C&C 99 vs Ranger 32
How do the C&C 99 and Ranger 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 99 
Ranger 32 | C&C 99 | Ranger 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.5 ft9.91 m | 32.5 ft9.91 m |
| Waterline length | 29.1 ft8.86 m | 25.8 ft7.87 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.30 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 5.3 ft1.60 m |
| Displacement | 9,265 lb4,203 kg | 9,500 lb4,309 kg |
| Ballast | 3,500 lb1,588 kg | 4,480 lb2,032 kg |
| Sail area | 562 ft²52.2 m² | 447 ft²41.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 20.38 | 15.94 |
| Displacement / Length | 168 | 246 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.9 | 22.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.06 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 6.8 |
C&C 99 vs Ranger 32: the short version
- The C&C 99 and Ranger 32 are close in length (32.5 ft9.91 m vs 32.5 ft9.91 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 99 carries the more powerful rig (20.4 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Ranger 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 32 rates better for offshore work (2.05 vs 2.06).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.