Hunter 140 vs Hunter 310
How do the Hunter 140 and Hunter 310 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 140 
Hunter 310 | Hunter 140 | Hunter 310 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 30.8 ft9.40 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 28.0 ft8.53 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 8,500 lb3,856 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,000 lb1,361 kg |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 464 ft²43.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 17.82 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 173 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 19.1 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 2.12 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.1 |
Hunter 140 vs Hunter 310: the short version
- The Hunter 310 is the larger boat at 30.8 ft9.40 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Hunter 310 is heavier, displacing about 3678% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 140 carries the more powerful rig (44.1 vs 17.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 310 rates better for offshore work (2.12 vs 3.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.