ranger tug vs nordic tug

[lornec]

If you ever have any question about the quality of styling of the Ranger tug , take a look at the Nordic tug 26 in the current issue of PassageMaker magazine. That 26 is one ugly looking boat.

 

[knotflying]

I was on the 26. Other than having the side door at the helm, I agree. Not a smooth flow at all. They tried to make it seem like the bigger boats with the step up to the helm, but I found that also gave limited head room. It was a nice try, but they just didn't make it as good as the Ranger and the price point isn't there either.

 

[JamesTXSD]

Ah, part of the problem with making a "classic." (and the Nordic 26 Tug is a classic) The Rangers are a more modern design and seem to really have a focus on what potential buyers are wanting. Change the Nordic too much and it wouldn't have "that classic" feel to it, and would look like they are playing catch-up. Tough situation to be in for them (look at the history of Harley Davidson, even though there are more people who want "a Harley").

From my perspective, the original R-25 took more floor plan ideas from the C-Dory 25 and expanded on that, as opposed to the step up/step down layout from the Nordic. The difference between those two tugs is the difference between modern and traditional. The Ranger Tug keeps everyone in the boat connected, whether you're at the helm, the galley, or the dinette. I don't see "ugly" when I look at the Nordic Tug, I just see a more convoluted traffic flow compared to the Rangers of similar size. Sales show what the public prefers. Not to mention the bonus of trailerability (9'11" beam on the Nordic 26)

Best wishes,
Jim B.

 

[lornec]

Its the deals that make the difference. If you like "plain jane" basic outside and in I guess that the NordicTug 26 is for you.
It like a taxi Chevrolet and a loaded one.

 

[Levitation]

They saw Ranger making a profit and they are in the doldrums with their over priced high end boats during a depression so they decided to go back for a piece of the pie...

The problem I see is they just dusted off the old molds and went for it
The sheer is not pretty and the interior layout is dated and clumsy
Beam is 9' 11" and towing is going to need wide load permits - but it will be more roomy inside...
Draft is 3' 3"
No thrusters!
Under powered
Black water tank is small at 20 gallons
Hot water heater is 6 gallons
Nav lights are LED which is good
Their standard equipment list is a bit on the light side and the price is on the heavy side...

Yes, they will sell some because of their name... GIven what I see I do not foresee them becoming a major player in the pocket yacht niche - unless they hire me to redesign the boat :mrgreen:

 

[JohnH]

OK. I think it is time for a "devil's advocate" statement. Just to be clear, I own an R27, and I bought it after looking carefully at the R27 and the NordicTug 26, so obviously I made the "right" choice. That said, I don't think the situation is as black and white as some of the posts indicate. The N26 is actually a bigger boat than the R27 -- it is wider, deeper, and, I think, heavier. In serious weather it is likely to be a better, more comfortable, and maybe safer ride. True, it is slower, and those who count on out-running bad weather may take comfort in the R27's greater speed. (I'm not among that group.) Frankly, had I the option, I might have ordered either of the boats with a smaller, simpler engine -- I am not a fan of the new electronic diesels, which seem to have reduced diesel reliability to that of gas engines, and the recently uncovered problem with the oil line in the 4BY2 series does not improve that engine's image.

The layout differences are personal choice, although, in my devil's advocate role, I will mention that the visibility aft on the starboard side of the R27 is really lousy. I don't think the NT26 has this exact problem, although I don't know how its aft field of view works out. The NT26's layout puts the engine in the center of the boat beneath the pilot house. This probably allows for a more horizontal shaft angle without introducing the bulge in the bottom of the boat that the R27 has, but it also requires a longer shaft. I don't know the trade-offs. FWIW, I don't think engine access is very good in either boat.

The R27's layout enables and features the "cave." I can't imagine anyone actually expecting to sleep in that space, advertising claims notwithstanding, but it does provide useful space for long skinny things like fishing poles. I think that kind of stowage space is seriously lacking on the NT26.

The NT26's side doors are a convenience not to be overlooked. The trip to the foredeck on a R27 can be an adventure in any kind of waves, although I confess that I haven't yet looked into arranging a ladder out of the forepeak hatch.

The big difference is, of course, price, and here the R27 has a big advantage. Many (almost all?) of the features -- an example being thrusters -- that are standard on the R27 are expensive options on the NT26.