Marlow-Hunter 31 vs Moorings 335
How do the Marlow-Hunter 31 and Moorings 335 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Marlow-Hunter 31 | Marlow-Hunter 31 | Moorings 335 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.4 ft9.86 m | 32.7 ft9.95 m |
| Waterline length | 29.7 ft9.04 m | 27.0 ft8.23 m |
| Beam | 11.8 ft3.61 m | 10.9 ft3.33 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 11,854 lb5,377 kg | 10,900 lb4,944 kg |
| Ballast | 3,380 lb1,533 kg | 4,500 lb2,041 kg |
| Sail area | 581 ft²54.0 m² | 522 ft²48.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.88 | 16.99 |
| Displacement / Length | 203 | 247 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.4 | 24.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.08 | 1.97 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.3 | 7.0 |
Marlow-Hunter 31 vs Moorings 335: the short version
- The Marlow-Hunter 31 and Moorings 335 are close in length (32.4 ft9.86 m vs 32.7 ft9.95 m ).
- The Marlow-Hunter 31 is heavier, displacing about 9% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marlow-Hunter 31 carries the more powerful rig (17.9 vs 17.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Moorings 335 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Moorings 335 rates better for offshore work (1.97 vs 2.08).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.