1998 Hunter 340 vs 1984 Pearson 34 — Comparison

1998 Hunter 3401998 Hunter 340
VS
1984 Pearson 341984 Pearson 34

Specifications Side by Side

Specification1998 Hunter 3401984 Pearson 34
General
ManufacturerHunterPearson
Year1998–20031984–1990
TypeSloopSloop
CountryUSAUSA
DesignerGlenn HendersonWilliam Shaw
Dimensions
LOA10.36 m (34.0 ft)10.36 m (34.0 ft)
LWL9.02 m (29.6 ft)8.53 m (28.0 ft)
Beam3.51 m (11.5 ft)3.35 m (11.0 ft)
Draft1.52 m (5.0 ft)1.60 m (5.2 ft)
Weight
Displacement5,443 kg (12,000 lbs)5,443 kg (12,000 lbs)
Ballast2,041 kg (4,500 lbs)2,268 kg (5,000 lbs)
Sailing
Sail Area51.1 m² (550 ft²)46.0 m² (495 ft²)
Hull MaterialFiberglassFiberglass
Keel TypeFinFin
Engine & Tanks
Engine22 HP20 HP
Fuel Capacity95 L (25.1 gal)76 L (20.1 gal)
Water Capacity152 L (40.2 gal)152 L (40.2 gal)
Accommodation
Berths76
Cabins22

Performance Comparison

SA/D Ratio (Higher = more sail power per displacement)
1998 Hunter 340
16.78
1984 Pearson 34
15.11
Ballast Ratio (Higher = more stability)
1998 Hunter 340
37.50
1984 Pearson 34
41.67
Capsize Ratio (Lower = safer offshore)
1998 Hunter 340
0.80
1984 Pearson 34
0.76
Comfort Ratio (Higher = gentler motion)
1998 Hunter 340
17.69
1984 Pearson 34
20.28

Detailed Comparison

The 1998 Hunter 340 and 1984 Pearson 34 represent two takes on sloop-rigged sailing. The 1998 Hunter 340 is a 1990s design by Hunter from USA, while the 1984 Pearson 34 is a 1980s offering from Pearson from USA. The 1998 Hunter 340 was penned by Glenn Henderson. The 1984 Pearson 34 was designed by William Shaw.

In terms of size, the 1998 Hunter 340 measures 10.36m (34.0ft) overall with a beam of 3.51m, compared to the 1984 Pearson 34 at 10.36m (34.0ft) with a 3.35m beam.

Looking at performance, the 1998 Hunter 340 has moderate sail power suitable for relaxed cruising with an SA/D ratio of 16.78 and 51.1 m² of sail area. The 1984 Pearson 34, with an SA/D of 15.11 and 46.0 m² of canvas, offers moderate sail power suitable for relaxed cruising. The 1998 Hunter 340 has the edge in terms of raw sailing performance.

For comfort and safety, the 1998 Hunter 340 offers a firm, racing-oriented motion (comfort ratio: 17.7) and excellent capsize resistance suitable for offshore voyaging (capsize ratio: 0.80). The 1984 Pearson 34 has a comfort ratio of 20.3 and a capsize screening value of 0.76. The ballast ratios are 37.5% for the 1998 Hunter 340 and 41.7% for the 1984 Pearson 34, reflecting their respective approaches to stability.

Below deck, the 1998 Hunter 340 provides 7 berths in 2 cabins with 152L of water capacity and 95L of fuel. The 1984 Pearson 34 offers 6 berths in 2 cabins with 152L water and 76L fuel capacity.

Verdict

For cruising: The 1984 Pearson 34 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 1998 Hunter 340 has the performance advantage with its superior SA/D ratio, meaning more sail power relative to its displacement for competitive sailing.

For liveaboard: The 1998 Hunter 340 offers more sleeping accommodation, making it better suited for extended living aboard. Consider water and fuel capacity for extended stays away from marinas.

Compare Different Boats

Looking for a different matchup? Browse All Boats

Or view individual specs: 1998 Hunter 340 · 1984 Pearson 34