Hunter 170 vs Hunter 386
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 386 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 170 
Hunter 386 | Hunter 170 | Hunter 386 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 38.3 ft11.66 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 12.6 ft3.83 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 16,000 lb7,257 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 5,900 lb2,676 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 740 ft²68.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 18.65 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 218 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 25.0 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.00 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 7.6 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 386: the short version
- The Hunter 386 is the larger boat at 38.3 ft11.66 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 386 is heavier, displacing about 3247% 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 18.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 386 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 386 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.