# Looking at Catalina 320 and 34 MK2



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

A local dealer has a '97 Catalina 320 and a '00 Catalina 34 MK2 that he has taken in on trade. Both are in the size range I am considering as a step-up from my current Cal 9.2 (30 foot) and prices seem fair. Most of my sailing is now daysailing, weekend overnights, and an annual 2-3 week cruise from Western Long Island Sound to points east. The Cal was a great boat when I was still racing, but I now would prefer something slightly larger with more cruising accomodations. I am concerned that I will miss the lively performance of my Cal if I move on to either of these boats. Thoughts from anyone with experience with these boats and their performance would be appreciated.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Owned the 320 and you will be very pleased. Very nice sailing boat and will turn in her own wake. You will like it and not look back.

- CD


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

We had a C-34 MKI. Loved it. Great support from owner's group. They're in high demand. We kept ours looking nice and sold her for more than we paid for her.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Looking at PHRF ratings, the Cats are 20-30 sec a mile faster or there abouts. If you go here you will find hi/low/ave ratings for boats. Not sure which cats or cal you have, ie deep/shoal keels, tall or short masts to know where and how to compare, but generally speaking, either should be faster than what you have. The 320 tho, appears to be faster for its size than the 34. With the 34 still being rated faster, but only by 5-10 secs over the 320. Not that PHRF ratings are the end all be all of how fast a boat is, but still it gives you and idea.

Cal 9.2 ave 168
320 153
34-2 144

marty


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

I am partial to Catalina in general and the C34 in particular as I own a 2000 C34MkII. Both are fine boats but understandably, I prefer the 34 more. To get the interior head room in the 320, Gerry Douglas raised the deck, creating almost the same freeboard as the 34. Early versions of the 320 have the toe rail ending at the cockpit which I found was a slipping hazard when going forward from the leeward side of the cockpit. In the interior, my wife liked the galley layout in the 320 better. However, the 34 has much more interior room over-all, especially in the two staterooms. Below the water line, the 320 has a much finer machined keel than the casting on the 34 - which may be a hallmark of the boats built in Ft. Lauderdale. The 34 (until recently) was built in the original Woodland Hills facility and all those MkI and MkII boats share the same keel casting and hull mold (from below the waterline). This was done to preserve the integrity of our one design rule.

PHRF Regression Formula
R' = 610-8.36*(SA/Disp^.333)+0.0000511*(SA^2)-55*(P/(J+E)) -30.8*(LWL^.5)-602*(DR^2/SA)

I am a bit surprised that 320 aren't raced here in S.F. and are considered more of a weekend cruiser. Our 34s are extensively raced here and we average about ten boats on any given starting line. There is a C34 fleet in the New Jersey - Long Island area. The PHRF numbers mentioned in a previous note are a bit all over the place and I'm not quite sure how to address them here. The basic PHRF number is derived from the equation above and is based on sail area and other principal dimensions. Here, there is a three seconds rating difference between a C36 (144) and C34 (147) which are much closer together than 9 seconds difference between the 34 and 320 (156). All these boats are within two feet of each other. I think the reason behind the 320's much slower rating is her much bigger displacement to length ratio. As to performance, my boat is somewhat optimized for speed and there is no comparison to the average 320 (to be fair, I also beat most C36's I encounter too.)

I encourage you to check out the owners association websites for both boats and pose your questions there. If you have any specific questions about the 34, I'd be happy to answer them.

George Bean
s/v Freya #1472
Chief Measurer, Catalina 34 International Association

www.c34ia.org
www.catalina320.org


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Thanks for the input guys. I was well aware of the PHRF numbers. They don't tell the whole story however as the lower numbers are primarily due to the longer waterlines. Since I sail in an area (western Long Island Sound) where light air performance is important, my Cal 9.2 at only 7000 lbs displacement and a deep fin keel is well suited. Both the boats the dealer has are wing keels and the 34 is not a tall rig, so I suspect they will be mediocre light air performers and not go upwind like my current boat does. Both will be better as the wind pipes up however, as everything is a tradeoff.


----------



## christyleigh (Dec 17, 2001)

If you've seen any of my postings about my previous c320 you'll know I'm Very Prejudiced  . But anyway... If it were a 1 for 1... same years as when I bought mine new I couldn't see the $ difference being worth it for a c34. The aft berth on the c320 is larger. The fridge on the c320 is larger. As for performance I can only make the big generality that 6 years on NGBay the only thing that passed me any where near my size were the J boats with their usual crew of 6 beefers ...... although they probably could have passed me single handed which was and still is the way I do all my sailing. My wife was there but just for docking and an occasional winch crank when things got ugly. She just kicks back and enjoys the ride.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Are you anywhere near this boat?

