Source type: Ford Uganda / Motorcare exact grade specifications
Ford Ranger vs Hyundai Tucson
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
Hyundai Tucson
TUCSON 2.0L Diesel 4x4 8AT GL
Diesel
8-Speed Automatic
Current
UGX 200,000,000
ex-showroom
🔧 416 Nm
⛽ 13.0 km/l
Decision summary
Ford Ranger vs Hyundai Tucson: the short answer
Ranger and Tucson are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Tucson starts UGX 90,000,000 cheaper
Ranger from UGX 290,000,000 · Tucson from UGX 200,000,000
Five key differences
Exact selected derivatives| Specification | Ranger | Tucson |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Power | Ranger154 kW @ 3750 rpm | TucsonNot Officially Disclosed |
| Maximum Torque | Ranger500 Nm @ 1750-2000 rpm | Tucson416 Nm @ 2000-2750 rpm |
| Engine Size | Ranger1996 cc | Tucson1998 cc |
| Combined Fuel Economy | RangerNot Officially Disclosed | Tucson13.0 km/l |
| Ground Clearance | RangerNot Officially Disclosed | Tucson181 mm |
Strongest published figure in that row; no road-test winner is implied.
Source type: Hyundai Uganda / Motorcare quotation catalogue and model specifications
What Each Car Gets Right (and Wrong)
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
Tucson
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
- Buyers prioritising the stronger published powertrain figures
- Buyers prioritising the more complete listed safety equipment
Tucson
- 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 | Tucson |
|---|---|---|
| Model Introduced Year | 2023 | 2023 |
| Generation | Current 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 | Pickup | SUV |
| Model Year | 2026 | 2026 |
| Production Status | active | active |
| Segment | Mid-size pickup | SUV |
| Vehicle Type | Pickup | Passenger SUV |
| Spec | Ranger | Tucson |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 5370 mm | 4630 mm |
| Width | 1918 mm | 1865 mm |
| Height | 1884 mm | 1665 mm |
| Wheelbase | 3270 mm | 2755 mm |
| Ground Clearance (Default) | Not Officially Disclosed | 181 mm |
| Ground Clearance (With Full Seating Load) | 160 mm | 160 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 l | 54 l |
| Boot/Cargo Space | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Kerb Weight | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Payload Capacity | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Towing Capacity | 1500 kg | 1500 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 | 1000 mm |
| Rear Headroom | Not Officially Disclosed | Not Officially Disclosed |
| Front Legroom | 1030 mm | 1030 mm |
| Rear Legroom | 880 mm | 880 mm |
In depth: how these cars differ
This Ranger and Tucson 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 Tucson 62.
Efficiency index: Ranger 47 vs Tucson 55.
Safety-equipment index: Ranger 89 vs Tucson 61.
Practicality index: Ranger 32 vs Tucson 60.
Ownership-cover index: Ranger not separately scored vs Tucson 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 Tucson 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
Hyundai Tucson
View 8 more Tucson 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 1 points
Ranger and Tucson are close on the comparable published fields, so buyer priorities should decide.
Evidence leader
61
/100
Lead
1
points
Data
64%
source coverage
61
#1
Evidence leader
Ranger
Performance
72
Efficiency
47
Safety
89
Practicality
32
Leads by 1 points
60
#2
Tucson
Performance
62
Efficiency
55
Safety
61
Practicality
60
Performance 24%
Safety 22%
Practicality 22%
Efficiency 17%
Ownership 15%
Category leaders
What moves the verdict
Performance
Ranger +10
Efficiency
Tucson +8
Safety
Ranger +28
Practicality
Tucson +28
Close catalogue match. Buyer priorities should decide the outcome.
Why this score View full breakdown
Evidence-index leader
Ranger
Performance
72/100
Efficiency
47/100
Safety
89/100
Practicality
32/100
Tucson
Performance
62/100
Efficiency
55/100
Safety
61/100
Practicality
60/100
What the evidence means
In Hagalu's specification evidence index, Ranger leads. However, Tucson 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 Tucson 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.