Hunter 170 vs Hunter 260
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 260 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 170 
Hunter 260 | Hunter 170 | Hunter 260 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 23.3 ft7.09 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 9.0 ft2.73 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 6.0 ft1.83 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 5,000 lb2,268 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 2,000 lb907 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 299 ft²27.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 16.36 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 178 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 17.2 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.10 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 6.5 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 260: the short version
- The Hunter 260 is the larger boat at 26.3 ft8.00 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 260 is heavier, displacing about 946% 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 16.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 260 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 260 rates better for offshore work (2.10 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.