Hunter 140 vs Marlow-Hunter 33
How do the Hunter 140 and Marlow-Hunter 33 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 | Marlow-Hunter 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 33.5 ft10.21 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 29.4 ft8.97 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 12,400 lb5,625 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,459 lb1,569 kg |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 454 ft²42.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 13.56 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 217 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 24.2 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 1.99 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.3 |
Hunter 140 vs Marlow-Hunter 33: the short version
- The Marlow-Hunter 33 is the larger boat at 33.5 ft10.21 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Marlow-Hunter 33 is heavier, displacing about 5411% 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 13.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marlow-Hunter 33 rates better for offshore work (1.99 vs 3.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.