# Trek 6500 (2006) or 4500 (2009)..?



## mrmacmusic (15 Dec 2011)

I posted about "sensible bargain buys" over in the equipment forum, but I'm posting here as I think this is a more specific question.

Can someone please tell me what differences to expect between these two Trek models? Would the newer 4500 be a largely similar experience, or does the AlphaSLR frame of the 6500 give it the edge on nimbleness and feel..?

Essentially I'm looking for a bike for weekend off-road fun (nothing too serious) and to keep me going through the winter – I used to have a 2006 model year 6500 so it's familiar territory, but there's a local 4500 (2009) in the same price bracket (£200-250) and it's making me think. Also spotted a Specialized Rockhopper Pro which looks very interesting, but it's a brand I'm not familiar with.


----------



## Silver Fox (15 Dec 2011)

A 2011 Trek 4500 has the same if not slighly better spec than a 2010 Trek 4900 so if the trickle down technology is applied from a 2006 to a 2009 4500 bike the latter model would seem a good buy for your intended use.

Sorry can't help any further.


----------



## mrmacmusic (15 Dec 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> A 2011 Trek 4500 has the same if not slighly better spec than a 2010 Trek 4900 so if the trickle down technology is applied from a 2006 to a 2009 4500 bike the latter model would seem a good buy for your intended use.
> 
> Sorry can't help any further.


Thanks SF  That's what I was wondering... has tech trickled down from the higher spec 6500 of 2006 to the mid-range 4500 of 2009 making them essentially very similar propositions..?

I've looked up the specs of the 4500 (2009) and compared them to my old 6500....

Frame: Alpha Black Aluminium vs Alpha SLR
Fork: Rock Shox Dart 3 (lockout, w/preload, 100mm) vs Manitou Axel Elite (lockout, w/preload, 80mm)
Wheelset: Alloy front hub, Shimano RM30 rear hub vs Shimano M475 hubs
Shifters: Alivio (8-speed) vs Deore
Front Derailleur: Acera vs Deore
Rear Derailleur: Deore vs Deore XT
Crank: M341 (42/32/22) vs M440 (44/32/22)
Cassette: SRAM PG830 11-32 vs SRAM PG950 11/34
Brakeset: Avid SD-3 w/alloy levers vs Shimano M431 w/Tektro alloy levers

It's not all double-Dutch, but it seems that the 6500 is a bit higher specced, although in the real world I'm guessing that only really translates into a small weight saving and perhaps less slick gear changing?


----------



## mrmacmusic (17 Jan 2012)

Can anyone else shed any more light on this one for me please? Still looking to know how the 2009 Trek 4500 would compare in the real world against the older 6500 as outlined above... Thanks!


----------



## Brandane (18 Jan 2012)

Can't help with that; but are you regretting flogging the old 6500? Just to let you know it is running great ! Have just converted it to disc brakes and replaced the bottom bracket. It still hasn't seen any off roading in anger but hoping to rectify that soon . My Tricross tends to get more use, especially in the winter.


----------



## mrmacmusic (18 Jan 2012)

Brandane said:


> Can't help with that; but are you regretting flogging the old 6500? Just to let you know it is running great ! Have just converted it to disc brakes and replaced the bottom bracket. It still hasn't seen any off roading in anger but hoping to rectify that soon . My Tricross tends to get more use, especially in the winter.


Hi Brandane... I presume you're the nice chap that bought the 6500 from me back last Summer then?! Glad to hear it's running great, and yes, I've regretted selling it from the minute you put it in your boot 

Having said that, I would not have started commuting had I not sold it...  ...and I crossed 2000 miles this morning (since last August) 

The replacement Ridgeback Flight was the best financial option at the time (I thought C2W and a Tricross might have been an option), and in many respects, having 2 bikes will probably work out better I think – second-hand MTB for weekend (and evening) fun, either on my own, or with my daughter who's getting an ex-hire Trek Skye for her 11th birthday in a few weeks!

I tried to re-vitalise this post as the two bikes I was looking at pre-Christmas obviously didn't sell and have been re-advertised. Oh, and my wife has given me the OK to get the MTB I need to go light trailing with the wee one... 

So, I'm still curious if I'd feel the 4500 was a step down from what I was used to with the 6500. Anyone?


