Hunter 170 vs Hunter 28
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 28 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 170 
Hunter 28 | Hunter 170 | Hunter 28 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 28.0 ft8.54 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 24.2 ft7.37 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 10.5 ft3.20 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 3.8 ft1.14 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 7,400 lb3,357 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 2,800 lb1,270 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 399 ft²37.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 16.81 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 234 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 19.7 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.16 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 6.6 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 28: the short version
- The Hunter 28 is the larger boat at 28.0 ft8.54 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 28 is heavier, displacing about 1448% 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 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 28 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 28 rates better for offshore work (2.16 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.