Hunter 170 vs Hunter 336
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 336 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 336 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 33.5 ft10.21 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 28.6 ft8.71 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 11.7 ft3.56 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 11,030 lb5,003 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 4,100 lb1,860 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 574 ft²53.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 18.53 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 211 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 21.5 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.10 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 7.2 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 336: the short version
- The Hunter 336 is the larger boat at 33.5 ft10.21 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 336 is heavier, displacing about 2208% 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 18.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 336 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 336 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.