Hunter 140 vs Hunter 36-2
How do the Hunter 140 and Hunter 36-2 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 140 
Hunter 36-2 | Hunter 140 | Hunter 36-2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 35.5 ft10.82 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 31.3 ft9.53 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 6.4 ft1.96 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 13,900 lb6,305 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 5,023 lb2,278 kg |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 632 ft²58.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 17.49 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 203 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 24.1 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 2.00 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.5 |
Hunter 140 vs Hunter 36-2: the short version
- The Hunter 36-2 is the larger boat at 35.5 ft10.82 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Hunter 36-2 is heavier, displacing about 6078% 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 17.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 36-2 rates better for offshore work (2.00 vs 3.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.