Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic and Vintage Bicycles: Whats it Worth? Appraisals.
Reload this Page >

1987 Trek 400D Elance vs 1988 Centurion Ironman Expert

Notices
Classic and Vintage Bicycles: Whats it Worth? Appraisals. Use this subforum for all requests as to "How much is this vintage bike worth?"Do NOT try to sell it in here, use the Marketplaces.

1987 Trek 400D Elance vs 1988 Centurion Ironman Expert

Old 01-21-21, 12:40 AM
  #1  
austinhealey
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.
austinhealey is offline  
Old 01-21-21, 07:42 AM
  #2  
bargainguy
Senior Member
 
bargainguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Trekland
Posts: 1,940
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 386 Post(s)
Liked 78 Times in 54 Posts
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.
bargainguy is offline  
Old 01-21-21, 08:40 AM
  #3  
rccardr 
aka: Dr. Cannondale
 
rccardr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,266

Bikes: Lots. Just...lots.

Mentioned: 174 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1451 Post(s)
Liked 617 Times in 322 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.
__________________
Hard at work in the Secret Underground Laboratory...
rccardr is offline  
Old 01-21-21, 10:14 AM
  #4  
Mr. 66
Senior Member
 
Mr. 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 471 Post(s)
Liked 319 Times in 234 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.
Mr. 66 is offline  
Old 01-21-21, 01:35 PM
  #5  
austinhealey
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
Originally Posted by bargainguy View Post
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.
It will be just a double crank. Designated by the D in 400D.

Originally Posted by Mr. 66 View Post
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.
Since the Trek looks to be in slightly better condition in the pictures, I may add a rack in the future, and it's cheaper, I think I will check it out first.

Thanks for the insights everyone!
​​​​​​​
austinhealey is offline  
Old 01-23-21, 10:16 AM
  #6  
wesley77803
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 22

Bikes: 1989 Trek 660, 1985 Trek 620

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 3 Posts
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
wesley77803 is offline  
Old 01-23-21, 10:44 AM
  #7  
wesley77803
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 22

Bikes: 1989 Trek 660, 1985 Trek 620

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr. 66 View Post
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.
From the catalog at vintage-trek.com
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
wesley77803 is offline  
Old 01-23-21, 07:58 PM
  #8  
jdawginsc 
Edumacator
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 1,418

Bikes: '87 Crestdale, '87 Basso Gap, '92 Rossin Performance EL-OS, Faggin Matrix thingy

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 421 Post(s)
Liked 317 Times in 211 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..
__________________
1987 Crest Cannondale, 1987 Basso Gap, 1992 Rossin Performance EL, 1990ish Van Tuyl, 1980s Vanni Losa Cassani thingy, 1988 Faggin Matrix with not Matrix tubes, 1990ish MBK Atlantique, 1982 Rossin Record, 1987 Trek Elance

jdawginsc is offline  
Old 01-23-21, 09:04 PM
  #9  
austinhealey
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!
austinhealey is offline  
Old 01-24-21, 03:51 PM
  #10  
Clang
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: South of the Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 3,620
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 685 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times in 245 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!
Clang is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.