Hunter 170 vs Hunter 36-2
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 36-2 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 170 
Hunter 36-2 | Hunter 170 | Hunter 36-2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 35.5 ft10.82 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 31.3 ft9.53 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 6.4 ft1.96 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 13,900 lb6,305 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 5,023 lb2,278 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 632 ft²58.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 17.49 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 203 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 24.1 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.00 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 7.5 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 36-2: the short version
- The Hunter 36-2 is the larger boat at 35.5 ft10.82 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 36-2 is heavier, displacing about 2808% 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 17.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 36-2 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 36-2 rates better for offshore work (2.00 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.