Hunter 170 vs Hunter 36
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 36 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 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 35.9 ft10.95 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 29.5 ft8.99 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 11.1 ft3.38 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 13,500 lb6,123 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 6,000 lb2,722 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 604 ft²56.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 17.05 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 235 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 27.0 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 1.86 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 7.3 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 36: the short version
- The Hunter 36 is the larger boat at 35.9 ft10.95 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 36 is heavier, displacing about 2724% 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 17.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 36 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 36 rates better for offshore work (1.86 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.