Hunter 170 vs Hunter 32 Vision
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 32 Vision compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 170 
Hunter 32 Vision | Hunter 170 | Hunter 32 Vision | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 27.0 ft8.23 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 11.3 ft3.45 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 4.3 ft1.30 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 11,400 lb5,171 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 4,500 lb2,041 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 486 ft²45.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 15.35 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 259 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 24.4 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.01 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 7.0 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 32 Vision: the short version
- The Hunter 32 Vision is the larger boat at 32.0 ft9.75 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 32 Vision is heavier, displacing about 2285% 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 15.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 32 Vision scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 32 Vision 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.