You might find this Jeanneau Sunfast 32 to fit the bill for what you want. These have a fairly nice interior for cruising, yet being a sunfast vs a sun odyssey models, they have a better performance rig, keel etc. If you can find a SF35, that is another slightly bigger option.

Major difference tween the SF and SO models, the SF's have a 7' draft, mast ~3-4'taller, +50# of SA, main traveller cockpit mounted vs cabin top, genoa tracks are line adjustible vs pin stops, cabin top is 2 winches vs 1, and cockpit genoa winches are one size larger for the SF vs SO.

Personally from races are locally, in my fleet is two Cal tall mast T2's, my jeanneau arcadia, a couple ea Cat 27 and 30's along with a 28mk2. The cats and I except the 28 have 10+ yr old sails, the 28 new this summer. The T2's are fairly new, ie last 2-3 yrs. The T2's are always in front, then typically me, then the cats. I should be faster than the T2's, but with 22 yr old sails, ablative bottom vs hard, and lack of experience in boat vs the T2 skips with 10-20 yrs owning there boats,........what can I say. But generally speaking, the cats will perform a bit less than a Jeaneau and you Cal IMHO. The SF32 has a 126 PHRF, the SO's about 10 sec slower, depending upon the 6' or 4.5' Shoal draft. The SF 35 is 102. The SO 35's locally are in the 120's

Not sure if you have looked at these, or if the 99K is more than your budget, but this is an alternate to the cats. I personally feel a step up, then again, they might be equal, with a different ambiance for interior etc.

Good luck finding a new boat.

Marty


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

If you are interested in a boat with good sailing performance that is still comfortable - you should look at a CS33/34/36


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Good info all. Thanks. The main reason I was looking for input on the two Cats is that the local dealer owns them and is willing to take my current boat in trade, thus greatly simplifying the transaction. There are other boats on my short list, but none has surfaced as a local dealer trade-in. My favorite boat in this size range is the C&C 99, but there are very few around and prices are somewhat higher than what I would like to spend. Nice interior, really set up for performance sailing, and rates 95-105 which is really quick for a 32 footer. However all the stuff on this site about problems with the epoxy hulled Tartans and C&Cs has given me pause. Anyway I plan to see these two Cats next week and want to go as educated as possible in case I am tempted to make an offer.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Something to think about re the C&C's, especially 99's, is that there are some older fiberglass glass versions BEFORE going to epoxy! I seem to recall some 110's are in this area also.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Think you are right, blt2ski, that some of the current C&Cs models were first built with polyester and then switched to epoxy construction. I think this was about the year 2000. But I think the 99s (which came out in 2002) were all epoxy. Anyone out there know for sure? 

That said, it's really the cost of the C&C (primarily because they are newer) that is making me seriously consider these two Catalinas. The Cat 320 is listed for about half the price of the C&C 99s on the market.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Jim,

I am recalling about 01 or 02, but again, do not quote me on that yr any more than your 00! 

Marty


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> The Cat 320 is listed for about half the price of the C&C 99s on the market.


The C&C may be a faster boat, but I'll guarantee you that you'll get better support from Catalina. The Catalina may last longer too.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Time to wake up this very old thread. I've long said that C320 will be my next boat. But I'm starting to consider the C34MkII instead because the extra length seems to provide more storage, even though the galley layout is a little tighter than the C320.

Does anyone have any updates? Looks like OP went to a Cal 33 instead of either Catalina model. What was behind that decision?


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

The 320 vs 34/36IIs is a similar one to what we've thought about as well.

For me, the 320's rig wins, I like the narrow sheeting double spreader setup over the single on the others. The galley on the 320 might beat the 34, but not the 36. (btw there's very little difference in size between the 34 & 36; that one comes down to preferred interior)
Not crazy about the long run alongside the aft cabin and head on the 320 to get to the salon, storage is tight, and the passageway to the V berth very narrow.

My personal preference between 34/36 leans to the latter mainly for the galley. However we have several 34IIs in our club and all owners are very satisfied. I do think, with the improved cockpit and the better looks, the MKIIs are 'worth the premium' but many 36ers prefer the MkI layout.

We also have a 350 in our club, and I have to say I can't get excited about that one.

