Hunter 170 vs Hunter Passage 42
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter Passage 42 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 170 
Hunter Passage 42 | Hunter 170 | Hunter Passage 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 42.5 ft12.95 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 38.0 ft11.58 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 14.0 ft4.27 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 24,000 lb10,886 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 7,700 lb3,493 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 949 ft²88.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 18.25 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 195 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 28.1 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 1.94 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 8.3 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter Passage 42: the short version
- The Hunter Passage 42 is the larger boat at 42.5 ft12.95 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter Passage 42 is heavier, displacing about 4921% 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 18.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter Passage 42 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter Passage 42 rates better for offshore work (1.94 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.