1987 Trek 400D Elance vs 1988 Centurion Ironman Expert
01-21-21, 12:40 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
1987 Trek 400D Elance vs 1988 Centurion Ironman Expert
Alright, I've narrowed my craigslist favorites down to 2 bikes...
1987 Trek 400D Elance and 1988 Centurion Ironman Dave Scott Expert.
Both appear to have all oem/stock parts and components...according to their respective catalogs.
Trek is listed at $260 - Metallic Blue
Ironman is listed at $295 - Red/White
Trek = Frame: Reynolds 531 (main tubes)/ RD:Shimano Light Action/ FD: Z-204/ Brakes:Z-570/ Crank: SR SX etc.
VS
Ironman = Frame: Tange#1/ Complete Shimano 105 group
If their conditions are equal, what would you guys prefer?
Thanks in advance.
1987 Trek 400D Elance and 1988 Centurion Ironman Dave Scott Expert.
Both appear to have all oem/stock parts and components...according to their respective catalogs.
Trek is listed at $260 - Metallic Blue
Ironman is listed at $295 - Red/White
Trek = Frame: Reynolds 531 (main tubes)/ RD:Shimano Light Action/ FD: Z-204/ Brakes:Z-570/ Crank: SR SX etc.
VS
Ironman = Frame: Tange#1/ Complete Shimano 105 group
If their conditions are equal, what would you guys prefer?
Thanks in advance.
01-21-21, 07:42 AM
#2
Senior Member
No slouches here! I like the Trek for the 531 frame, investment cast lugs and triple crank. The proof is in the ride. Go try both and let us know how they feel to you.
01-21-21, 08:40 AM
#3
aka: Dr. Cannondale
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,725
Mentioned: 234 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2152 Post(s)
Liked 3,401 Times
in
1,203 Posts
If both are the same size and both fit you, I'd go for the one on the best condition. Neither is a bad bike, but if all other things are equal, I'd go with the Ironman.
105 of that era is superior to Exage, but not by a whole bunch. Pretty much everything Shimano made in the late 80's is bulletproof.
105 of that era is superior to Exage, but not by a whole bunch. Pretty much everything Shimano made in the late 80's is bulletproof.
__________________
Hard at work in the Secret Underground Laboratory...
Hard at work in the Secret Underground Laboratory...
01-21-21, 10:14 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,283
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1135 Post(s)
Liked 1,727 Times
in
951 Posts
I think it boils down to which geometry do you think is better for you. The Ironman is more race 74' seattube, the Trek is probably 72'.
Are you planing on racks or fenders? The Trek is probably better for that.
Are you planing on racks or fenders? The Trek is probably better for that.
01-21-21, 01:35 PM
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks for the insights everyone!
01-23-21, 10:16 AM
#6
Member
FYI this is an ebay listing for a 1987 Trek 400D that has expired at least twice at $100 plus $75 shipping. Possibly because it claims to be a 51 cm frame. The head tube looks awfully large to be a 51 cm.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/19386063581...m=193860635815
https://www.ebay.com/itm/19386063581...m=193860635815
01-23-21, 10:44 AM
#7
Member
The 400D is a 73.5' seat tube, 73' head tube (for 22.5" frame and up, angle is smaller on the smaller frames) The frame geometry is the same as the Trek 560 (that year's race bike) with the exception of the chain stay and the fork offset. The 400D had a 42.5 cm chain stay vs 41.5 cm and 4.5 cm fork offset vs 4.2 cm
From Centurion Ironman Expert (1987-1989)
The Ironman is a 73' seat tube, 74.5' head tube, 4 cm fork offset, 41 cm chain stay
01-23-21, 07:58 PM
#8
Edumacator
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 6,775
Bikes: '87 Crestdale, '87 Basso Gap, '92 Rossin Performance EL-OS, 1990 VanTuyl, 1980s Losa, 1985 Trek 670, 1982 AD SLE, 1987 PX10, etc...
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2434 Post(s)
Liked 3,107 Times
in
1,957 Posts
I always thought the Ironman geometry was more race-y, while my experience with the Trek Elance is that it is brisk, but comfortable and stable.
I am not a fan of Treks as many here are, but they got the Elance just right, especially with the triple..
I am not a fan of Treks as many here are, but they got the Elance just right, especially with the triple..
__________________
1987 Crest Cannondale, 1987 Basso Gap, 1992 Rossin Performance EL, 1990ish Van Tuyl, 1985 Trek 670, 1982 AD SLE, 2003 Pinarello Surprise, 1990ish MBK Atlantique, 1987 Peugeot Competition, 1987 Nishiki Tri-A, 1981 Faggin, 1996 Cannondale M500, 1984 Mercian, 1982 AD SuperLeicht, 1985 Massi (model unknown), 1988 Daccordi Griffe , 1989 Fauxsin MTB, 1981 Ciocc Mockba, 1992 Bianchi Giro, 1977 Colnago Super
1987 Crest Cannondale, 1987 Basso Gap, 1992 Rossin Performance EL, 1990ish Van Tuyl, 1985 Trek 670, 1982 AD SLE, 2003 Pinarello Surprise, 1990ish MBK Atlantique, 1987 Peugeot Competition, 1987 Nishiki Tri-A, 1981 Faggin, 1996 Cannondale M500, 1984 Mercian, 1982 AD SuperLeicht, 1985 Massi (model unknown), 1988 Daccordi Griffe , 1989 Fauxsin MTB, 1981 Ciocc Mockba, 1992 Bianchi Giro, 1977 Colnago Super
01-23-21, 09:04 PM
#9
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I ended up paying 240 for the Trek. Whether that is a good deal or not, I have my first road bike! Happy riding, friends!
01-24-21, 03:51 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: South of the Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,121
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1119 Post(s)
Liked 2,248 Times
in
1,308 Posts
I think you did well. That blue photographs well, but looks even better in person in the sunlight- deep with a nice metal flake. Hopefully soon you'll be able to post some pics!
