• Creator
  • #86238

    Catalina used two different measurements for length these later boats. LOH – Length of Hull and LOA. I’m guessing the LOA includes the built-in swim platform.

    As things are currently shown on the site, the 309 actually appears longer than the 320.

    LOA: 32.75 (shown on this site)
    LOH: 31.0

    LOA: 34.25
    LOH: 32.5 (shown on this site)

    At minimum, the 320 and 320 mk II should be adjusted to the correct LOA. And maybe both values should be shown?

    Here’s a brochure showing the lengths on the 320:


    P.S. Sorry for the possibly confusing username, but I can’t seem to change it.

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #86239

    The Catalina 400 has the same issue.

    It’s shown on the site as 40.5 LOA which is the LOH, but the actual LOA is 41.5


    I’ve done some more research. I think it’s likely that Catalina’s LOA includes the bow pulpit.

    If true, the 309 should be corrected down to just 31’ and the rest of the Catalinas are correct.


    At one time LOA and LOD were interchangeable. This is from Ted Brewer’s website:

    Different designers and builders have different ways of expressing Length. Length On Deck (LOD) is the true length, omitting rail overhangs, and is the honest way to describe the length of a boat. More usually, you will see it as Length Over All (LOA) which may be the LOD if the builder is honest but often includes rail overhangs, anchor sprits, bowsprits and even boomkins if the builder is trying to sell a “larger” boat.

    Over the past 20 years or so, it has become commonplace for LOA to include bowsprits, etc. and for builders to report a separate LOD.

    This seems to have happened with regard to the Catalina 320. An early (1998) brochure lists the LOA as 32’6″.

    All this said, and in order to avoid further confusion, we have updated the records and have included LOD separately in the Notes section.

    Thanks for the heads-up!


    Thanks. I love the site and refer to it constantly.

    I’m not sure whether or not the bow pulpit should count in terms of the LOA for the 320, but at least the 309 no longer appears longer than the 32’ boat. :smile:


    Please refer to ABYC S-8/Boat Measurements and Weight – Definitions (8.4.9 & 8.4.10) regarding LOA and Maximum Boat Length. What Catalina has changed over the years is they have started using the term “Length Overall” which is really “Maximum Boat Length” instead of the true definition of “LOA” as stated in ABYC. You will note that their brochures states “Length of Hull” which is really the true LOA. Catalina, like many other manufacturers, are likely stating values as such, for marketing purposes. Their vessels appear to be larger by such advertising.

    The Catalina 320 and 320mkII is a good example of proving this misinformation. These vessels are the same hull and I know this because I previously owned a 320 and very knowledgeable on the Catalina product line. Therefore, the original 320 LOA of 32.5′ was per ABYC definition. The mkII states “Length Overall 34.25′” which <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>does</span> include the bow pulpit, therefore, this is the “maximum boat length”. The mkII brochure states “Length of Hull” which coincidently is exactly the same value as the original 320s LOA.

    Sailboat Data; please post proper LOA as per ABYC definition. Otherwise, the data will be confusing and subject to misinformation. Many of us (Yacht Surveyors) use your website for information, hence, how I came about to finding this discussion/forum.

    I suggest updating your Catalina 320 mkII data showing a Maximum Boat Length – 34.25′ and the LOA – 32.50′ to remain with ABYC standards, as you traditionally have done over the years.


    Hello Norm, thanks for your note. We agree with everything you are saying. Please know, though, that as a site we strive to be as consistent as possible across all builders worldwide. (While 45% of our monthly users are from the US, we get about 30% from Europe, 10% from Canada and still another 15% from other countries around the globe. For example, Australia normally comes in ranked about 6th.)

    Today, many but not all builder’s worldwide use LOA to include overhangs and LOD for hull length. That said, some still stick with the “honest” use of LOA… hull length.

    When a builder only reports LOA, it is impossible for us to know which use of LOA they are using. As this is the case, for consistency’s sake, we show LOA as reported by the builder regardless of whether it includes overhangs or not.

    We feel like, to report LOA as hull length for the 320 mkII, then add a note reporting the overall length as something longer, can be confusing for most of our users who are not marine professionals like yourself.

    For us, the best scenario for the 320 mkII, one that will be the easiest for most to understand and is consistent with how other boats are reported, is to report LOA including overhangs and LOD for hull length.

    We hope you understand.

    BTW, we have a note on the 320 page that states LOA equals hull length.

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.