Why does Hunter have a bad name?

[Sailboat.Sequoyah]

Just to add another anecdotal opinion to the topic: Sequoyah is a 22-year-old 340, shoal draft, mast furling. I wouldn't want to take her across an ocean, but she wasn't designed for that. I bought her for coastal cruising. She's a fine boat for it, quick & nimble, sturdy & steady, comfortable below and spacious in the cockpit. Hunter did her well.

 

[MFD]

Yes, get the correct tool for the job. I certainly have an appreciation for more advanced materials and more advanced design work to take care of that, but simple things from modest offshore work where the boat is simply was not originally (I would not say designed) built for that job is different? Pics below - half-tabbing even though the laminate was removed such that it was expected bulkhead would be tabbed on both sides. Cracked bow thruster tube from using spiral exhaust-style tubing instead of proper marine grade. Having to put in cabinetry so there are additional handholds in the 'spacious' wife and/or latest f-buddy friend main salon? Don't even get me started on the cutesy doors for easy ingress/egress while tide up at a safe marina with good security that would never be able to take a few tons of water coming over the stern without a giant hole opening up, much less some locals with a crowbar looking to pick up some free electronics and other personal possessions. Or the entire companion way stairs having no positive attachment so if things get really bad, that ~50 pounds with sharp corners will just come loose and poke holes in windows wherever it wants.

Definitely not a Hunter basher after having owned the 41DS for ~5 years now. Once again, not surprised with the limitations. I think overall for this boat if she was built better the design could actually be workable.

Get the right tool for the job, and I think actually Hunter has done a good job. The electrical wiring (aside from some original dealer added items) are done extremely well. Similar with many other systems on the boat for simple and easy maintenance, which by definition means maintenance will be done.

 

[Stu Hudson]

Because Hunter Marlow dumped on all the Hunter owners who purchased their boats before HM took over. HM claimed they were a different company so they didn’t have to honor Hunter warranties while they were still celebrating Hunter’s 40th Anniversary - having there cake and eating it too so to speak. You can’t do this to customers without developing a bad name. I sold my 2008 H36 shortly after this, which btw had problems too numerous to list. Needless to say, I took a big hit on the sale—had to almost give it away. I stay a member of this forum waiting for the opportunity to let everyone know what a terrible unscrupulous company HM is. This is why Hunter has a bad name—no doubt.

 

[mjsb]

I am a new used Hunter owner, I looked at a lot of boats

 

[mjsb]

I am a new used Hunter owner, I looked at a lot of boats

I hate phones. Like I was saying, quite a few boats. You buy a 30 year old boat and it needs work compare to a house they need work. What I have learned in the past 6 months is that if the previous owners didn’t keep it up then a boats going to be problems, I don’t care about make or model. When repairs are made make them well, right material, right craftsman ship. You’ll end up wit a great boat. Time is the key. I like my little 31. She’s got nice lines, decent speed and the accommodations are what you make them. As others have said, the products installed are all decent. Not a lot of frills, and materials change over time. My boat is solid and fairly dry, the issues I have on it can be traced to lack of maintenance. A good boat, the sailor makes the boat.

 

[shemandr]

My H 356 didn't have a bad reputation with me. Truthfully, I didn't like the (Selden) in mast furling but I think it was a great boat. I felt its systems were well thought out, organized and well engineered. And it sailed well. I think the disrespect for the brand was dis-information created by competitors who were losing market share. Hunter innovated in a staid market and were punished for it. You got a lot of boat for your money. As for the recent warrantee issues, that wasn't even the Hunter company of yore. So the reputation issue existed long before Marlow/Hunter as I see it.

 

[SandyFrank]

Because Hunter Marlow dumped on all the Hunter owners who purchased their boats before HM took over. HM claimed they were a different company so they didn’t have to honor Hunter warranties while they were still celebrating Hunter’s 40th Anniversary - having there cake and eating it too so to speak. You can’t do this to customers without developing a bad name. I sold my 2008 H36 shortly after this, which btw had problems too numerous to list. Needless to say, I took a big hit on the sale—had to almost give it away. I stay a member of this forum waiting for the opportunity to let everyone know what a terrible unscrupulous company HM is. This is why Hunter has a bad name—no doubt.

