Trek vs Specialized MTBs

[mellic]

I would pick the specialized! Sure the specialized costs a little more than the trek, but look at the differences in components.

The specialized stumpjumper hardtail disc retails at US$1600, and it comes with fox RL forks, avid brakes, xt/lx components, and the frame is a light M4 alloy.

In comparison the trek WSD 6500 retails at US$910, and it comes with manitou axel forks, hayes sole brakes, deore/bontrager components, and the frame is alpha aluminum.

The specialized will be lighter and a sweeter ride.

If you are after a women's specific design then you might want to consider getting the stumpjumper WSD (US$1400). It does come with cantilever brakes, but I would ask your LBS how much it would cost to switch them for disc brakes.

[allabouteva]

OK, my view is going to be terribly biased, but DH has a stumpjumper (the dually kind) and not being a fantastic MTBer, he let me ride this and I have to say it's fabulous. The fox shox and the avid juicy brakes are pretty fantastic and worth every cent. As a mate said, it's like sitting on your lounge at home watching tv (in other words, bit of a cushy ride)!

But you should testdrive the bikes you want to get, and then decide what works best for you. Obviously price is also a factor...

[gr8lakesgurl]

I went back and forth between specialized and trek also, I ended up with the specialized because it fit better, I'm very very happy with it!

I would go with the one that fits you best

[bcipam]

I'm not a Trek fan so I start out prejudiced but think of it this way... Specialized has been in the MTB market for as long as MTB bikes have been around. I bought one of their first - the Rockhopper COmp back in the 80's! Their technology is solid and so is their reputation. I had a cracked frame and they totally replaced the frame and updated all the components all at no cost to me. They have also tried to place the best components for the money on their bikes.

Trek is a road bike manufacturer who more recently entered the MTB world cause well, there's alot of money in it. They haven't really gotten their act together. They bought Fisher in order to get that technology and I would consider a Cake before a Fuel anyday.

[SadieKate]

Not going to dispute Trek over Specialized. Have no current knowledge of either, but I owned Trek mtbikes in the 80s.

[bcipam]

Not going to dispute Trek over Specialized. Have no current knowledge of either, but I owned Trek mtbikes in the 80s.

Since I don't remember ever seeing Trek MTBikes in the 80's I looked it up. They did make what appeared to be a mountain bike the, Trek 850, which they made uo until 1989 when they came out with the 970. Both bikes look more like sport/hybrids but then so did most MTBikes in the 80's. In 1991 they came out with the 8500 which now starts looking like a mountain bike (it was a hardtail with about 2" of front travel) and in 1992 they came out with a full suspension bike.

I don't recall seeing any of these back when. They may have been more popular back East or the midwest then here on the west coast. Here, most folks were riding Specialized early on.

That is one things - bikes are regionalized. Out here you see alot of Santa Cruz and Turners, probably not so much back east.

Again I do like SPecialized cause I've had alot of bikes by them and I know they take care of their customers. I just haven't heard the same about Trek.

[SadieKate]

I could have saved you the effort since it was my first mountain bike -- 1986 dark green Antelope 850. The original mountain bikes were fully rigid so it didn't "appear to be a mountain bike," it was one. I can go get it out of my mother's garage if you feel the need to see it in person.

Thank goodness the spiffy roller cam brake they came with died a quick death. Happy hour design brilliance, let's put the brake underneath the chainstays so it will collect even more mud.

[madisongrrl]

I'm not a fan of Trek and I really love Specialized but I'm not very impressed with the Women's specialized bikes. Trek is doing a much nicer job than Specialized is right now. The top of the line full suspension Specialized women's bikes are not that great. They have given the men's lines the Brain shocks, yet still the womens bike gets the Fox Triad. That sucks! The top of the line women's Trek is way better (Fuel EX 9's). It has better wheels and lots of carbon pieces. I really dislike Trek bikes, but I did buy the Trek EX 9 instead of the Specialized Stumpjuper FSR Women's Expert. The Trek was hands down the better bike....

Since I don't remember ever seeing Trek MTBikes in the 80's I looked it up. They did make what appeared to be a mountain bike the, Trek 850, which they made uo until 1989 when they came out with the 970. Both bikes look more like sport/hybrids but then so did most MTBikes in the 80's. In 1991 they came out with the 8500 which now starts looking like a mountain bike (it was a hardtail with about 2" of front travel) and in 1992 they came out with a full suspension bike.

I don't recall seeing any of these back when. They may have been more popular back East or the midwest then here on the west coast. Here, most folks were riding Specialized early on.

That is one things - bikes are regionalized. Out here you see alot of Santa Cruz and Turners, probably not so much back east.

Again I do like SPecialized cause I've had alot of bikes by them and I know they take care of their customers. I just haven't heard the same about Trek.