----------



## Brandane (18 Jan 2012)

mrmacmusic said:


> Hi Brandane... I presume you're the nice chap that bought the 6500 from me back last Summer then?! Glad to hear it's running great, and yes, I've regretted selling it from the minute you put it in your boot


 
Yes 'tis me! As you know, I bought it to replace an identical one which I sold a few years back, and I too regretted selling it. Hope you get the information you need to help you decide on your next MTB.


----------



## mrmacmusic (18 Jan 2012)

Brandane said:


> Yes 'tis me! As you know, I bought it to replace an identical one which I sold a few years back, and I too regretted selling it. Hope you get the information you need to help you decide on your next MTB.


Cheers


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (18 Jan 2012)

mrmacmusic said:


> Thanks SF  That's what I was wondering... has tech trickled down from the higher spec 6500 of 2006 to the mid-range 4500 of 2009 making them essentially very similar propositions..?
> 
> I've looked up the specs of the 4500 (2009) and compared them to my old 6500....
> 
> ...


 
Have you seen this for the 2009 4500? Imho 13.6kg is heavy, but then nearly all low cost mtbs are heavy.

If the 6500 is lightly used, that would be the one I would go for (assuming they are the only choices). Since you had a 6500, you also know what you are getting there. Looking at the spec comparison, I can detect no meaningful progress or advantage in the 2009 (lower series) components vs the 2006 ones, with perhaps the exception of the SD3...

Hope it helps.


----------



## mrmacmusic (19 Jan 2012)

RecordAceFromNew said:


> Have you seen this for the 2009 4500? Imho 13.6kg is heavy, but then nearly all low cost mtbs are heavy.
> 
> If the 6500 is lightly used, that would be the one I would go for (assuming they are the only choices). Since you had a 6500, you also know what you are getting there. Looking at the spec comparison, I can detect no meaningful progress or advantage in the 2009 (lower series) components vs the 2006 ones, with perhaps the exception of the SD3...
> 
> Hope it helps.


Thanks for that RAFN 

The 6500 certainly isn't the only option, but I've been gravitating to the Trek brand because of the sense of familiarity – perhaps I should be more actively looking elsewhere?

What's at the back of my mind – given that I simply can't afford to buy something new, shiny, lightweight and well specced – is that if I got my old bike back, I'd be happy (for now, N=N+1 and all that ) , so I've been focusing my search on the 6500.

I'd gladly be told I'm being daft not looking elsewhere, so please, if someone can point me in the right direction, I'd really appreciate it!


----------



## RecordAceFromNew (19 Jan 2012)

It is always difficult to advice others re which bike to buy, especially secondhand, although that is where value can be stunning.

Fwiw I wouldn't just focus on a 6500, even if it has to be a Trek (which I also wouldn't limit my sight to). For up to £250 I think if you are patient you can get something pretty decent secondhand. A very rough rule of thumb is secondhand price is 1/3rd of new market price at the time when it was sold, with older ones less and newer more assuming condition is good. The 2006 6500 e.g. was £550 listed, so I would expect it to cost under £200 today, which tells me that for £250 I should be able to get something even better for a 2006 bike IF I am patient. The list or market price of the current 6500 is irrelevant imho since its spec, with a set of Reba and discs etc., is nothing like the old one.

I do appreciate however it does depend on where one lives. I live in London so there are numerous choices daily so I might be a bit spoiled.


----------



## mrmacmusic (19 Jan 2012)

RecordAceFromNew said:


> It is always difficult to advice others re which bike to buy, especially secondhand, although that is where value can be stunning.
> 
> Fwiw I wouldn't just focus on a 6500, even if it has to be a Trek (which I also wouldn't limit my sight to). For up to £250 I think if you are patient you can get something pretty decent secondhand. A very rough rule of thumb is secondhand price is 1/3rd of new market price at the time when it was sold, with older ones less and newer more assuming condition is good. The 2006 6500 e.g. was £550 listed, so I would expect it to cost under £200 today, which tells me that for £250 I should be able to get something even better for a 2006 bike IF I am patient. The list or market price of the current 6500 is irrelevant imho since its spec, with a set of Reba and discs etc., is nothing like the old one.
> 
> I do appreciate however it does depend on where one lives. I live in London so there are numerous choices daily so I might be a bit spoiled.


Thanks again – I appreciate the input.

I have been keeping an eye on eBay (and Gumtree), but I'm wary of getting something shipped to me, and local options – so far – have been few and far between, or by my reckoning (and confirmed by your rule of thumb) over-priced.

I've now put a wee post into the "wanted" section here, hoping that someone might offer me something interesting


----------

