S-Presso
S-PRESSO GL+ 5D 998p AMT
Petrol
5-Speed AMT
Current
UGX 55,000,000
ex-showroom
⚡ 77 kW
🔧 138 Nm
⛽ 21.5 km/l
Decision summary
Ford Ranger vs Suzuki S-Presso: the short answer
Ranger holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over S-Presso.
S-Presso starts UGX 235,000,000 cheaper
Ranger from UGX 290,000,000 · S-Presso from UGX 55,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Ranger | S-Presso |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm | S-Presso77 kW @ 6000 rpm |
| Maximum Torque | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm | S-Presso138 Nm @ 4400 rpm |
| Engine Size | Ranger1996 cc | S-Presso998 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | RangerNot Officially Disclosed | S-Presso21.5 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | RangerNot Officially Disclosed | S-PressoNot Officially Disclosed |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Suzuki Uganda local distributor/source record
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
Specification evidence leader
Ranger
Strengths
- More powerful engine output
- Stronger listed safety equipment
- Stronger published practicality figures
Weak Spots
- Lower fuel efficiency
Best suited to:
Published Performance
Published Practicality
S-Presso
Strengths
- Better fuel efficiency
Weak Spots
- Less powerful engine setup
- Fewer listed safety features
- Lower published practicality figures
Best suited to:
Published Efficiency
Which One's Right for You?
Ranger
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published space and capacity figures
S-Presso
- Buyers prioritising the lower published fuel or energy use
Full Specs, Side by Side
| Spec | Ranger | S-Presso |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Hatchback |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Mid-size pickup | Passenger vehicle |
| Vehicle Type | Pickup | Passenger car |
| Spec | Ranger | S-Presso |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 5370 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Width | 1918 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Height | 1884 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Wheelbase | 3270 mm | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 160 mm | 150 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 40 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | 239 l |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | 500 kg |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | Not Officially Disclosed | 500 kg |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 1500 kg | 300 kg |
| Seating Capacity | 2 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Rows | 2 rows | 2 rows |
| Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Minimum Turning Radius | 5.5 m | 5.0 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 and S-Presso 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 S-Presso 32.
Efficiency index: Ranger 47 vs S-Presso 79.
Safety-equipment index: Ranger 89 vs S-Presso 36.
Practicality index: Ranger 32 vs S-Presso 25.
Ownership-cover index: Ranger not separately scored vs S-Presso 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 S-Presso 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
Suzuki S-Presso
View 8 more S-Presso 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 20 points
Ranger holds a noticeable catalogue-index lead over S-Presso.
Evidence leader
61
/100
Lead
20
points
Data
64%
source coverage
61
#1
Evidence leader
Ranger
Performance
72
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
32
Leads by 20 points
41
#2
S-Presso
Performance
32
Efficiency
79
Safety
36
Practicality
25
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ranger +40
Efficiency
S-Presso +32
Safety
Ranger +53
Practicality
Ranger +7
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
S-Presso
Performance
32/100
Efficiency
79/100
Safety
36/100
Practicality
25/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger leads. However, S-Presso 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 S-Presso 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.