Hunter 33-2004 vs Hunter 336
How do the Hunter 33-2004 and Hunter 336 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 33-2004 
Hunter 336 | Hunter 33-2004 | Hunter 336 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 33.5 ft10.21 m | 33.5 ft10.21 m |
| Waterline length | 29.4 ft8.97 m | 28.6 ft8.71 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 11.7 ft3.56 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 10,410 lb4,722 kg | 11,030 lb5,003 kg |
| Ballast | 3,578 lb1,623 kg | 4,100 lb1,860 kg |
| Sail area | 625 ft²58.1 m² | 574 ft²53.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 20.97 | 18.53 |
| Displacement / Length | 183 | 211 |
| Comfort ratio | 20.3 | 21.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.11 | 2.10 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.3 | 7.2 |
Hunter 33-2004 vs Hunter 336: the short version
- The Hunter 33-2004 and Hunter 336 are close in length (33.5 ft10.21 m vs 33.5 ft10.21 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 33-2004 carries the more powerful rig (21.0 vs 18.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 336 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 336 rates better for offshore work (2.10 vs 2.11).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.