Grampian 30 vs Swan 371
How do the Grampian 30 and Swan 371 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Grampian 30 
Swan 371 | Grampian 30 | Swan 371 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.8 ft9.07 m | 29.7 ft9.06 m |
| Waterline length | 25.5 ft7.77 m | 29.7 ft9.06 m |
| Beam | 9.5 ft2.90 m | 11.3 ft3.46 m |
| Draft | 4.7 ft1.42 m | 6.8 ft2.07 m |
| Displacement | 8,600 lb3,901 kg | 16,100 lb7,303 kg |
| Ballast | 3,870 lb1,755 kg | 5,701 lb2,586 kg |
| Sail area | 389 ft²36.1 m² | 597 ft²55.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.83 | 14.98 |
| Displacement / Length | 232 | 274 |
| Comfort ratio | 24.7 | 32.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.85 | 1.80 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.8 | 7.3 |
Grampian 30 vs Swan 371: the short version
- The Grampian 30 and Swan 371 are close in length (29.8 ft9.07 m vs 29.7 ft9.06 m ).
- The Swan 371 is heavier, displacing about 87% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Swan 371 carries the more powerful rig (15.0 vs 14.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Swan 371 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Swan 371 rates better for offshore work (1.80 vs 1.85).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.