Hunter 31 vs Hunter 320
How do the Hunter 31 and Hunter 320 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 31 | Hunter 31 | Hunter 320 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.3 ft9.55 m | 31.6 ft9.63 m |
| Waterline length | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 28.3 ft8.63 m |
| Beam | 10.9 ft3.33 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.62 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Displacement | 9,700 lb4,400 kg | 8,550 lb3,878 kg |
| Ballast | 4,000 lb1,814 kg | 3,200 lb1,451 kg |
| Sail area | 458 ft²42.5 m² | 437 ft²40.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.11 | 16.72 |
| Displacement / Length | 239 | 168 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.4 | 18.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.05 | 2.12 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 7.1 |
Hunter 31 vs Hunter 320: the short version
- The Hunter 31 and Hunter 320 are close in length (31.3 ft9.55 m vs 31.6 ft9.63 m ).
- The Hunter 31 is heavier, displacing about 13% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 320 carries the more powerful rig (16.7 vs 16.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 31 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 31 rates better for offshore work (2.05 vs 2.12).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.