Ranger 30 vs Ranger 32
How do the Ranger 30 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 30 | Ranger 30 | Ranger 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.0 ft9.14 m | 32.5 ft9.91 m |
| Waterline length | 25.4 ft7.75 m | 25.8 ft7.87 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.28 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 5.3 ft1.60 m |
| Displacement | 10,500 lb4,763 kg | 9,500 lb4,309 kg |
| Ballast | 4,300 lb1,950 kg | 4,480 lb2,032 kg |
| Sail area | 462 ft²42.9 m² | 447 ft²41.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.42 | 15.94 |
| Displacement / Length | 285 | 246 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.6 | 22.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.96 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.8 | 6.8 |
Ranger 30 vs Ranger 32: the short version
- The Ranger 32 is the larger boat at 32.5 ft9.91 m LOA versus 30.0 ft9.14 m for the Ranger 30.
- The Ranger 30 is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Ranger 32 carries the more powerful rig (15.9 vs 15.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Ranger 30 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 30 rates better for offshore work (1.96 vs 2.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.