C&C 35 vs MG 335
How do the C&C 35 and MG 335 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 35 
MG 335 | C&C 35 | MG 335 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 34.6 ft10.54 m | 34.8 ft10.59 m |
| Waterline length | 27.5 ft8.38 m | 27.7 ft8.43 m |
| Beam | 10.6 ft3.22 m | 11.3 ft3.43 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.60 m | 6.3 ft1.91 m |
| Displacement | 10,500 lb4,763 kg | 8,900 lb4,037 kg |
| Ballast | 5,000 lb2,268 kg | 3,800 lb1,724 kg |
| Sail area | 576 ft²53.5 m² | 536 ft²49.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 19.22 | 19.97 |
| Displacement / Length | 225 | 188 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.7 | 18.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.93 | 2.17 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.0 | 7.0 |
C&C 35 vs MG 335: the short version
- The C&C 35 and MG 335 are close in length (34.6 ft10.54 m vs 34.8 ft10.59 m ).
- The C&C 35 is heavier, displacing about 18% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the MG 335 carries the more powerful rig (20.0 vs 19.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 35 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 35 rates better for offshore work (1.93 vs 2.17).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.