The 42MkII, however, beats all


----------



## Scotty C-M (Aug 14, 2013)

I think that you'll find the sailing characteristics remarkably similar. The larger the boat, the more sea kindly. For bay sailing that probably makes very little difference. If you go offshore at all, you might go to a longer boat - 380, 400 or 42 - or larger. That said, go for the interior layout that you like. There really is quite a bit of difference between the different models. The other consideration is the quality of the boat. A well maintained, well equipped boat will be a better buy, in my opinion. The new models have some great design evolutions. I lust after the new 425. Way outside my price range! All things considered, I believe that the Catalina line offers a great boat at a great value.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Faster said:


> ...the passageway to the V berth very narrow...


Interesting that you mention this. We chartered a C320 last week, and my wife was constantly getting annoyed at me for running into her sitting on the port settee every time I went to the V-berth (where my "stuff" was located). I think it's not just the narrow passage, but the "S" shape of it, since I tend to walk in a straight line. The C34MkII is not much more beam, but the passage to V-berth seems to be a little straighter. We'll get a chance to see this tomorrow for the first time.

In my brief overview of asking prices, it looks like the C320 and C34MkII of similar ages are not that far apart in price. The C320 is a more modern design with double spreaders and nicer keel design. Also, I think that there are a lot fewer C320s out there, so the lack of supply keeps prices high.

I'm trying to stay under 35' because most slips in the Rock Hall, MD area seem to charge a set rate for 30-35' in length. Also, I occasionally singlehand, and 32-34' seems a lot more manageable than even 36'. (I also chartered a C36 a few years ago.)

I fully agree that condition is important. We're only going to consider well cared-for specimens of either boat, and prepared to wait for the right one to come on the market before moving ahead. One of things that I strongly prefer is a boat the comes with a custom canvas cover (zippered cutouts to go around shrouds, etc.). I have noticed that boats that come with that cover are almost always in better shape because they've USED that cover during the winter months.

We're expecting to use our current boat this season with an eye to shopping in August for fall/winter acquisition. But if the right one comes up we may pull the trigger sooner.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

TakeFive said:


> Interesting that you mention this. We chartered a C320 last week, and my wife was constantly getting annoyed at me for running into her sitting on the port settee every time I went to the V-berth (where my "stuff" was located).


Little annoyances can become big ones when you spend a lot of time aboard...



TakeFive said:


> The C320 is a more modern design with double spreaders and nicer keel design. Also, I think that there are a lot fewer C320s out there, so the lack of supply keeps prices high.


+1, but for me it's the balance between how well she sails and how comfortable it is living aboard.

For me the 36 MKII wins hands down. But it's really about what boat feels "right" for you, your wife and your wallet.



TakeFive said:


> I'm trying to stay under 35' because most slips in the Rock Hall, MD area seem to charge a set rate for 30-45' in length.


Problem solved Catalina Direct: Molded Plastic Logo Catalina 34 



TakeFive said:


> Also, I occasionally singlehand, and 32-34' seems a lot more manageable than even 36'. (I also chartered a C36 a few years ago.)


I've sailed on the Cat 34 but not the 36. I didn't think the 34 was any more difficult around the dock than my Cat 30. I wouldn't expect a big difference between the 34 & 36. Sail handling/reefing should be similar on both boats. Faster could probably give you a better idea.



TakeFive said:


> I fully agree that condition is important. We're only going to consider well cared-for specimens of either boat, and prepared to wait for the right one to come on the market before moving ahead. One of things that I strongly prefer is a boat the comes with a custom canvas cover (zippered cutouts to go around shrouds, etc.). I have noticed that boats that come with that cover are almost always in better shape because they've USED that cover during the winter months.


Here's another way to look at it.

Get a boat that hasn't been kept under cover for a lower price. Then follow MainSail's advice on compounding/waxing the hull - or better yet hire a boat detailer to do the work. Then spend the price difference on the upgrades/electronics/canvas _*you*_ want.

It's amazing what a buffer can do to oxidized gelcoat.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

JimMcGee said:


> For me the 36 MKII wins hands down. But it's really about what boat feels "right" for you, your wife and your wallet.


One of the things I don't like about the 36 is the big table that mounts on the wall. I'd much rather have a boat that has a permanently mounted table. I guess I could just leave it down on the 36, but then you don't have a settee always available on demand. I just like the idea of permanent table on one side, settee on the other.

