Hunter 19-2 vs Hunter 336
How do the Hunter 19-2 and Hunter 336 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 336 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 19.0 ft5.79 m | 33.5 ft10.21 m |
| Waterline length | 15.9 ft4.85 m | 28.6 ft8.71 m |
| Beam | 7.8 ft2.36 m | 11.7 ft3.56 m |
| Draft | 4.7 ft1.42 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 2,000 lb907 kg | 11,030 lb5,003 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 4,100 lb1,860 kg |
| Sail area | 167 ft²15.5 m² | 574 ft²53.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.83 | 18.53 |
| Displacement / Length | 221 | 211 |
| Comfort ratio | 12.0 | 21.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.46 | 2.10 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.3 | 7.2 |
Hunter 19-2 vs Hunter 336: the short version
- The Hunter 336 is the larger boat at 33.5 ft10.21 m LOA versus 19.0 ft5.79 m for the Hunter 19-2.
- The Hunter 336 is heavier, displacing about 451% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 336 carries the more powerful rig (18.5 vs 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 336 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 336 rates better for offshore work (2.10 vs 2.46).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.