Hunter 140 vs Hunter 320
How do the Hunter 140 and Hunter 320 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 140 | Hunter 140 | Hunter 320 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 31.6 ft9.63 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 28.3 ft8.63 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 8,550 lb3,878 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,200 lb1,451 kg |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 437 ft²40.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 16.72 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 168 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 18.9 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 2.12 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.1 |
Hunter 140 vs Hunter 320: the short version
- The Hunter 320 is the larger boat at 31.6 ft9.63 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Hunter 320 is heavier, displacing about 3700% 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 16.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 320 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.