Hunter 170 vs Hunter 30T
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 30T 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 30T | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 30.1 ft9.17 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 26.3 ft8.03 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 11.0 ft3.35 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 4.3 ft1.30 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 10,500 lb4,763 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,800 lb1,724 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 434 ft²40.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 14.48 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 257 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 24.2 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.01 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 6.9 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 30T: the short version
- The Hunter 30T is the larger boat at 30.1 ft9.17 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 30T is heavier, displacing about 2097% 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 14.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 30T scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 30T rates better for offshore work (2.01 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.