Hunter 326 vs Morgan 32
How do the Hunter 326 and Morgan 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 326 | Hunter 326 | Morgan 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.9 ft9.73 m | 31.9 ft9.73 m |
| Waterline length | 28.3 ft8.63 m | 25.0 ft7.62 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.30 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 5.3 ft1.62 m |
| Displacement | 8,300 lb3,765 kg | 11,000 lb4,990 kg |
| Ballast | 3,200 lb1,451 kg | 4,000 lb1,814 kg |
| Sail area | 437 ft²40.6 m² | 493 ft²45.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.06 | 15.95 |
| Displacement / Length | 163 | 314 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.3 | 24.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.14 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.1 | 6.7 |
Hunter 326 vs Morgan 32: the short version
- The Hunter 326 and Morgan 32 are close in length (31.9 ft9.73 m vs 31.9 ft9.73 m ).
- The Morgan 32 is heavier, displacing about 33% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 326 carries the more powerful rig (17.1 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Morgan 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Morgan 32 rates better for offshore work (2.07 vs 2.14).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.