Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,429

    Razorback 4.0 vs. Fuel 90

    Understanding that different bikes were built for different purposes I'd like to propose a question to those in the K2 forum and also in the Trek forum. I'm looking at buying one of two frames on the cheap. Either a 2003 K2 Razorback 4.0 with a Fox Float RL shock or a 2002 Trek Fuel 90 with a Fox Float Shock. Aside from the rear shocks, all the other componants would be the same.

    Here's the questions:

    1. What would be the strengths and weaknesses of each bike when compared with each other.

    2. What type of riding is the K2 best at, where does it stumble? Same with the Trek Fuel 90.

    3. Overall, which do you think is the better bike and why?

    4. What's the rear travel on the K2 and what's the rear travel on the Trek?

    Thanks
    Nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    968

    Smile

    I had the k2 razorback Team 2003--with the carbon stays (same frame as the 4.0).

    Highs: Climbing-pretty much unbeatable especially on short-steep, rutted "bulldog" muscle climbs--never rode anything that handled those climbs better. It's a very efficient design, not very plush, but snappy and fun. Tight turns are a delight on this bike-it rails through new englands tight trees. Also-it took a good beating from me (crashes, hard rides, rock rocks and more rocks) and it held up well. The razorback also had more of a general 'rugged' feel than most short travel xc bikes--it was a good advebture companion--I liked it so much--I bought another k2--the apache 6.0--a dynamite bike in the same tradition of the razorback.

    Lows: I always feels racy-very steep head angle-it responds well to rider input and white knuckled manipulation--but fall asleep at the wheel in a technical section and you can go over the bar in a heart beat. It's a thorobred-and you have to ride it-not let it ide you. I personally enjoy that--some might not.

    How's it stack up with the Trek Fuel?? Well, the Macpherson-strut pull shock is a classic design-and K2's version is the most celebrated example-it'd certainly be more eye-catching and unique than the omnipresent trek fuel. I've Never heard much in the way of complaints from fuel owners about their bikes---but I've never heard raves either.

    I'm plumping for the Razorback!

    Liam

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,429
    Thanks for your input. I'm leaning towards the K2 but am still undecided. I'm used to riding a Kona hard tail and it seems like the K2 will be more similar to this than the Trek.
    Nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: go-pirates's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    519
    Yeah, I'll agree with Superbman on the feel of the Razorback. It does have a racy feel (as I'm guessing the Fuel does too), but it IS pretty doggone rugged. I've always used mine as a trailbike, and I beat it up pretty good. No complaints after @ 5 years (200 lbs of butt and gut) with the exception of blowing my Noleen Mega Air. I switched over to the Fox Float RL and have had better performance with no maintenance issues (knocking on wood). As a side note, it took forever to get the replacement shock and strut because K2 dealers (at least in my area) are few and far between. Might be something to consider if you ever need a K2 specific part. I think either frame would be a good choice, but my biased pick is the Razorback.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    185
    I also agree w/ what SuperbMan said, pretty much word for word (& now I dont have to type out a long response ) I never did use my Rzbks as trail only bikes, they were all pretty much set up as race machines. However, if I was going to go on an epic ride I would have most definitely chosen the trusty Rzbk. As for reliability goes, if you ride it how it is intended (XC type) & stay away from BIG air it will hold up fine. If you try to ride it like a 6" travel bike (big drops & such) the first thing to go will be the chainstay/swingarm & I'm pretty certain the supply of replacements at WWC is running short. If you ever need one I have a brand new chainstay (black) & a new carbon strut (disc only) that I would be willing to part with for a decent price. Another thing to note is that the custom Fox Float pull shocks are probably not going to be around forever either so thats something to consider. One last thing, make sure you have enough seatpost in the frame. Dont try to ride a size too small.

    As for the Fuel, I know a couple of people who really like them. However, they didnt have them too long & now ride something else so who knows what the deal is.

    Good luck!
    DP

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,429
    Thanks for all the input guys. I think I will go with the K2. I'm getting it cheap enough that if the frame only lasts a year, I'll be okay with it (though I'm sure and I hope it'll last more). I mainly ride aggresive type xc: small stair steps and drops. Probably the biggest drop I've attempted was 2.5 to 3 ft (note the word attempted ). I figure if I want to do anything like that or more, I'll just use my steel ht.

    DCPX -- If I ever need those parts, I'll contact you.

    Thanks alot guys and I'll post pics when I get it built up.
    Nothing but sincerity as far as the eye can see!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •