# Catalina 42 vs 400 MK II (new)



## Bluesmoods (Jul 8, 2001)

We are looking at buying a new Catalina 42 Mk II or a new 400. The 400 is about the sme price as the 42. 

So, what does one do. We are 4 kids and 4 adults most of the time. This would lean me toward the space offered by the 42. I sail often and it''s all coastal cruising. I guess maybe buy as much boat as I can for the same dollar? 

I am looking for input here. Which boat is a better performing boat? Which has a history with fewer problems? All that good stuff. 

I don''t particularly care for the two helm stations on the 400 but I don''t mind it if it is all around a better boat than the 42. 

I do like the interior appointment of the 400. I am coming off of a 350 which has been great, but does not offer the room we need with so many on board all of the time. 

The 42 is a lot of boat. We will not get in mast furling on either boat. Is it hard to manage short handed? (or with full crew for that matter?

Thanks....


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

We will not get in mast furling on either boat. Is it hard to manage short handed? (or with full crew for that matter? 

There is a Huge differance with sail handling and preformance with a battened sail. With an in mast furler the battens would be gone. Have you though of an in boom furler?


----------



## tsenator (Nov 6, 2000)

Sue,

These two boats have been compared & debated on the catalina Sailnet lists for some time now. I would go through the archives and see if you can find some comments.

http://members.sailnet.com/email_archives/index.cfm

(Search in both the C400 and the C42 list)

Maybe even join the individual lists and ask the exact same question. I bet it would be very interesting to see what the individual owners say.

My take from the whole thing is that they are both comparable boats as far as performance with each having their sweet spots, but neither really having any kind of big advantage. But the C400 has a little bit more Sa/D ratio.

I think it really comes down to style and layout. The C400 is to the C42 as the C350 is to the C36. The C400 has a much beamier aft and probably a bit higher freeboard, while the C42 has more classic lines.

Another minor (or not so minor) consideration is draft. I believe the C42 has a 4''10" wing draft, but the C400 wing is 5''4". The extra 1/2 foot might help in your area.

I can tell you this, when the 2 boats are on moorings next to each other, the C400 looks huge next to the C42. If you are going for maximum volume in the aft cabin, how could you not want the C400. 

I too, am torn on which boat I would rather have. While I covet the C400''s huge aft cabin and real full sized walk around bed, I love the classic looks of the C42.

My "personal" feeling is, if I was going to continue coastal cruising I''d go for the C400, the aft berth and all the room it allows. If I was doing more offshore trips, I might lean towards the layout of the C42 which is less wide open and easier to berth in and has more layout options that might conducive to it.

Bottom line -- Its a wash

ps. Even though you would lose a bit of effeciency with the furling main, I really don''t think you would notice a huge difference coastal cruising on these boats. These are mast head rigged boats, where most of the power is being driven by the jib and not the mainsail. From what I have been told, by a few people, is that the percentage lost by a furling main is very little as compared to the whole sail area and typically makes a small difference that is only noticable when racing on some points of sail.

With that said I have a traditional main on my C36 with full battens and I like the easy capability to acheive and maintain sail shape. I don''t think I want a furling main, but I have to admit a huge envious glint in my eye when I see how easy it is for them to roll in and out their main to use it or put it away.


----------



## captron400 (Jun 28, 2000)

As the former owner of C400 #74 (Good Vibrations) for 11 years and Commodore / Tech Editor for just as long, I'd like to point out the 400 and 42 are both good boats but there is a noticable difference in performance. The 400 is lighter, has more sail area, and it's waterline length is close to 1 foot longer. If I was going for cabin arrangements I'd probably pick the 42. Anything else gives the 400 the nod.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

captron400 said:


> As the former owner of C400 #74 (Good Vibrations) for 11 years and Commodore / Tech Editor for just as long, I'd like to point out the 400 and 42 are both good boats but there is a noticable difference in performance. The 400 is lighter, has more sail area, and it's waterline length is close to 1 foot longer. If I was going for cabin arrangements I'd probably pick the 42. Anything else gives the 400 the nod.


