LBCwanabe 

At first glance this appears to be Scwinn’s answer to Trek’s 520. Let’s discuss.

OTS 

I would consider the Schwinn Passage a kissin' cousin of the Schwinn Voyager.
From this post on BF a brief summary:

Details:

• The Passage was only made one year, 1986, and both frames were made using double-butted Columbus Tenax tubes.
• The Passage has frame angles of 72.5 ht and 72.5 st vs Voyageur's 72 ht and 74 st
• The Passage fork doesn't have low-rider mounts, and the catalog claims it's hi-ten vs Voyageur's crmo fork
• Catalog Passage weight: 25 with a rear rack
• Catalog Voyageur weight: 24 without a rear rack

Trek 520 not as much

wrk101

Agree, I think the Voyageur and in particular, the Voyageur S/P were fine touring machines. IMO. Schwinn hit their touring peak with the 1983 SP. Came with stock front and rear racks, Tange Champion DB frame.


1984 and 1985 Voyageur SP were fine bikes too, had a Columbus SL frame, but lost the factory racks.

bark_eater 

I think you need to identify specific vintage of Trek 520 you want to compare the Passage with. I think there were at least 3 "different" Trek 520's during the 80's.

AngryFrankie

I think for some years, early to mid 80s, Panasonic Pro Touring = Schwinn Voyageur, Panasonic Touring Deluxe = Schwinn Passage.

LBCwanabe 

Trek’s 720 & 520 (‘83-84) remind me of Voyageur & Passage respectively. Trek had the 620 which at a glance reminds me of Super Le Tour.

bboy314

There was also a later version of the Passage, which was more of a road than touring bike. Must not have been made for long as I’ve only ever seen one or two.


pic stolen from the internet

bark_eater 

I've got a beat up 86 Passage, and I'm hoping that its Columbus tubing will make it a bit sportier than heavy tourer.

greatscott

I think 85 was the peak for all Schwinn models, including the touring models. Coming with or without the racks was no big deal since they were just cheap aluminum racks, and didn't cost that much to buy aftermarket, Schwinn was assuming most people were not using those bikes for touring, and since they upgraded the bikes in 85 they had to cut cost somewhere so the racks went out the window. Schwinn went from Tange Champion #2 tubeset used int 83 to Columbus Tenax SP/SL mix, along with a better fork in 85, this lightened the bike from 27 pounds in 83 to 22 pounds in 85, yet the newer lighter tubeset proved to be plenty strong for touring, though neither bike were rated for expedition type of touring, but neither were bikes from Trek or Miyata, etc. Which surprises me that modern touring bikes have to weigh at least 10 pounds more than they did back them and camping gear is lighter now than it was back then which enables touring people to carry less weight now, weird.

in 85 Schwinn also went from DiaComp 960 to 980 brakes, the 980 were cold forged aluminum and thus a lot less flex then the older 960, while weight a bit less; the hubs were upgraded in 85 as was the headset; plus other upgrades.

The 83 Voyageur SP had loosely more in common with 85 Schwinn Le Tour Luxe than either the 85 Voyageur SP or the Voyageur; and the LeTour Luxe came with rear racks.

The Golden Boy 

I think of it in terms of the basic hierarchy-

720 = Voyageur SP - top of the line
620 = Voyageur - 2nd from top
520 = Le Tour Luxe 3rd from top

But by 1986, the 620 and 720 were gone and the 520 was not a loaded tourer as well as Schwinn cancelled the Voyageur SP leaving just the Voyageur.

So basically, you had the Voyageur as top of the line and Passage as the 2nd from top.

Looking at the specs for the Passage- it's pretty close to putting the components of an 85 620 on an 85 Le Tour Luxe.

Despite the HiTen stays and fork, I'd consider it more 620 than 520.