Three Hunts Provide Propulsion Testing Platform

Boat Tests


  • Hunt
  • Hunt Harrier 36
  • Cruiser
  • 36'6"
  • 11'4"
  • 3'0"
  • 15,500 lb. (fully loaded)
  • 250 gal.
  • 50 gal.

Layout Diagram

Hunt Harrier 36 layout diagram


(2/435-hp Volvo D6 diesels); (2/300-hp Volvo D4 diesels)

The Numbers

Just the Facts Please

Analyzing The Data Reveals The Pros and Cons of Each Package.

The Inboard (2/435-hp Volvo D6 diesels)

Total Fluid Load: 1,256 lb.—129 gal. fuel (922 lb.) and 40 gal. water (334 lb.)
Total Boat Weight (official weight plus Total Fluid Load): 14,688 lb. 

Top Speed: 39 knots @ 3620 rpm, burning 42 gph for 0.93 nmpg

Cruising speed: 32.8 knots @ 3000 rpm, burning 25 gph for 1.31 nmpg
Cruising Speed: 26.9 knots @ 2500 rpm, burning 16 gph for 1.68 nmpg

Inboard Volvo D6 Diesels
Simplicity is the key to the conventional setup, particularly on the underwater side. Props, struts, shafts, rudders ... that’s basically it.
Hunt Harrier 36
Inboard Volvo D6 Diesels
1000 8.0 1.5 1,193 76
1500 11.2 5.9 426 79
2000 18.5 10.0 417 83
2500 26.9 16.0 378 84
3000 32.8 25.0 295 85
3620 39.0 42.0 209 89


The Waterjet (2/435-hp Volvo D6 diesels)

Total Fluid Load: 1,977 lb.—218 gal. fuel (1,559 lb.) and 50 gal. water (418 lb.)
Total Boat Weight (official weight plus Total Fluid Load): 15,921 lb. 

Top speed: 39.7 knots @ 3540 rpm, burning 43 gph for 0.92 nmpg

Cruising speed: 29.5 knots @ 3000 rpm, burning 26 gph for 1.14 nmpg

Cruising speed: 17.3 knots @ 2500 rpm, burning 15 gph for 1.16 nmpg

435-hp Volvo D6 diesels
Fun is the essence of jets. They run in shallower water than most other systems and often produce sports-car-type handling.
Hunt Harrier 36 Waterjet
(2/435-hp Volvo D6 diesels)
1000 5.7 1.3 986 74
1500 7.6 3.1 552 76
2000 9.3 8.9 234 78
2500 17.3 15.0 260 82
3000 29.5 26.0 255 85
3540 39.7 43.0 207 88


The IPS (2/300-hp Volvo D4 diesels)

Total Fluid Load: 1,315 lb.—150 gal. fuel (1,073 lb.) and 29 gal. water (242 lb.)
Total Boat Weight (official weight plus Total Fluid Load): 16,671 lb. 

Top speed: 34.3 knots @ 3400 rpm, burning 29 gph for 1.18 nmpg

Cruising speed: 29.8 knots @ 3000 rpm, burning 21 gph for 1.42 nmpg

Cruising speed: 23 knots @ 2500 rpm, burning 15 gph for 1.53 nmpg

300-hp Volvo D4 diesels
Maneuverability is the IPS forte. Add a trusty joystick and there’s almost no maneuvering situation you can’t easily handle.
Hunt Harrier 36 IPS
(2/300-hp Volvo D4 diesels)
1000 7.3 2.0 817 74
1500 9.7 5.9 368 77
2000 15.8 9.8 363 79
2500 23.0 15.0 345 84
3000 29.8 21.0 320 84
3400 34.3 29.0 266 86


Head To Head To Head

We compare three Hunt 36s with three different drive systems. Which is best?

There are two kinds of powerboaters—those obsessed with engineering nuances like efficiency, reliability, and seaworthiness, and those concerned primarily with the fridge keeping the beer chilled and the satellite TV bringing in a crystal-clear picture on game day. Both love boats in equal measure, just for different reasons. 

This story is aimed at the first group, though I suspect not a few of the second will find it interesting because the subject is one of the most fundamental questions facing anyone choosing a new boat: What’s the best drive system?

In boats 32 feet and up, there are three main choices: straight inboards, waterjets, and pods. (Two other options—outboards and stern drives—are typically restricted to applications like center consoles and high-performance boats.) None of these is perfect; each has advantages and disadvantages that are inherent in its design and are fairly obvious to the experienced boater.

But one thing’s not obvious: Which one is most efficient? The only way to definitively answer that would be to test three identical boats, each with one of the aforementioned drive systems, on the same day, under the same conditions. No one’s ever had the chance to do that until this past June 13th, when Hunt Yachts made available to us three Harrier 36s, one powered by straight inboards, one by Hamilton waterjets, and one by Volvo IPSs.

