Hunter 170 vs Marlow-Hunter 40
How do the Hunter 170 and Marlow-Hunter 40 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 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 41.3 ft12.57 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 36.0 ft10.97 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 13.2 ft4.01 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.2 ft1.57 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 19,700 lb8,936 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 6,027 lb2,734 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 1,006 ft²93.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 22.07 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 188 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 26.2 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 1.95 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 8.0 |
Hunter 170 vs Marlow-Hunter 40: the short version
- The Marlow-Hunter 40 is the larger boat at 41.3 ft12.57 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Marlow-Hunter 40 is heavier, displacing about 4021% 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 22.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Marlow-Hunter 40 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marlow-Hunter 40 rates better for offshore work (1.95 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.