Contest 32 CS vs Hunter 326
How do the Contest 32 CS and Hunter 326 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Contest 32 CS | Contest 32 CS | Hunter 326 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.8 ft9.70 m | 31.9 ft9.73 m |
| Waterline length | 25.7 ft7.82 m | 28.3 ft8.63 m |
| Beam | 10.9 ft3.32 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.60 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Displacement | 14,300 lb6,486 kg | 8,300 lb3,765 kg |
| Ballast | 6,380 lb2,894 kg | 3,200 lb1,451 kg |
| Sail area | 289 ft²26.8 m² | 437 ft²40.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 7.85 | 17.06 |
| Displacement / Length | 378 | 163 |
| Comfort ratio | 33.4 | 18.3 |
| Capsize screening | 1.79 | 2.14 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.8 | 7.1 |
Contest 32 CS vs Hunter 326: the short version
- The Contest 32 CS and Hunter 326 are close in length (31.8 ft9.70 m vs 31.9 ft9.73 m ).
- The Contest 32 CS is heavier, displacing about 72% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 326 carries the more powerful rig (17.1 vs 7.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Contest 32 CS scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Contest 32 CS rates better for offshore work (1.79 vs 2.14).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.