Hunter 170 vs Hunter 240
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 240 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 170 | Hunter 170 | Hunter 240 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 24.1 ft7.34 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 22.1 ft6.73 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 8.3 ft2.51 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 3,600 lb1,633 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 1,300 lb590 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 236 ft²21.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 16.08 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 149 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 14.8 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.15 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 6.3 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 240: the short version
- The Hunter 240 is the larger boat at 24.1 ft7.34 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 240 is heavier, displacing about 653% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 170 carries the more powerful rig (35.1 vs 16.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 240 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 240 rates better for offshore work (2.15 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.