Rangers vs Sea Piper

[Austinsailor]

I’ve been asking and learning a lot about pros and cons of Sea Pipers in another thread. Several have suggested I look at Ranger Tugs instead. They are not so hard to find to look at, and I have hopes of looking at 3 today. I’ve located an R-25, an R-29 and an R31. The 25 is pretty clearly trailerable, no permits. The 29 trailerable, permits required. The 31, probably but in the upper end with permits.

I guess what I’d like to know is just how capable these guys are off shore. Would you take any of them to the Bahamas? I’m a weather chicken, but try as you might, you can still get caught in a nasty blow. Would you feel safe in any or all of these if you were offshore and something popped up? I don’t mean comfortable, but not in danger?

What kind of fuel economy can I expect? The R-25 has a 140 hp Cummins. At 7 knots or so, could I expect 1 gph?

A used R-25 can be had for about 1/3 the cost if a Sea Piper and it occurred to me, if I’m tempted I could get into it and back out for not that much money if I, or my girlfriend, decide we want to go a different way. If I wait and go with the Sea Piper like I think I’d like, it’s likely to be painful financially if I decide to back up.

I know someone is going to say “just figure out what you want and quit bothering us!”, but, hey, I could use some feedback!

 

[phillippeterson]

We like the SeaPiper better. But your idea of a used Ranger and getting into it and back out, if need be, for not much money sounds good.

Although, getting into and out of SeaPiper without losing much is also probable. Used SeaPipers are a sellers market with not many of them out there. You just have to spend a little more up front but you'll get more when you sell.

 

[FWT]

I don't own either boat but for a variety of reasons have sort of tracked the Rangers. Take this as no more than an arm chair analysis, and all for what it's worth and at least two grains of salt.

Rangers are a production volume boat. The mission is trailerable, so they are built to trailer dimension and weight limits.

Trailerable, the weight is kept low. That has implications. On the plus side, they can indeed be trailered, including the 31. People do, all the time. On the negative side, hulls and other things are built thin for weight.

Apart from your desire to have a good exit plan, I'd go late model used regardless. As a production boat the quality control is more thin than you might expect. New owners take a few years chasing new boat gremlins. If you find one owned by a decent owner who has chased those all out, you are ahead of the game at a lower cost. But since these tend to be starter boats for many, well-polished surfaces don't translate into well maintained systems. Look carefully and deep, because the prior owner may also have simply ignored important systems from lack of experience. Check out the owners website (run by the company) that is devoted to maintenance Q&A to get a feel for the amount of issues and the common issues (poor quality control on electronics installation is very common, for example). There is also some fuel usage posted there. The site is more about mechanical issues than usage. The Facebook page is more about posting pics of sitting on deck with a glass of wine.

The TugNuts • Home

The owners near Seattle HQ get great factory support. They have one set of perspectives, but the east coast owners don't benefit from that and have another. Consider the source when viewing owner opinions.

Owners do take them to the Bahamas. As a light weight small boat you will want to take extra care to pick your weather windows.

The same builder also makes Cutwaters, which are very similar but with a different style and look. Same sets of pro and con. Just another option to consider.

I hope this helps guide toward a deeper dive into them.

 

[Austinsailor]

We looked at an R29 this morning. For reasons I won’t bore you with, we didn’t get inside. It was on the hard. It did look big.

Cosmetically it looks pretty nice, but not being able to poke below that’s as far as it got.

I was surprised at how small the ride and prop were. More surprised there was no protection for the rudder. That would worry me.

Looking at an R-25 later today.

 

[DavidM]

You raise issues of trailerability, prop protection and heavy seas handling.

The Seapiper only qualifies for trailerability. The outboard is just as vulnerable or more so from prop damage as an unprotected single engine direct shaft drive, although twin outboards can mitigate that somewhat. It's heavy seas handling can't be all that good as it is light, has a light draft and has a narrow beam.

But we can't tell what is more important to you. If it were me I would strongly consider the Ranger 31.

David

 

[Austinsailor]

I’m confused - seapiper is inboard diesel with a bar below the prop supporting the bottom of the rudder. Having bent several rudders on sailboats where the unprotected rudder was the same depth as the keel I’m a bit sensitive about that!

 

[DavidM]

I’m confused - seapiper is inboard diesel with a bar below the prop supporting the bottom of the rudder. Having bent several rudders on sailboats where the unprotected rudder was the same depth as the keel I’m a bit sensitive about that!

My apologies. I was confusing the Seapiper with the TT35 and thought the Seapiper was outboard powered. I looked at its specs and see that it is moderately heavy at 13,500 lbs dry including 2,000 lbs of ballast. So my comment about heavy seas stability is not correct either. It should do just as well as the Ranger 31, but may be a bit more tender due to the narrow beam and FD hull form. Its limit of positive stability may be just as good or higher due to the ballast.

At that weight plus fluids and gear which may put it over 15,000 lbs, it will take a dually F350 pickup to pull it safely. But so will the Ranger 31 and it will require permits.

David

 

[dhays]

I don't own a Ranger Tug but I see lots of them here in the PNW. I have know both sailors and power boaters that have moved to a Ranger and been very happy.

Ranger does a good job of making good use of the available space. They are fast. They are trailerable. They come with lots of nice standard features. Lots of owner support, at least here in the PNW. Their biggest selling point is they are cute.

One thing to keep in mind is that the name and styling don't reflect the seaworthiness of the boat. They are no more, nor less seaworthy than other planing boats in their size range.

If my circumstances were different I would definitely consider a Ranger for the Salish Sea. However, as someone that cruises around at displacement speeds I hate to see Ranger tugs approach. Rangers kick up a huge wake at the speeds that most seem to be operated at. Most owners seem oblivious to this fact as they fly by much too close.