Hey Ron,

They posted this in 2003. Best bet is they already made their choice!! I agree with what you said though, except the cabin arrangement part. The 42 has some drawbacks there too - or some differences I should say that you will either like or not like.

Brian


----------



## captron400 (Jun 28, 2000)

*Whereabouts of hull #74*

Hi -

My name is Ron Marcuse, former owner of hull #74 that was named "Good Vibrations" while I owned it. I was the founder, Commodore and Tech Editor of the association for about 11 years before selling the boat around 15 months ago. Boat was sold to a just retired couple from Colorado who were bringing it to the Carribean and had renamed it "Gravyboat". But I just heard elsewhere that someone else now has the boat and who is on this forum. I'd like to find out exactly what happened to it. The boat and I had some memorable experiences and it will always be part of my life. You don't race the Whitbred fleet single handed up the Chesapeake and forget about it.

The skinny water down here in SW Florida more or less forced the sale of the boat and I wound up with a trimaran. Gave up interior room for no keel and loads of speed. Where's the Whitbred fleet now?

Thanks.


----------



## captron400 (Jun 28, 2000)

The forum has changed a lot since I last saw it. I had spotted the words "equal" and "wash" comparing the 400 and 42. That just ain't so and I had to respond. I had to set up a rear view mirror when I raced against any 42's. Ditto for 470's.

Main reason why I came back is to find out what happened to my old boat.

Ron Marcuse


----------



## soulfinger (Aug 21, 2008)

You really think you can outsail a 470 with a 400? That seems kinda hard to swallow.....maybe in light air. I've been on a 470 doing 11 knots!


----------



## mcfsailor (Jan 16, 2009)

*C42 vs C400*

I know this thread is coming in well after the fact but I just couldn't resist. My Catalina 400, Windfall, (#290) is blazing fast but cannot compete with the 470. You just can't fight waterline!
As for the debate over the C-42 vs C-400 issue: All the comments made, so far, are somewhat acurate. The 400 will beat a 42 anyday for speed but they are completely different boats...in every way. They both have strong points. I believe anyone who has not sailed a duel helmed boat is going to feel rather strange about it, at first. But my consensus is that once you have two wheels, you'll never go back to one.
One of my closest sailing friends have a C-42 and we sail her regularly. She is a great sailing boat and they love her but for me, there is nothing out there in the 40 foot range (and price) that can compare with a Catalina 400.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Speaking as someone that has considered both these boats, here's my take:

The 400 appears to be a more evolved hull form. I do not doubt that it will out sail the 42, and likely has every bit as much interior volume (maybe more).

To my mind, the distinguishing factor comes down to whether you are interested in a two-cabin boat or a three-cabin boat. 

Both boats offer a choice. But if you get a 3-cabin 400, the "owner's" cabin gets split into two smaller cabins. This leaves no larger-sized owner's cabin. Essentially the guest v-berth becomes the "owner's" cabin.

Whereas if you get a 3-cabin 42, the "owner's" cabin (whether pullman or centerline) is retained and a third guest cabin is added at the port quarter (in lieu of storage lockers). 

Regardless of differences in hull design, helms, etc, if I wanted a 2-cabin boat, I'd take the 400. If I wanted a 3-cabin boat, I'd take the 42.


----------



## mcfsailor (Jan 16, 2009)

*C42 vs C400*

John:
Your analysis is good. I may add that by choosing a C-400 with the 3 cabins, would eliminate one of the most outstanding features of the interior of the 400...the big aft master stateroom. Speaking of which, has anyone actually ever seen a C-400 3 cabin?


