C&C 115 vs C&C 32
How do the C&C 115 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 115 
C&C 32 | C&C 115 | C&C 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 37.8 ft11.51 m | 31.5 ft9.60 m |
| Waterline length | 33.0 ft10.06 m | 24.7 ft7.52 m |
| Beam | 11.9 ft3.63 m | 10.3 ft3.12 m |
| Draft | 6.7 ft2.03 m | 5.7 ft1.73 m |
| Displacement | 11,800 lb5,352 kg | 9,680 lb4,391 kg |
| Ballast | 4,200 lb1,905 kg | 3,900 lb1,769 kg |
| Sail area | 781 ft²72.6 m² | 462 ft²42.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 24.11 | 16.27 |
| Displacement / Length | 147 | 288 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.5 | 25.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.09 | 1.92 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.7 | 6.7 |
C&C 115 vs C&C 32: the short version
- The C&C 115 is the larger boat at 37.8 ft11.51 m LOA versus 31.5 ft9.60 m for the C&C 32.
- The C&C 115 is heavier, displacing about 22% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 115 carries the more powerful rig (24.1 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 2.09).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.