C&C 40 vs Columbia 40
How do the C&C 40 and Columbia 40 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 40 | C&C 40 | Columbia 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.7 ft12.09 m | 39.5 ft12.04 m |
| Waterline length | 28.7 ft8.74 m | 27.8 ft8.46 m |
| Beam | 11.2 ft3.40 m | 10.5 ft3.20 m |
| Draft | 9.1 ft2.77 m | 9.0 ft2.74 m |
| Displacement | 18,225 lb8,267 kg | 18,900 lb8,573 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 8,400 lb3,810 kg |
| Sail area | 735 ft²68.3 m² | 647 ft²60.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.98 | 14.59 |
| Displacement / Length | 345 | 395 |
| Comfort ratio | 35.5 | 40.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.70 | 1.58 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 7.1 |
C&C 40 vs Columbia 40: the short version
- The C&C 40 and Columbia 40 are close in length (39.7 ft12.09 m vs 39.5 ft12.04 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 40 carries the more powerful rig (17.0 vs 14.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Columbia 40 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Columbia 40 rates better for offshore work (1.58 vs 1.70).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.