M32 vs Morgan 32
How do the M32 and Morgan 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
M32 
Morgan 32 | M32 | Morgan 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.8 ft9.68 m | 31.9 ft9.73 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 25.0 ft7.62 m |
| Beam | 18.2 ft5.54 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | —— | 5.3 ft1.62 m |
| Displacement | 1,124 lb510 kg | 11,000 lb4,990 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 4,000 lb1,814 kg |
| Sail area | 1,216 ft²113.0 m² | 493 ft²45.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 179.97 | 15.95 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 314 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 24.3 |
| Capsize screening | 6.99 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.7 |
M32 vs Morgan 32: the short version
- The M32 and Morgan 32 are close in length (31.8 ft9.68 m vs 31.9 ft9.73 m ).
- The Morgan 32 is heavier, displacing about 879% 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 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Morgan 32 rates better for offshore work (2.07 vs 6.99).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.