Hunter 19-2 vs Hunter 320
How do the Hunter 19-2 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 19-2 | Hunter 19-2 | Hunter 320 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 19.0 ft5.79 m | 31.6 ft9.63 m |
| Waterline length | 15.9 ft4.85 m | 28.3 ft8.63 m |
| Beam | 7.8 ft2.36 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 4.7 ft1.42 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Displacement | 2,000 lb907 kg | 8,550 lb3,878 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,200 lb1,451 kg |
| Sail area | 167 ft²15.5 m² | 437 ft²40.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.83 | 16.72 |
| Displacement / Length | 221 | 168 |
| Comfort ratio | 12.0 | 18.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.46 | 2.12 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.3 | 7.1 |
Hunter 19-2 vs Hunter 320: the short version
- The Hunter 320 is the larger boat at 31.6 ft9.63 m LOA versus 19.0 ft5.79 m for the Hunter 19-2.
- The Hunter 320 is heavier, displacing about 328% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 19-2 carries the more powerful rig (16.8 vs 16.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 320 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 320 rates better for offshore work (2.12 vs 2.46).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.