Hunter 170 vs Marlow-Hunter 31
How do the Hunter 170 and Marlow-Hunter 31 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 | Marlow-Hunter 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 32.4 ft9.86 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 29.7 ft9.04 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 11.8 ft3.61 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.4 ft1.65 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 11,854 lb5,377 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,380 lb1,533 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 581 ft²54.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 17.88 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 203 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 22.4 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.08 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 7.3 |
Hunter 170 vs Marlow-Hunter 31: the short version
- The Marlow-Hunter 31 is the larger boat at 32.4 ft9.86 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Marlow-Hunter 31 is heavier, displacing about 2380% 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 17.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Marlow-Hunter 31 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marlow-Hunter 31 rates better for offshore work (2.08 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.