1988 C&C 32 vs Hunter 36 — Comparison

1988 C&C 32 1988 C&C 32
VS
Hunter 36 Hunter 36

Specifications Side by Side

Specification 1988 C&C 32 Hunter 36
General
Manufacturer C&C Yachts Hunter
Year 1988–1993 1996–2001
Type Sloop Sloop
Country Canada USA
Designer Cuthbertson & Cassian Glenn Henderson
Dimensions
LOA 9.75 m (32.0 ft) 10.82 m (35.5 ft)
LWL 8.23 m (27.0 ft) 9.45 m (31.0 ft)
Beam 3.28 m (10.8 ft) 3.56 m (11.7 ft)
Draft 1.83 m (6.0 ft) 1.83 m (6.0 ft)
Weight
Displacement 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) 5,897 kg (13,001 lbs)
Ballast 1,996 kg (4,400 lbs) 2,313 kg (5,099 lbs)
Sailing
Sail Area 45.8 m² (493 ft²) 56.0 m² (603 ft²)
Hull Material Fiberglass Fiberglass
Keel Type Fin Fin
Engine & Tanks
Engine 18 HP 27 HP
Fuel Capacity 68 L (18.0 gal) 95 L (25.1 gal)
Water Capacity 114 L (30.1 gal) 170 L (44.9 gal)
Accommodation
Berths 6 6
Cabins 2 2

Performance Comparison

SA/D Ratio (Higher = more sail power per displacement)
1988 C&C 32
16.98
Hunter 36
17.43
Ballast Ratio (Higher = more stability)
1988 C&C 32
44.00
Hunter 36
39.22
Capsize Ratio (Lower = safer offshore)
1988 C&C 32
0.79
Hunter 36
0.79
Comfort Ratio (Higher = gentler motion)
1988 C&C 32
18.99
Hunter 36
17.17

Detailed Comparison

The 1988 C&C 32 and Hunter 36 represent two takes on sloop-rigged sailing. The 1988 C&C 32 is a 1980s design by C&C Yachts from Canada, while the Hunter 36 is a 1990s offering from Hunter from USA. The 1988 C&C 32 was penned by Cuthbertson & Cassian. The Hunter 36 was designed by Glenn Henderson.

In terms of size, the 1988 C&C 32 measures 9.75m (32.0ft) overall with a beam of 3.28m, compared to the Hunter 36 at 10.82m (35.5ft) with a 3.56m beam. The Hunter 36 is 1.07m longer than the 1988 C&C 32. The Hunter 36 displaces approximately 30% more than its counterpart, which significantly affects how each boat handles in different sea states.

Looking at performance, the 1988 C&C 32 has moderate sail power suitable for relaxed cruising with an SA/D ratio of 16.98 and 45.8 m² of sail area. The Hunter 36, with an SA/D of 17.43 and 56.0 m² of canvas, offers good sail power for versatile performance. The Hunter 36 has the edge in terms of raw sailing performance.

For comfort and safety, the 1988 C&C 32 offers a firm, racing-oriented motion (comfort ratio: 19.0) and excellent capsize resistance suitable for offshore voyaging (capsize ratio: 0.79). The Hunter 36 has a comfort ratio of 17.2 and a capsize screening value of 0.79. The ballast ratios are 44.0% for the 1988 C&C 32 and 39.2% for the Hunter 36, reflecting their respective approaches to stability.

Below deck, the 1988 C&C 32 provides 6 berths in 2 cabins with 114L of water capacity and 68L of fuel. The Hunter 36 offers 6 berths in 2 cabins with 170L water and 95L fuel capacity.

Verdict

For cruising: The 1988 C&C 32 is the better choice for comfortable cruising thanks to its higher comfort ratio, offering a gentler motion at sea that crews will appreciate on longer passages.

For racing: The Hunter 36 has the performance advantage with its superior SA/D ratio, meaning more sail power relative to its displacement for competitive sailing.

For liveaboard: Both boats provide similar accommodation, making either a viable choice for living aboard. Consider water and fuel capacity for extended stays away from marinas.

Compare Different Boats

VS