Now admittedly these boats were not purely identical. The inboard and jet-drive versions were powered by 435-hp Volvo Penta D6 diesels; the third boat had IPS 400s, which come with 300-hp Volvo D4s. Not ideal but theoretically, the IPS’s power deficit would show up as lower speeds but higher fuel efficiency.

Then there’s weight. Because all three were owners’ boats, they’d been ordered with different equipment. The IPS boat had a custom hardtop, 6-kW genset, and 16,000 Btu A/C; the inboard boat was relatively basic—no genset or A/C. The jet was somewhere in between. Fortunately, Hunt was able to supply an official weight for each version of the boat. After subtracting for fluids, here’s what I got: the straight inboard: 13,432 pounds and the jet: 13,944 pounds. Probably because of that hardtop the IPS boat came in heaviest at 15,356 pounds.

Do the weight variations skew the results? For the jet and inboard boats, the answer is no. The IPS boat suffers from an additional 1,924 pounds (by comparison with the inboard), or around 14 percent more. But remember, these weights are without fluids. You’ll see the loads we ran with on test day noted below. And on top of this there were minor discrepancies in the amount of personal gear each boat carried. Still, even with these variances, our trio is as close to identical as we’re ever likely to see. And they were tested at the same temperature and humidity (both of which affect horsepower output), under the same sea conditions, and with three persons aboard.

So how did our trio match up? In the interest of brevity, I’ve synopsized the data. You can see the test results in "The Test" tab of this article.


You can read this data a lot of different ways. I chose to consider weight differences basically a wash, and doing so, what jumps out at me is how well the straight inboard boat did—just 0.7 knots slower than the jet boat and .15 nmpg more fuel-efficient than the economical (but heavier) IPS boat at cruising speed.  

But of course, there’s more to it than data. Each drive system has its advantages. The inboard’s main one is simplicity; the jet drive’s is shallow-water operation and top speed, and the IPS’s is maneuverability via an intuitive joystick system. 

And there’s driving impression, an admittedly personal criterion. I found the jet boat the most fun to drive. With just a turn and a half lock-to-lock and a turning radius of around two boat lengths, it felt more like a personal watercraft than a 36-footer. Its optional UltraJet joystick control made it highly agile dockside but it was far less intuitive than the IPS’s. 

The IPS boat was eminently maneuverable at any speed, but especially at slower ones. However, it exhibited a rather drastic heel in high-speed turns that I hadn’t seen before. I suspect it resulted from the combination of the Harrier’s deep-V hull form (21 degrees at the transom) and the IPS pods’ outboard-angled alignment, which probably had a multiplier affect. Nothing unsafe mind you, but definitely attention grabbing until you get used to it.  

And the straight inboard? I felt comfortable on this boat even though I couldn’t corkscrew it or move it in any direction at the flick of a wrist. It was staid in comparison to the other two boats and yet a thorough pleasure to run. With the optional stern thruster (a bow thruster is standard) it would be nearly as maneuverable as the other two. 

So which one’s best?

Before you draw conclusions, consider ... money. Standard power for the 36 (base price: $556,300) is twin 380-hp Yanmar diesels. The more powerful Volvo D6s in our straight-inboard test boat cost an additional $18,920. The IPS400 option is just $4,730 more, or $26,645 over the base boat—a bargain I’d venture. And that cool waterjet/D6 combo? The option will set you back $92,845, plus another $23,650 for the joystick control. 

So which Harrier 36 would you buy? Before you answer, consider that the ever-accommodating folks at Hunt also offer it with a single diesel ranging from 380 to 480 hp. They say the boat hits 35 knots with the big engine, and it has a base price $88,300 less than the twin base boat. By my back-of-the-envelope calculation—using the time-honored diesel formula: (hp x .4)/7.2 = fuel burn at WOT, it should get 1.311 nmpg at full throttle, and much better as you back off.

Confused? Me too. Sometimes the more options you’re given, the more questions you have. Unfortunately in boating, as in life, there are rarely any easy answers, and anyway, isn’t having more choices a good thing?

Click here for Hunt's contact information and index of articles 

This article originally appeared in the September 2012 issue of Power & Motoryacht magazine.

Vetus Maxwell Tip of the Week

Hot Today

Featured Brands

Costa Palmos logo MCY logo
HMY Yacht Sales logo Volvo Penta logo
Absolute logo Sunseeker

Boat-Name Generator

cube puzzel Thinking of a unique name for your new boat can be tough, that's why we created a Boat Name Generator.
Try it here. ▶

Select Brokerage