C&C Custom 67 vs Swan 82
How do the C&C Custom 67 and Swan 82 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C Custom 67 
Swan 82 | C&C Custom 67 | Swan 82 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 73.0 ft22.25 m | 69.8 ft21.26 m |
| Waterline length | 58.0 ft17.68 m | 69.8 ft21.26 m |
| Beam | 18.3 ft5.59 m | 19.2 ft5.86 m |
| Draft | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 12.4 ft3.78 m |
| Displacement | 98,700 lb44,770 kg | 83,776 lb38,000 kg |
| Ballast | 35,274 lb16,000 kg | 29,300 lb13,290 kg |
| Sail area | 2,860 ft²265.7 m² | 3,474 ft²322.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.43 | 29.03 |
| Displacement / Length | 226 | 110 |
| Comfort ratio | 50.8 | 36.2 |
| Capsize screening | 1.59 | 1.76 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 10.2 | 11.2 |
C&C Custom 67 vs Swan 82: the short version
- The C&C Custom 67 is the larger boat at 73.0 ft22.25 m LOA versus 69.8 ft21.26 m for the Swan 82.
- The C&C Custom 67 is heavier, displacing about 18% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 82 carries the more powerful rig (29.0 vs 21.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C Custom 67 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C Custom 67 rates better for offshore work (1.59 vs 1.76).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.