Hunter 170 vs Hunter Xcite
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter Xcite 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 Xcite | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 9.9 ft3.02 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | —— |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 4.4 ft1.35 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 3.2 ft0.97 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 95 lb43 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 46 ft²4.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 35.35 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | — |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | — |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 3.88 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | — |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter Xcite: the short version
- The Hunter 170 is the larger boat at 17.1 ft5.21 m LOA versus 9.9 ft3.02 m for the Hunter Xcite.
- The Hunter 170 is heavier, displacing about 403% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter Xcite carries the more powerful rig (35.4 vs 35.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 170 rates better for offshore work (3.58 vs 3.88).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.