Hurley 22 vs Johnson 23
How do the Hurley 22 and Johnson 23 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hurley 22 | Hurley 22 | Johnson 23 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 22.0 ft6.70 m | 21.9 ft6.68 m |
| Waterline length | 17.0 ft5.18 m | 19.4 ft5.90 m |
| Beam | 7.3 ft2.22 m | 8.2 ft2.50 m |
| Draft | 3.7 ft1.12 m | 4.6 ft1.40 m |
| Displacement | 3,968 lb1,800 kg | 2,866 lb1,300 kg |
| Ballast | 2,425 lb1,100 kg | 1,411 lb640 kg |
| Sail area | 296 ft²27.5 m² | 291 ft²27.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.90 | 23.08 |
| Displacement / Length | 361 | 176 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.6 | 13.3 |
| Capsize screening | 1.84 | 2.31 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.5 | 5.9 |
| Average used price | €2,900 | €4,500 |
Hurley 22 vs Johnson 23: the short version
- The Hurley 22 and Johnson 23 are close in length (22.0 ft6.70 m vs 21.9 ft6.68 m ).
- The Hurley 22 is heavier, displacing about 38% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Johnson 23 carries the more powerful rig (23.1 vs 18.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hurley 22 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hurley 22 rates better for offshore work (1.84 vs 2.31).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.