C&C 110 vs C&C 32
How do the C&C 110 and C&C 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 110 | C&C 110 | C&C 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.3 ft11.07 m | 31.5 ft9.60 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 24.7 ft7.52 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 10.3 ft3.12 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 5.7 ft1.73 m |
| Displacement | 10,900 lb4,944 kg | 9,680 lb4,391 kg |
| Ballast | 4,200 lb1,905 kg | 3,900 lb1,769 kg |
| Sail area | 706 ft²65.6 m² | 462 ft²42.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.98 | 16.27 |
| Displacement / Length | 156 | 288 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.7 | 25.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.16 | 1.92 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 6.7 |
C&C 110 vs C&C 32: the short version
- The C&C 110 is the larger boat at 36.3 ft11.07 m LOA versus 31.5 ft9.60 m for the C&C 32.
- The C&C 110 is heavier, displacing about 13% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 110 carries the more powerful rig (23.0 vs 16.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 32 rates better for offshore work (1.92 vs 2.16).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.