Ranger 23 vs Ranger 32
How do the Ranger 23 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 23 | Ranger 23 | Ranger 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 23.7 ft7.21 m | 32.5 ft9.91 m |
| Waterline length | 20.0 ft6.10 m | 25.8 ft7.87 m |
| Beam | 7.9 ft2.41 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.14 m | 5.3 ft1.60 m |
| Displacement | 3,400 lb1,542 kg | 9,500 lb4,309 kg |
| Ballast | 1,500 lb680 kg | 4,480 lb2,032 kg |
| Sail area | 244 ft²22.7 m² | 447 ft²41.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.27 | 15.94 |
| Displacement / Length | 190 | 246 |
| Comfort ratio | 15.8 | 22.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.11 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.0 | 6.8 |
Ranger 23 vs Ranger 32: the short version
- The Ranger 32 is the larger boat at 32.5 ft9.91 m LOA versus 23.7 ft7.21 m for the Ranger 23.
- The Ranger 32 is heavier, displacing about 179% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Ranger 23 carries the more powerful rig (17.3 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 2.11).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.