Ranger Tugs 43 real world range

[Dreamer2031]

Ranger Tugs have a pretty strong following, and a pretty devoted owners group. They seem to be very nice boats, and but I still do not see a lot of posts on the newest R43. This looks to be a true liveaboard to me, but the maximum range is very confusing to me as I have seen everything from 300 NM to 1000 NM albeit the later is at "true" trawler speed of 7 knts. (link below)

Boat Review: Ranger Tugs R-43 | PropTalk

That nostalgic tug-like look of Ranger Tugs has always struck an emotional chord with mariners, and even more so with the all-new Ranger Tugs R-43.

www.proptalk.com

I started to look up info on how the volvo pentas perform at that speed, but I can't seem to find anything. I guess I'm looking to sear if anyone here owns/has experience with the R43 that can give some details on real world performance.

Thanks in advance!

 

[sjisailor]

I'd ask on the Ranger Tugs site, TugNuts ... although noting 300 gallon fuel capacity and twin Volvo IPS drives, I personally would not expect 1000 mile range (except perhaps at 5 knots). If we assume 250 gallons usable and 3nmpg at hull speed of 7 knots then maybe 750 miles.

The 300 mile range match 1nmpg ... which seems about right for cruising speed in the teens. But that would be running it empty.

FWIW the attraction of R43 may depend where you are. Pod drives worry many folks in the PNW (exposed to logs) but have advantages of course.

My personal take having been aboard many R43s is that they are designed with a priority to entertaining somewhat more than cruising. Big social spaces, etc. Just my $0.02! Cruising vessels in that size and price range are more like Nordic Tug, Helmsman, American Tugs, Aspen, Nordhavn 41, etc.

 

[Dreamer2031]

All good points, and you are right, they look like they're great for entertaining. I've read a lot about the concerns with logs, and although we'd like to cruise up to Alaska at least once, that area won't be a big part of where we want to spend time. I spoke with a Volvo rep at a boat show in Baltimore and asked about the protection, and his response pointing to the fact that a lot of boats in Sweden, Finland have pod drives and do fine with all the water hazards made sense but that's just another opinion. Thanks for your quick response.

 

[chanprr]

I considered signing for RT43 hull#3 when production was about to begin. However, I chose a Helmsman 38E instead because I preferred a more traditional trawler layout with reasonably good access to all compartments. I was totally happy with the layout of the H38E as opposed to the RT43 where it seemed that every conceivable space in the RT43 had some item wedged in it. It made me realize that servicing anything in the lower decks required being a super flexible, and I wasn't. With the very pleasant experience of the 38E's performance right after commissioning, with no shakedown problems and none when on extended cruise to SE Alaska, I stepped up to hull#1 of the H46 series. I expect some shakedown hiccups, but I'm willing to put up with that. There will be stories to tell, much later on when the H46 is on the water.

 

[North Baltic sea]

All good points, and you are right, they look like they're great for entertaining. I've read a lot about the concerns with logs, and although we'd like to cruise up to Alaska at least once, that area won't be a big part of where we want to spend time. I spoke with a Volvo rep at a boat show in Baltimore and asked about the protection, and his response pointing to the fact that a lot of boats in Sweden, Finland have pod drives and do fine with all the water hazards made sense but that's just another opinion. Thanks for your quick response.

Hi,
This has also had its misfortunes, where the IPS has not worked as intended, but has ruptured on contact, making a large hole and sinking the vessel. But contacts are rare in general... I've heard maintenance is quite valuable for IPS gears, so take that into account too.

NBs

 

[sunchaser]

As noted by Chanprr, might want to compare the RT 43 to other vessels such as an AT, Helmsman or NT of similar length. Particularly from the aspect of roominess, storage, machinery access, a safe deck anchor working area and build quality. If you’re seriously considering the vessel as a live aboard, space is important.

