Mamba 31 vs Newport 31
How do the Mamba 31 and Newport 31 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Mamba 31 | Mamba 31 | Newport 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.7 ft9.35 m | 30.7 ft9.35 m |
| Waterline length | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 27.0 ft8.23 m |
| Beam | 10.1 ft3.07 m | 10.5 ft3.20 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 5.2 ft1.57 m |
| Displacement | 7,716 lb3,500 kg | 8,500 lb3,856 kg |
| Ballast | 3,527 lb1,600 kg | 2,600 lb1,179 kg |
| Sail area | 506 ft²47.0 m² | 447 ft²41.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 20.73 | 17.17 |
| Displacement / Length | 190 | 193 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.9 | 20.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.04 | 2.06 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 7.0 |
| Average used price | €12,000 | — |
Mamba 31 vs Newport 31: the short version
- The Mamba 31 and Newport 31 are close in length (30.7 ft9.35 m vs 30.7 ft9.35 m ).
- The Newport 31 is heavier, displacing about 10% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Mamba 31 carries the more powerful rig (20.7 vs 17.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Newport 31 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Mamba 31 rates better for offshore work (2.04 vs 2.06).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.