Macgregor 26m vs 26x. Aug 31, 2005 · 26X vs 26M sailing and powering qualities by kevinmac » Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:24 am I am very sorry if this subject has been covered before. Oct 1, 2001 · Secondly, I''d recommend subscribing to Sailnet''s MacGregor List and the MacGregor 26X list. Dry hull weight: 2,350 lbs. Sail area: -Main: 151 ft² -Jib (100%): 130 ft² -Genoa (150%): 206 ft² -Spinnaker: 350 ft² The MACGREGOR 26M replaced the MACGREGOR 26X in 2003. For my length I would have to add to the size of the front berth then get plastered against the side while my admiral, finds her 'space'. u000bu000bCan someone tell me their comparisons on MacGregor vs. MacGregor 26X vs MacGregor 26M The 26M is the logical successor that tightened many of the 26X’s details: stiffer options to handle higher power, revised daggerboard/rudder arrangements and more factory focus on reducing the X’s known handling quirks, so the M often feels more refined at speed. Is as better as claimed? How much electrolysis and leakage is caused by the centerboard in the 26x? Comparison-MacGregor 26X and 26M models Benefits of Older [1995-2003] 26X model over newer [2003-present] 26M model as a cruising boat: May 16, 2004 · I am not sure if the MacGregor is the best way to go. Catalina & Hunter Water Ballast boats? Also, comment on which is better, the 26X or 26M?u000bu000bThis will be my first time to own a sailboat, so your opinions really count to me. As sail/power 'hybrids', both the M and X models are designed for use with a more than 'auxilary' sized outboard (rated for 5-50hp) and water ballast. cwlwvxz iixq jkbim qsu fcgzvr lfoggk jzdzmoaw xhwxq uroghy lncqzxa