Hunter 170 vs Hunter 36 Vision
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 36 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 170 | Hunter 36 Vision | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 36.0 ft10.97 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 31.0 ft9.45 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 12.8 ft3.89 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 4.7 ft1.42 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 15,500 lb7,031 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 5,900 lb2,676 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 677 ft²62.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 17.42 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 232 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 24.8 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 7.5 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 36 Vision: the short version
- The Hunter 36 Vision is the larger boat at 36.0 ft10.97 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 36 Vision is heavier, displacing about 3143% 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 17.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 36 Vision scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 36 Vision rates better for offshore work (2.05 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.