Ranger 16 vs Ranger 32
How do the Ranger 16 and Ranger 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Ranger 16 | Ranger 16 | Ranger 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 16.7 ft5.08 m | 32.5 ft9.91 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 25.8 ft7.87 m |
| Beam | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.90 m | 5.3 ft1.60 m |
| Displacement | 450 lb204 kg | 9,500 lb4,309 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 4,480 lb2,032 kg |
| Sail area | 154 ft²14.3 m² | 447 ft²41.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 41.96 | 15.94 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 246 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 22.1 |
| Capsize screening | 3.13 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.8 |
Ranger 16 vs Ranger 32: the short version
- The Ranger 32 is the larger boat at 32.5 ft9.91 m LOA versus 16.7 ft5.08 m for the Ranger 16.
- The Ranger 32 is heavier, displacing about 2011% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Ranger 16 carries the more powerful rig (42.0 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 32 rates better for offshore work (2.05 vs 3.13).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.