C&C 131 vs C&C 46
How do the C&C 131 and C&C 46 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 46 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 43.0 ft13.10 m | 45.6 ft13.89 m |
| Waterline length | 37.2 ft11.35 m | 38.8 ft11.84 m |
| Beam | 13.0 ft3.95 m | 13.0 ft3.96 m |
| Draft | 8.7 ft2.65 m | 7.5 ft2.29 m |
| Displacement | 16,975 lb7,700 kg | 26,700 lb12,111 kg |
| Ballast | 6,790 lb3,080 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 889 ft²82.6 m² | 939 ft²87.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.54 | 16.82 |
| Displacement / Length | 147 | 204 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.2 | 33.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.02 | 1.74 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.2 | 8.4 |
C&C 131 vs C&C 46: the short version
- The C&C 46 is the larger boat at 45.6 ft13.89 m LOA versus 43.0 ft13.10 m for the C&C 131.
- The C&C 46 is heavier, displacing about 57% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 131 carries the more powerful rig (21.5 vs 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 46 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 46 rates better for offshore work (1.74 vs 2.02).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.