Not trying to stir up an old thread, but was doing some research on the 169 Ghost and I can tell you the 173 was a completely different hull than the 169 Ghost. I had a very close friend that had the 171 BC which was the same exact predecessor hull to the Ranger 173 Ghost. I probably fished out of that hull at least 50-60 times.
It wasn't the driest, but a lot drier that an Action Craft. However, when Wylie from Back Country designed the 169 Ghost His design was a smaller hull footprint on the waterline, with a chine system that reduced hull slap, but keeping the real estate space the same, if not bigger than the 173. To do that, they studied the Carolina style bow flare and incorporated it into the design of the bow of the boat, resulting in water being rolled over, out an away for the boats path, almost with the feel that the water was being parted out from under the bow. That also helps to push the boat up when you thing the bow is about to stuff into a wave. The results is an extremely dry ride, without all the spray rails you see in today's high end TPS hulls, and, without going to a true Flats Boat like an Egret, A Hewes Redfisher, Mav MA, which are a heavier boat and not so fun to pole. It was actually a brilliant design and so the 169 Ghost were known for a dry ride in a rough bay chop, yet keeping the ability to pole somewhat decently, with more storage than most 18ft true "flats boats." The way I describe them is they are a hybrid between a true flats boat and a true technical poling skiff, which that is where I find myself these days.
View attachment 105698
To be honest, like with any skiff, there is drawl backs. One is, those it can easily handle a 115hp OB, because of the weight of a 90-115hp 4 stroke OB, it tends to squat at rest, especially if the fuel tank is completely full. It does have a 30 Gal tank, which is rediculas for a skiff like that. So run it half full. The other thing is it's true balance is half tank of fuel with a 60-70hp OB. Then she sits pretty level and still pushes 32-36mph WOT.