Hunter 32 Vision vs Hunter 326
How do the Hunter 32 Vision and Hunter 326 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 32 Vision 
Hunter 326 | Hunter 32 Vision | Hunter 326 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 31.9 ft9.73 m |
| Waterline length | 27.0 ft8.23 m | 28.3 ft8.63 m |
| Beam | 11.3 ft3.45 m | 10.8 ft3.30 m |
| Draft | 4.3 ft1.30 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Displacement | 11,400 lb5,171 kg | 8,300 lb3,765 kg |
| Ballast | 4,500 lb2,041 kg | 3,200 lb1,451 kg |
| Sail area | 486 ft²45.2 m² | 437 ft²40.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.35 | 17.06 |
| Displacement / Length | 259 | 163 |
| Comfort ratio | 24.4 | 18.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.01 | 2.14 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.0 | 7.1 |
Hunter 32 Vision vs Hunter 326: the short version
- The Hunter 32 Vision and Hunter 326 are close in length (32.0 ft9.75 m vs 31.9 ft9.73 m ).
- The Hunter 32 Vision is heavier, displacing about 37% 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 15.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 32 Vision scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 32 Vision rates better for offshore work (2.01 vs 2.14).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.