Not sure of the gph burn at 7 knots. Given that 7 knots is far above hull apples for those lengths, I think it may be more than your 1 gph estimate. I could be wrong however and that information should be readily available from owners and the manufacturer.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Piper all the way for me. I’d head out for Alaska w a Piper.
And it even looks like a serious boat.

 

[psneeld]

Virtually any boat can get to the Bahamas and back with at least 24 hrs of fair weather.

One of our own members has gone over in a small aluminum skiff. Lots go in small center consoles.

But whatever boat suits the most of your needs. But either a Piper or a Ranger would be fine for excursions over there.

 

[Nomad Willy]

dhays wrote;
“Rangers kick up a huge wake at the speeds that most seem to be operated at.”

The size of a boats wake is an accurate measure of how much energy it look to make it.

As I read it the shorter Ranger passing trawlers going 7-8 knots is it’s worst speed for efficiency. It comes from a flat bottom at a high angle of attack. A good candidate for a wake board boat.
This means that owners are running their boats (most at least) at a speed they were not designed to go. Hull speed for a 25’ boat is about 5.7 knots. So running most all the time “on the hump” is IMO …. Unacceptable.

 

[srhawk454]

Rangers kick up a huge wake at the speeds that most seem to be operated at.

I own Ranger Tug 31 and when I'm going 7kts there is no wake, almost zero. When I'm going 17-19kts then there is some very docile wake, nothing like from fishing boats etc. I routinely see 10mpg / 0.5gph at 1250 -1500 rpm / 5-7kts. My average during fast cruising at 3250 rpm /17-19kts is 10gph/1.6mpg. Going slow extends my range to no limits in PNW to AK and the biggest benefit is when there is a small craft advisory I can outrun the weather. On 5/28 (the spring tide) went with the club and hit bad weather in Rosario strait with 6ft+ waves. After zig-zagging following much larger boats at 7kts, moved the throttle up north, jumped on the top of waves at 15kts, and in 30mins was at destination in Spencer Split Park on a buoy. The gang came from Rosario strait beaten up and I was sipping IPA.

 

[DDW]

I own Ranger Tug 31 and when I'm going 7kts there is no wake, almost zero.

You need to take a close look at that, or talk to the kayakers you swamp on the way by. I've seen plenty of Ranger Tug 31 going 7 knots, and it makes a wake - about what you'd expect for a 31' displacement boat pushed at near hull speed. They actually make less wake if well up on plane.

 

[srhawk454]

You need to take a close look at that, or talk to the kayakers you swamp on the way by. I've seen plenty of Ranger Tug 31 going 7 knots, and it makes a wake - about what you'd expect for a 31' displacement boat pushed at near hull speed. They actually make less wake if well up on plane.

Hogwash. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Hygge]

I have owned a RT 25 and currently own a RT29S. They will both take more punishment than you will. Great customer service by the factory. Great community. Of course I deleted my RT25 fuel burn data, but here it is for my RT 29S
rpm speed nmpg
r0950 4.0 6.9
r1210 5.5 7.8
r1460 6.0 5.4
r1500 6.1 4.8
r1560 6.4 4.2
r1700 6.7 3.5
r1810 7.2 3.3
r1900 7.4 2.7
r2020 7.8 2.3
r2390 8.2 1.7
r2460 8.7 1.4
r2680 10.0 1.2
r2910 11.4 1.2
r3130 14.1 1.2
r3190 14.4 1.2
r3230 14.6 1.2
r3330 15.6 1.2
r3610 17.4 1.1

 

[srhawk454]

Of course I deleted my RT25 fuel burn data, but here it is for my RT 29S
rpm speed nmpg
..........................
r2460 8.7 1.4
r2680 10.0 1.2
r2910 11.4 1.2
r3130 14.1 1.2
r3190 14.4 1.2
r3230 14.6 1.2
r3330 15.6 1.2
r3610 17.4 1.1

My lower end data looks similar although still a bit better. I have never seen <1.5mpg regardless RPM/speed or sea conditions although I did not try WOT. You might want to try Stanadyne diesel perf additive, I add it religiously every fill-up (as recommended by the factory), it indeed helps with the perf.

 

[Hygge]

My lower end data looks similar although still a bit better. I have never seen <1.5mpg regardless RPM/speed or sea conditions although I did not try WOT. You might want to try Stanadyne diesel perf additive, I add it religiously every fill-up (as recommended by the factory), it indeed helps with the perf.

Thanks, I will try that. This data was compiled on a two week trip, we were pretty loaded up with gear, food, ice, etc.

 

[srhawk454]

Thanks, I will try that. This data was compiled on a two week trip, we were pretty loaded up with gear, food, ice, etc.

Unfavorable currents and tides will also contribute to lower economy but once you get >3000rpm the diff between 1.5mpg and 1.2mpg is not that huge. For me I'm either going super slow (1500rpm max which gives me ~8kts) or fast (3250rpm), anything in between does not make much sense, I'm burning similar amount of fuel but getting to the destination much slower.
This is an example of what I'm seeing when going slow: (1200rpm/8.5mph/ 10mpg):
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AqtC9_zYwM_Kh9g7b1Hq-r04BFszsw

 

[Hygge]

This is an example of what I'm seeing when going slow: (1200rpm/8.5mph/ 10mpg):
https://1drv.ms/v/s!AqtC9_zYwM_Kh9g7b1Hq-r04BFszsw

Holy moly..... 8.5mph at 1200 rpm. wow. I have a clean bottom. Not towing a sea anchor by mistake. I just ordered that additive!