Ford Everest vs Toyota Prado

Both are rated to 3500 kg braked and 750 kg unbraked, so the headline number ties. The difference is the maths underneath. The Prado has the higher gross combination mass at 6600 kg against the Everest's 6250, a heavier vehicle-plus-trailer total. But the Everest has far more payload: up to 855 kg against the Prado's 580. Subtract a loaded van's tow-ball download and the Prado runs short, a documented 250 Series quirk. Ford also publishes a 350 kg tow-ball rating; Toyota keeps the Prado's to the owner's manual. For towing near the limit with the family aboard, the Everest takes it.

This is closer than badge loyalty suggests. The Prado is the traditionalist: full-time 4WD, a lockable centre differential, low-range gearing, crawl control and hill-descent control across the range. The Everest counters with a rear differential lock, selectable terrain modes and hill-descent control. With both sides' geometry now on the table, the angles split the win. The Everest takes departure (25.3 degrees to the Prado's 17) and wading (800 mm to 700), and clearance is near-even at 229 mm to 221. The Prado edges the approach angle, 32 degrees to 30.4. Buyers who trust mechanical locking hardware and heritage lean Prado; those who rate a steeper departure, deeper wading and electronic breadth lean Everest.

Both makers print the numbers, so a like-for-like table is possible. The Everest lists a 30.4-degree approach angle, a 25.3-degree departure, a 22.2-degree breakover and 800 mm of wading depth, behind 229 mm of clearance. The Prado lists a 32-degree approach, a 17-degree departure and 700 mm of wading, behind 221 mm of clearance. So the Prado has the better nose-up approach for climbing an obstacle, while the Everest has the steeper tail clearance coming off it and wades 100 mm deeper. Neither sweeps the geometry; each wins the angles that suit a different track, and higher Everest grades and the Prado's Altitude lift both further. On the published numbers, call it even.

The Prado carries a 110-litre fuel tank against the Everest's 80, and the 30-litre gap outweighs its slightly higher consumption. At its claimed 7.6 L/100km the Prado theoretically covers around 1450 km between fills; the Everest, at 7.1 L/100km on the 2.0 or 8.5 on the V6, sits closer to 940 to 1130 km from the smaller tank. Both diesels require AdBlue. For remote touring, where a fuel stop is an event and not a routine, range becomes the deciding number. The Everest claws back ground on payload and price, but it can't match the distance between fills. On touring range, the Prado is the pick.

Both wear 5-star ANCAP ratings, so neither is unsafe. The detail favours the Prado. Its rating dates from 2024 against the Everest's 2022, it scores 84 per cent for vulnerable-road-user protection to the Everest's 74, and it ships standard lane-keep assist, auto high beam and a driver-attention monitor, all of which the Everest's tested grade goes without. Both carry nine airbags, autonomous emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert. The Everest's adult and child occupant scores are marginally higher (86 and 93 per cent against 85 and 89). Rate occupant scores and the Everest pulls level; rate assist tech and a fresher test, and the Prado leads.

The Everest wins on entry price: $60,000 for the Active 2.0 against the Prado's $79,267 GX, though a V6 Everest narrows it. Both carry a five-year, unlimited-kilometre warranty. The Prado's servicing is well-documented but not cheap: 6-month or 10,000 km intervals at a capped $390 per visit, around $3,900 across five years, though it ships with five years of roadside assistance against the Everest's one on current data. The Everest's capped-price detail isn't in our current data, so confirm it with a dealer. Buy on the sticker and the Everest wins by a clear margin; keep the car for years and the Prado's case rests on resale and roadside cover, not its busier, dearer service calendar.

For comfort and equipment, the Prado leads. It fits three-zone climate control, heated and ventilated front seats, a heated steering wheel, ambient lighting, wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, built-in navigation and digital radio. The Everest's cabin is more straightforward: dual-zone climate, smartphone mirroring and no digital radio on the rolled-up grade, though it answers with a larger 8-inch driver cluster against the Prado's 7. The Everest claws back luggage: 898 litres behind the second row to the Prado's 640, plus 1823 litres folded. The Prado's modest boot is a known packaging compromise, narrowed by the five-seat option that drops the third row. The Prado takes the cabin; the Everest takes the boot.

It comes down to which compromise you'd rather live with. If your weekends involve a heavy van and a full car, the Everest's payload headroom, V6 torque and bigger boot make the towing-and-hauling maths easier, and it costs less to get into. If your trips are longer and more remote, the Prado's 110-litre tank, traditional locking-diff hardware and stronger resale earn the premium, and it's the newer car on safety and cabin comfort. Either way, buyers cross-shopping these two should also drive the Isuzu MU-X, which undercuts both on price, and the GWM Tank 500.