----------



## garygleason (Dec 5, 2007)

I'm a proud owner of a C-400 Mk II hull #337. I was torn between purchasing either the 400 or the 42 but have never regretted my decision. I wasn't sure about the dual helms at first but after sailing with them I love them. Not only do they give great access to the swim ladder but getting our on the rail and steering couldn't be nicer. After having been an avid racer for 30 years I opted for the in mast furling. I'm sure I gave up some performance but it's not noticible and it makes the boat the easiest one to sail that I've ever owned.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

garygleason said:


> I'm a proud owner of a C-400 Mk II hull #337. I was torn between purchasing either the 400 or the 42 but have never regretted my decision. I wasn't sure about the dual helms at first but after sailing with them I love them. Not only do they give great access to the swim ladder but getting our on the rail and steering couldn't be nicer. After having been an avid racer for 30 years I opted for the in mast furling. I'm sure I gave up some performance but it's not noticible and it makes the boat the easiest one to sail that I've ever owned.


Gary,

Did you choose the two- or three-cabin version?

I'm interested to hear how many folks choose the three-cabin 400. So far I don't think we've heard from anyone that chose a 400 with the 3-cabin layout.


----------



## ssilver140 (Dec 10, 2003)

I purchased a 3 cabin c400 (hull no. 308) new in 2004. There were a number of things I prefered about the 400 vs the 42, but either way we were getting a 3 cabin as we cruise often with our 2 kids who were then approacing their teen years and we wanted a cabin for each. One difference in the cabin that really pushed the family to the 400 was the galley configuration. In the 400 the galley is aft in both the 2 and 3 cabin versions. In the 42, the 3 cabin layout puts the galley on the side of the main cabin, and you lose the settee that otherwise would be on the starboard side, leaving seating only around the table. As I general matter I prefer to have the gally aft and think the 400 cabin is a more open feel that the 42. Clearly a compomise on the master cabin, but I have no issue with the forward cabin on the 400, but realized at the time that a 3 cabin 400 was not very popular and could hurt resale when that time comes. In retrospect having had the boat for 5 seasons now we are very happy with our choice.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Great info here. By the way, all you 400 owners.... SEND ME SOME MAINSHEET MATERIAL!!!

Don't make me ban you from Sailnet for not sending me some Mainsheet stuff to publish!!! (smile... yes I am joking).

- CD


----------



## captron400 (Jun 28, 2000)

Sorry for the delay getting back to this. I don't normally follow this forum anymore. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, well - here are two during a match race between my 400 and a dealer crewed 470 (all good sailors) outside of Annapolis in 1997 or 1998. The bet was that I'd buy this 470 (hull #1) from the dealer IF he could beat me. Wasn't even close, and that was in 20 to 25 knots of wind where the bigger 470 should have an advantage. At the finish he must have been a mile behind me. I pulled ahead on every point of sail, but totally finished him off beating back up the Severn River. Reason - he was rounding up and fighting the helm. Eventually had to reef (and then double reef) to control the boat. Neither boat had a furling main so it was a fair contest (sort of). The factory was well aware of this outcome (they even called me) and I believe that they revised the boat a drop because of it. 

Over 12 years, I had run into maybe a half dozen 470's with Good Vibrations and every one was the same result. After sailing a few, I do not believe that it has a balanced sail plan. Main is too big and center of effort appears to be behind the keel, probably because they moved the mast and compression post forward to hide it in a bulkhead. More waterline won't help that.


----------



## cathyinct (Oct 4, 2010)

*Mom loves her three cabin 42*

When we considered our C42, we took into consideration the following. 1. We are really tall at 6 foot and 6'4" and the Catalina offered better headroom than the Beneteau. 2. Mooring areas in the NorthEast are getting tight and to go beyond a 42 footer would have us crashing into other boats. 3. We have son and daughter and having the twin aft cabins really gave them their own space and afforded us space for future guests. We had the boat when the kids were 4-5 years of age. Teens want friends on the boat. 4. The displacement makes this a great cruising boat. 5. The aft cockpit shower is a must for a cruising family with a dog. The swim platform on the C42 is outstanding in that it is very deep when showering off toddlers, is way better than the C470. We store shampoo, frisbees, poly line and body wash in one aft platform locker and in the port side we store cleaning supplies. The compartment "seats" are wonderful for washing off kids and dogs. 5. The salon with the bench makes for wonderful storage when you are cruising 2-3 weeks. We can get 8-10 kids around it for cards or for watching DVD movies. I can be using the three burner stove and they can get around me. 
6. In the event of a fire, the large ports in the aft cabins are great escape hatches for the kids to get out of the boat. 7. Engiine access is extremely good. 8. I do not hit my head when opening the refrigerator or when cooking. That was not the case on the 2 cabin model or on more expensive boats !!