My current boat has a huge table (relative to the boat size). I converted the table to drop-down leaves on both sides, and typically keep the leaf up on one side and down on the other, so I have my table on one side, settee on the other. So I know from experience that's when I prefer.


JimMcGee said:


> Here's another way to look at it.
> 
> Get a boat that hasn't been kept under cover for a lower price. Then follow MainSail's advice on compounding/waxing the hull - or better yet hire a boat detailer to do the work. Then spend the price difference on the upgrades/electronics/canvas _*you*_ want.
> 
> It's amazing what a buffer can do to oxidized gelcoat.


I follow MaineSail's procedure for polishing the hull on my own boat (hull glistens!), and will continue to do so on the new boat. But the thing is that in virtually every case, boats that have been allowed to bake in the sun/soak in the rain/snow/ice 365 days a year show other issues besides oxidized gel coat (leaky chainplates, spider cracks, gauges and electronics corroded, etc.). I have no problem buffing up an otherwise solid boat, but the "otherwise solid" part is hard to find in my experience.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

TakeFive said:


> Does anyone have any updates? Looks like OP went to a Cal 33 instead of either Catalina model. What was behind that decision?


Your right. I did go with a Cal 33-2. And very happy with that decision. I started this thread at the very beginning of my search for a new boat. I was looking for a 32-35 foot racer-cruiser and my budget was up to $100k though I really wanted to stay closer to $50k (and ended up well below that!). I ended up not liking the 320 due to reasons already mentioned. Big issues for me were the small V-berth and the poor storage. Did like the Cat 34 much better. Boats other than the Cal 33-2 I looked at or were on my short list were the Tartan 34-2, Tartan 3500, Sabre 34-2, J-34C and Beneteau First 35s5. Took over a year a sell the Cal 9.2 and the Cal 33-2 was available close by at a great price. I grabbed it.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

JimsCAL said:


> Your right. I did go with a Cal 33-2. ......took over a year a sell the Cal 9.2 and the Cal 33-2 was available close by at a great price. I grabbed it.


And... you didn't have to ask to change your SN username!!


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Faster said:


> And... you didn't have to ask to change your SN username!!


Nice how that worked out isn't it!


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

TakeFive said:


> One of the things I don't like about the 36 is the big table that mounts on the wall. I'd much rather have a boat that has a permanently mounted table. I guess I could just leave it down on the 36, but then you don't have a settee always available on demand. I just like the idea of permanent table on one side, settee on the other.


We have the same table setup on our boat. We bought a folding teak "TV table" for snacks and quick meals (sandwiches). It gets stored in the v-berth when sailing. We only use the big table for dinner and when we have friends aboard.

What I really want to do is build a fold out table that will be the best of both worlds. Yet another boat project...



TakeFive said:


> I follow MaineSail's procedure for polishing the hull on my own boat (hull glistens!), and will continue to do so on the new boat. But the thing is that in virtually every case, boats that have been allowed to bake in the sun/soak in the rain/snow/ice 365 days a year show other issues besides oxidized gel coat (leaky chainplates, spider cracks, gauges and electronics corroded, etc.). I have no problem buffing up an otherwise solid boat, but the "otherwise solid" part is hard to find in my experience.


That's actually a good point.

BTW, even with a winter cover I still remove all my electronics when I haul. I set everything up inside the NavPod with quick disconnects so the plotter and gauges can be stored indoors.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

JimMcGee said:


> We have the same table setup on our boat. We bought a folding teak "TV table" for snacks and quick meals (sandwiches). It gets stored in the v-berth when sailing. We only use the big table for dinner and when we have friends aboard.
> 
> What I really want to do is build a fold out table that will be the best of both worlds. Yet another boat project...


Speaking of best of both worlds, I will always be enormously proud of the cabin table mod that I did on my C250. It remains as the single biggest improvement that I made, as evidenced by the fact that I put the drop leaves up and down several times every time I am on the boat. These pics will definitely go on my listing, since anyone who is shopping for C250 wing keel boats will immediately realize what a large improvement it represents:


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

TakeFive said:


> Speaking of best of both worlds, I will always be enormously proud of the cabin table mod that I did on my C250. It remains as the single biggest improvement that I made, as evidenced by the fact that I put the drop leaves up and down several times every time I am on the boat. These pics will definitely go on my listing, since anyone who is shopping for C250 wing keel boats will immediately realize what a large improvement it represents


I remember when you did that table. Your boat should sell fast. Clean, well maintained boats usually do.


----------

