Hunter 33-2004 vs Marlow-Hunter 33
How do the Hunter 33-2004 and Marlow-Hunter 33 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 33-2004 
Marlow-Hunter 33 | Hunter 33-2004 | Marlow-Hunter 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 33.5 ft10.21 m | 33.5 ft10.21 m |
| Waterline length | 29.4 ft8.97 m | 29.4 ft8.97 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 10,410 lb4,722 kg | 12,400 lb5,625 kg |
| Ballast | 3,578 lb1,623 kg | 3,459 lb1,569 kg |
| Sail area | 625 ft²58.1 m² | 454 ft²42.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 20.97 | 13.56 |
| Displacement / Length | 183 | 217 |
| Comfort ratio | 20.3 | 24.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.11 | 1.99 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.3 | 7.3 |
Hunter 33-2004 vs Marlow-Hunter 33: the short version
- The Hunter 33-2004 and Marlow-Hunter 33 are close in length (33.5 ft10.21 m vs 33.5 ft10.21 m ).
- The Marlow-Hunter 33 is heavier, displacing about 19% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 33-2004 carries the more powerful rig (21.0 vs 13.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Marlow-Hunter 33 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marlow-Hunter 33 rates better for offshore work (1.99 vs 2.11).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.