Hunter 320 vs M32
How do the Hunter 320 and M32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 320 
M32 | Hunter 320 | M32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.6 ft9.63 m | 31.8 ft9.68 m |
| Waterline length | 28.3 ft8.63 m | —— |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.30 m | 18.2 ft5.54 m |
| Draft | 5.8 ft1.78 m | —— |
| Displacement | 8,550 lb3,878 kg | 1,124 lb510 kg |
| Ballast | 3,200 lb1,451 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 437 ft²40.6 m² | 1,216 ft²113.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.72 | 179.97 |
| Displacement / Length | 168 | — |
| Comfort ratio | 18.9 | — |
| Capsize screening | 2.12 | 6.99 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.1 | — |
Hunter 320 vs M32: the short version
- The Hunter 320 and M32 are close in length (31.6 ft9.63 m vs 31.8 ft9.68 m ).
- The Hunter 320 is heavier, displacing about 661% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the M32 carries the more powerful rig (180.0 vs 16.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 320 rates better for offshore work (2.12 vs 6.99).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.