Kanga 366 vs Malibu
How do the Kanga 366 and Malibu compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Kanga 366 | Kanga 366 | Malibu | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 12.0 ft3.65 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 2.1 ft0.65 m | 2.2 ft0.67 m |
| Draft | —— | —— |
| Displacement | 33 lb15 kg | 30 lb14 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | —— | —— |
| SA / Displacement | — | — |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 2.66 | 2.83 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
Kanga 366 vs Malibu: the short version
- The Kanga 366 and Malibu are close in length (12.0 ft3.66 m vs 12.0 ft3.65 m ).
- The Kanga 366 is heavier, displacing about 10% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- By the capsize screening formula the Kanga 366 rates better for offshore work (2.66 vs 2.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.