Ranger 32 vs Ranger 37
How do the Ranger 32 and Ranger 37 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Ranger 32 | Ranger 32 | Ranger 37 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.5 ft9.91 m | 37.0 ft11.28 m |
| Waterline length | 25.8 ft7.87 m | 28.3 ft8.63 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.30 m | 11.3 ft3.45 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.60 m | 6.0 ft1.83 m |
| Displacement | 9,500 lb4,309 kg | 15,200 lb6,895 kg |
| Ballast | 4,480 lb2,032 kg | 7,300 lb3,311 kg |
| Sail area | 447 ft²41.5 m² | 629 ft²58.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.94 | 16.40 |
| Displacement / Length | 246 | 298 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.1 | 30.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.05 | 1.83 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.8 | 7.1 |
Ranger 32 vs Ranger 37: the short version
- The Ranger 37 is the larger boat at 37.0 ft11.28 m LOA versus 32.5 ft9.91 m for the Ranger 32.
- The Ranger 37 is heavier, displacing about 60% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Ranger 37 carries the more powerful rig (16.4 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Ranger 37 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 37 rates better for offshore work (1.83 vs 2.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.