Ranger 33 vs Scanmar 33
How do the Ranger 33 and Scanmar 33 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Ranger 33 | Ranger 33 | Scanmar 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 33.2 ft10.11 m | 33.1 ft10.10 m |
| Waterline length | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 27.2 ft8.30 m |
| Beam | 9.6 ft2.92 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 5.0 ft1.52 m | 5.7 ft1.75 m |
| Displacement | 10,500 lb4,763 kg | 10,141 lb4,600 kg |
| Ballast | 4,500 lb2,041 kg | 4,189 lb1,900 kg |
| Sail area | 528 ft²49.1 m² | 678 ft²63.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.62 | 23.15 |
| Displacement / Length | 259 | 224 |
| Comfort ratio | 28.2 | 22.6 |
| Capsize screening | 1.75 | 2.00 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 7.0 |
| Average used price | — | €29,000 |
Ranger 33 vs Scanmar 33: the short version
- The Ranger 33 and Scanmar 33 are close in length (33.2 ft10.11 m vs 33.1 ft10.10 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Scanmar 33 carries the more powerful rig (23.2 vs 17.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Ranger 33 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 33 rates better for offshore work (1.75 vs 2.00).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.