Hunter 170 vs Hunter Passage 450
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter Passage 450 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 Passage 450 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 44.3 ft13.49 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 38.6 ft11.76 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 14.0 ft4.27 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 26,180 lb11,875 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 9,680 lb4,391 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 884 ft²82.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 16.04 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 204 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 29.9 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 1.89 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 8.3 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter Passage 450: the short version
- The Hunter Passage 450 is the larger boat at 44.3 ft13.49 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter Passage 450 is heavier, displacing about 5377% 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 16.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter Passage 450 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter Passage 450 rates better for offshore work (1.89 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.