We chose our boat knowing we would be spending about 10-15 years with kids on board and we have -0- regret in our three cabin decision.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Interesting post getting brought back to life. In my YC, there are two C42mkII's. Last weekend a C400 showed up at the marina we were at, parked next to one of the C42's. WHile I have not been in either. the 400 looked beefier if you will. IE more OPEN ocean style or what I would want as such. Altho it could have been that it has a taller freeboard, wider as mentioned etc, so it looked beefier. Probably built on par frankly.

Wife drooled over the 400 from the dock, and has drooled in one of the two C42's inside and out!:R:R:R A bit too slow of design for my tastes. That is not what spouse looks at!LOL

With that, take my typed nonsense or equal and I would bet as mentioned, BOTH boats are good boats.

Marty


----------



## flyingriki (Sep 27, 2012)

captron400 said:


> As the former owner of C400 #74 (Good Vibrations) for 11 years and Commodore / Tech Editor for just as long, I'd like to point out the 400 and 42 are both good boats but there is a noticable difference in performance. The 400 is lighter, has more sail area, and it's waterline length is close to 1 foot longer. If I was going for cabin arrangements I'd probably pick the 42. Anything else gives the 400 the nod.


I've been operating under the impression this comment on LWL was correct. Appears to be wrong. 
C-42 LWL is 36 feet
C-40 is 30.5'.....


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

*C400 waterline length*

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The LWL of the C400 is 36.5'

Go to the manufacturer:
http://www.catalinayachts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/C400bro10-04.pdf

Barry



flyingriki said:


> I've been operating under the impression this comment on LWL was correct. Appears to be wrong.
> C-42 LWL is 36 feet
> C-40 is 30.5'.....


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

First, note that this is six year old stuff that you're commenting on. So the original posters may be gone.

Second, I'll remind you that there's a lot more than LWL that affects sailing speed. Hull form is very important, and can easily overcome a foot or more of LWL deficiency. I've heard comments that certain models (not all) of Catalina's three-digit series offered disappointing performance, and a couple had short life cycles due to those issues. I don't remember which models, and if I did I wouldn't want to offend the owners. I believe that the problems with these boats might be due to their fat-ass design that can cause a stagnation zone at the stern which holds them back.

Since the topic here is comparing an older C42 vs. a fat-ass C400, I'd make sure to consider this difference in comparing their performance. Obviously, getting on both boats and sailing them is the ultimate test.


----------



## flyingriki (Sep 27, 2012)

You're right. Contradicts this other data site:

CATALINA 400 Mk II sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

flyingriki said:


> You're right. Contradicts this other data site:
> 
> CATALINA 400 Mk II sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com


Obviously a typo. You'd need huge overhangs at bow and stern to have LOA-LWL>10 ft. Isn't this common sense?


----------



## flyingriki (Sep 27, 2012)

I must be totally freaking ignorant. Thanks for pointing that out....

Here's over 7' of difference:
Length Overall 13.16 m 43' 2" 
Length of Waterline 10.97 m 36' 0"

By the way ALL the current models are "three-digit series" so I guess they are all dogs....

And so what if original posters are gone? Old posts can be resurrected and be very useful to those of us that are so ignorant and don't know it all.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Wow, that's a real overreaction. I made it explicitly clear that only a couple of selected models were reported to have performance issues. And those reports were just somebody's opinion anyway.


----------



## flyingriki (Sep 27, 2012)

Yawn.....


----------

