C&C 32 vs Marieholm 32 / 32E
How do the C&C 32 and Marieholm 32 / 32E compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 32 | C&C 32 | Marieholm 32 / 32E | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 31.4 ft9.56 m |
| Waterline length | 24.7 ft7.52 m | 23.9 ft7.30 m |
| Beam | 10.3 ft3.12 m | 9.8 ft3.00 m |
| Draft | 5.7 ft1.73 m | 5.1 ft1.55 m |
| Displacement | 9,680 lb4,391 kg | 7,716 lb3,500 kg |
| Ballast | 3,900 lb1,769 kg | 2,866 lb1,300 kg |
| Sail area | 462 ft²42.9 m² | 479 ft²44.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.27 | 19.63 |
| Displacement / Length | 288 | 251 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.2 | 21.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.92 | 1.99 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.7 | 6.6 |
| Average used price | — | €24,000 |
C&C 32 vs Marieholm 32 / 32E: the short version
- The C&C 32 and Marieholm 32 / 32E are close in length (31.5 ft9.60 m vs 31.4 ft9.56 m ).
- The C&C 32 is heavier, displacing about 25% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marieholm 32 / 32E carries the more powerful rig (19.6 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 1.99).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.