 

[sjisailor]

Agreed. For our part, we have an American Tug 395 being built, as described in the Tug Designs forum here (e.g., American Tug for non-owners, post 1: Deciding on an AT)

Ranger Tugs are generally known on their smaller models for being extremely "clever" with amenities, which puts many things into small spaces, leading to difficulty in accessing them. I'm not sure about that on the 43, however.

 

[Dreamer2031]

All great points. Really appreciate all of your comments.

 

[Comodave]

The pod drives require quite of bit of expensive maintenance. And they are Volvos. Have you tried to get parts for Volvos? I had them in a brand new boat and had a lot of problems getting parts in a timely manner. YMMV.

 

[Bmarler]

We have friends with a cruisers yacht with pod drives. They bought it new in 2023. First incident with the props happened on the delivery cruise, with broker and Volvo rep on board.
This spring, they were heading to Alaska when they clipped a log and ruined all four props. Insurance covered it, but it took a while to be repaired, and ended the trip.
Pods are cool, and there’s some neat functions, but they’re not for me.

 

[Shrew]

This has also had its misfortunes, where the IPS has not worked as intended, but has ruptured on contact, making a large hole and sinking the vessel.

Do you have a reference for this? Everything I've read about both Volvo and Merc is that this is not the case. Like anything, a seal could fail, but it is my understanding they are designed to prevent sinking as a result of getting sheared off.

 

[Shrew]

First incident with the props happened on the delivery cruise, with broker and Volvo rep on board.
This spring, they were heading to Alaska when they clipped a log and ruined all four props. Insurance covered it, but it took a while to be repaired, and ended the trip.
Pods are cool, and there’s some neat functions, but they’re not for me.

How would an outboard, outdrive, V-Drive or Straight Shafts have avoided damaging a prop as a result of a log strike??

Is your argument for why you prefer a keel and shoe?

 

[rslifkin]

How would an outboard, outdrive, V-Drive or Straight Shafts have avoided damaging a prop as a result of a log strike??

Is your argument for why you prefer a keel and shoe?

IPS props are on the leading edge of the drive, so even compared to a straight shaft with nothing in front of it, there's more risk of running something through the props. With a shaft, the log may hit the prop (but likely not as square) but it may also get deflected by the shaft itself, strut, etc. and lead to either a glancing blow or a miss.

 

[sjisailor]

They are much more exposed to potential strikes IMO.

I can't find a photo online but in this video you can see the R43 IPS pods at 0:32 seconds into the video:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=157887099514900

The prop is on the leading edge of each pod, and because they are mounted forward and on the sides of the hull, there is less protection from the keel. Of course a big part of that is because they are twin screws. But even then there is no skeg.

As for a serious strike, they are designed to break off rather than breech the hull. Don't know anything more specific than that, but when I see forward facing, forward located props, I shudder. Just me!

 

[Bmarler]

How would an outboard, outdrive, V-Drive or Straight Shafts have avoided damaging a prop as a result of a log strike??

Is your argument for why you prefer a keel and shoe?

Yes, I prefer full keel single screw vessels. They’re the best protected IMO.
As has been mentioned, the ips props are at the front of the drive. In clear and unobstructed water they have amazing performance, but have zero protection.
I was only intending for the OP to be aware of the possibility of prop damage. Our friends with the pod drives love their boat and have just accepted the fact that they may have that issue from time to time.

 

[chanprr]

Anyone on extended cruises in the PNW would have seen logs, debris and deadheads in the water, especially after big rains. Although twins are really good to have, I still opt for a single with a skeg for running gear protection. Even at slow cruising speeds, I've gone over small logs and other debris before I could maneuver, and thankfully without any damage. Pods would probably have suffered. To make sure the engine and running gear are reliable and function well, regular maintenance is a top priority.

 

[rslifkin]

Anyone on extended cruises in the PNW would have seen logs, debris and deadheads in the water, especially after big rains. Although twins are really good to have, I still opt for a single with a skeg for running gear protection. Even at slow cruising speeds, I've gone over small logs and other debris before I could maneuver, and thankfully without any damage. Pods would probably have suffered. To make sure the engine and running gear are reliable and function well, regular maintenance is a top priority.

