Hunter 140 vs Hunter 170
How do the Hunter 140 and Hunter 170 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 140 | Hunter 140 | Hunter 170 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 17.1 ft5.21 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 12.1 ft3.68 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 7.0 ft2.13 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 478 lb217 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 134 ft²12.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 35.07 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 121 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 4.1 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 3.58 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 4.7 |
Hunter 140 vs Hunter 170: the short version
- The Hunter 170 is the larger boat at 17.1 ft5.21 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Hunter 170 is heavier, displacing about 112% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 140 carries the more powerful rig (44.1 vs 35.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 170 rates better for offshore work (3.58 vs 3.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.