C&C 131 vs C&C 45
How do the C&C 131 and C&C 45 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 131 | C&C 131 | C&C 45 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 43.0 ft13.10 m | 45.3 ft13.79 m |
| Waterline length | 37.2 ft11.35 m | 39.1 ft11.91 m |
| Beam | 13.0 ft3.95 m | 13.8 ft4.19 m |
| Draft | 8.7 ft2.65 m | 8.8 ft2.67 m |
| Displacement | 16,975 lb7,700 kg | 19,100 lb8,664 kg |
| Ballast | 6,790 lb3,080 kg | 9,800 lb4,445 kg |
| Sail area | 889 ft²82.6 m² | 1,107 ft²102.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.54 | 24.79 |
| Displacement / Length | 147 | 143 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.2 | 22.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.02 | 2.06 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.2 | 8.4 |
C&C 131 vs C&C 45: the short version
- The C&C 45 is the larger boat at 45.3 ft13.79 m LOA versus 43.0 ft13.10 m for the C&C 131.
- The C&C 45 is heavier, displacing about 13% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 45 carries the more powerful rig (24.8 vs 21.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 131 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 131 rates better for offshore work (2.02 vs 2.06).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.