They definitely screwed the brand further through their bankruptcy. Unfortunately the attitude is not unique, Beneteau group has been fairly miserable during the current Lagoon issues.

 

[Crazy Dave Condon]

My H 356 didn't have a bad reputation with me. Truthfully, I didn't like the (Selden) in mast furling but I think it was a great boat. I felt its systems were well thought out, organized and well engineered. And it sailed well. I think the disrespect for the brand was dis-information created by competitors who were losing market share. Hunter innovated in a staid market and were punished for it. You got a lot of boat for your money. As for the recent warrantee issues, that wasn't even the Hunter company of yore. So the reputation issue existed long before Marlow/Hunter as I see it.

As a former dealer for Hunter with a close relationship with the founder and owner, Warren Luhrs, @shemandr. Said it best. Many innovations started with Hunter and were well known for warranty reliance.

The big mistake was combining Hunter Marine with the three power boat companies under one umbrella with the profits made by Hunter to support the power side. Recession took the group down. Thus Hunter was forced into bankruptcy.

Marlo Hunter bought Hunter thru bankruptcy and is a different company. They are not required to warranty the former Hunter Marine.
As for the dealers for Hunter, most never spoke harshly about the competition as many had multiple dealerships while others who did not represent Hunter did. I was a Hunter dealer also representing Beneteau and Catalina. When interviewing salesmen , I made them go to used car lots and come back telling me what they did not like. The number 1 complaint was negative comments about other car manufacturer s. They were hired as negative comments would not be tolerated

FYI @SandyFrank

 

[DCGULL]

As a former 'Hunter Hater', I think I can answer the question of why? Way back (step back into the 1980's, please) Hunter had a very ugly deck/hull joint and anything & everything above it looked like the deck of a enormous cargo carrier. Those boats were ugly. Then, Hunter got swept up in the Center Cockpit thing, and it returned to the massively & eye distressing cargo carrier deck look that so hurt the aesthetic appeal. So many 'old salts' would shake their fists at those owners & complain that UGLY as sin is as bad as cheap.
Then, on a single model, for a very short period of time- Hunter suffered extreme hull osmosis. It wasn't all boats, merely 1 or two models and once identified- production was fixed and 'the problem' stopped occurring. I'm not sure what Hunter did to address the issue with owners, but- regardless, they became the butt of every sailor as 'the worst boat ever built'. Hmmm, seems harsh, but it did unify sailors for a little while.
Remember, this was 40 & 30 YEARS ago, so- it slips from memory of the average sailor of today. But, tons of armchair sailors want you to buy full keel 60,000 Lb. displacement hulls to sail on any pond 'just in case'! Even those original CC's that were topdeck ugly had no issues of build quality, longevity or safety- owners would laugh as they loved their full comfort vessels at those who shook their fists at them!
Somewhere in the mists of time past, Hunter figured out a very strong Hull/Deck joint that didn't require an ugly top deck, even though they 'kept' the high freeboard that still identifies the boats in every harbor. If you are considering buying a boat, Hunter makes so exceptionally nice ones and most have more amenities from the factory- go ahead, they are great boats. No manufacturer has been so bad to remain in business for decades with buyers- year after year.
BTW, I'm considering a used boat purchase and build out for a possible circumnavigation. Guess what? Hunter's 41 (AC & DS) and 44's are the top (3) vessels under consideration. Why? B & R rig & the traveler arch, and shaft driven motor. The right size (LWL over 35'), well designed & sturdy hulls with plenty of arch options (mount solar panels, wind generators, dinghy davits, radio antennas), lots of possible sail area down low for comfortable sailing with less heeling. No, it's not a deep keel, 60,000 Lb. vessel but closer to 'right' than many other vessels with similar dimensions. So, if you're looking for a weekender, an island hopper, a sturdy Great Lake boat and obviously a coastal cruiser- you could do worse. (Your mileage may vary, of course!)

 

[fullbore]

Yes, my memory was very old - about 4 decades ago on a little ~26’ hunter that was probably 10-20 yrs old at the time (circa 1970-1980s).
Short and beamy. Slipped so much seemed to move sideways as much as forward.

(Maybe spoiled then by 1962 full keel Triton.)