Agreed. I've got twin straight shafts (with a decent keel on the centerline but no skegs in front of the props). I've had a few debris hits where a submerged bit of wood has hit the keel and gotten kicked down under the props and rudders. Only once did I hear something bounce off some part of the running gear (after pulling them into neutral) with no damage. I wouldn't be as confident of those results in something like the R43 with pods and little or no keel. Some of those bits of submerged wood likely would have gone straight into the props or worse, gotten caught on the front side of a pod and possibly wedged against the hull.

 

[lwarden]

I don't see why Ranger would have chosen pods for these boats. Considering they are built in, and used in the PNW where logs an debris are common they seem a bad choice. Lindell also fitted pods to many of their newer line of boats, and it puzzles me. Sure, they are more efficient at speed and more maneuverable, but is it worth the downside? I've heard a number of horror stories regarding strikes, damaged props and expensive maintenance issues. Add to that the Volvo name on the engine and it's a hard pass.
Traditional straight-shaft designs are just so simple and reliable, why go more complex?

 

[dhays]

There is a Ranger 43 in the slip next to me. Very nice looking boat nicely appointed. It appears as if it would be very comfortable. It also appeared to me that the owners had a very steep learning curve when they got the boat and they are still on the upslope. I haven't had a chance to talk to them much other than helping them get in and out of their slip a few times. Even so, they seem to really enjoy it and currently have been out for several weeks on a cruise.

I would be concerned about the pod drives in the Salish Sea. Fewer logs in the water than when I was a kid but still enough to keep you on your toes. However, given that many of the Ranger Tug drivers I see around here like to go very fast and don't seem to keep a great watch, I haven't heard of any of them sinking. So my concerns about the pod drives are likely overblown.

 

[Jeff F]

I don't see why Ranger would have chosen pods for these boats. Considering they are built in, and used in the PNW where logs an debris are common they seem a bad choice. Lindell also fitted pods to many of their newer line of boats, and it puzzles me. Sure, they are more efficient at speed and more maneuverable, but is it worth the downside?

I think one major upside for the designers is getting the engines in the stern of the boat rather than the middle. I've never seen the 43, but I'm sure they've made good use of that extra space.

 

[FWT]

Step aboard something like a Prestige as I did a few years ago at a boat show. I think the one I saw was approximately 52 ft. Do that and it’s easier to understand the designer appeal of pod drives. It sells boats.

That boat had a stateroom directly below the salon that was a big master bedroom suite with walk-in closets. Big bed. Big bath. All located where an engine room would be.

Then consider that the pod drives give you joy stick docking.

If mechanical considerations are not front of mind such designs have tremendous appeal. And it’s a go-fast design. You will use up your fuel capacity in one long day at cruise speed, but look slick when doing it. Obviously built to cruise from one marina to the next. From one fuel dock to the next. That’s a different mission than most here are interested in.

Translate that to a R43. Pod drives buy you the second stateroom and the laundry room below the salon. And a joy stick.

 

[Hydraulicjump]

We came within a hair’s breadth of buying the RT43. I got to skipper the boat for a while, including jamming around at 20 kts and some close quarters maneuvering. The pod drives take all the fun out of docking. And the dynamic positioning—it holds its gps position in winds and current—made this boat a breeze to single hand. It is good-looking too if, like me, you like the RT lines. But, although I loved the layout and the separate room and head, my beloved did not. Although it is a world class party barge for being only 43’, she just didn’t like it. It was the little things. She loved the current boat the moment she stepped on it. Done. And in the end, a much simpler, easy to work on, fuel efficient trawler was a better fit. Everyone I’ve talked to about their 43 seems to like it. But if you go fast, expect 1 nautical mile/gallon at best.