# Price on used 2010 trek 2.3?



## snoflewis (Aug 5, 2009)

there's someone selling a used 2010 trek 2.3 around me. what would be a reasonable price to offer? according to the buyer, it has less than 200 miles on it. there seems to be no visible flaws from pictures.


----------



## karlmichael (Sep 17, 2009)

*try 1200*

i would try 1200 because you dont get the factory warrenty with the bike. you could go out and get a new 2.3 with the factory warrenty and free service for a year for 1700. 200 miles is not alot and the full 105 group is nice. dont go over 1200-1300. im sure he might want more but he is just being greedy. hope you get this bike

karl

keep on riding


----------



## snoflewis (Aug 5, 2009)

would i be able to get the warranty and service if he gave me the original receipt?


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

snoflewis said:


> would i be able to get the warranty and service if he gave me the original receipt?


Short Answer:

No.

Trek's warranty is online. (Too lazy right now to find the link), but it applies to original owner only.

Alternate Answer:
Trek (actually their local rep) sometimes doesn't really check the receipts. They rely on their network of dealers to do that. So I suppose given the right circumstances a defect of the warranty type might be honored. But this is a big "might" and I certainly wouldn't hang my hat on it.

As to price ~1000. The wheels are crap if stock, but otherwise it is a very solid bike. I am thinking of one for my new winter/rain bike.

zac


----------



## snoflewis (Aug 5, 2009)

well...the owner says he hasn't registered the bike yet. as good as $1k might sound, do bikes depreciate in value a lot? i dont want to lowball and sound like im not taking it seriously.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

snoflewis said:


> well...the owner says he hasn't registered the bike yet. as good as $1k might sound, do bikes depreciate in value a lot? i dont want to lowball and sound like im not taking it seriously.


Some dealers register the bike at point of sale. I don't know how you would check that.

It's not that they depreciate that much, but Treks come at a bit of a premium to begin with partly due to the excellent warranty. I understand you don't want to low ball, I just don't think it's a low ball offer. For the fun of it I just looked up my local shop...an 08 Caad 9 6 for a $1099 (I know it's not a Trek), an 09 Trek 2.3 for $1499. While it's not a 2010, I don't think the '10 has anything on it that the '08, '09s did.


----------



## karlmichael (Sep 17, 2009)

*another reason*

the 2.3 in 2010 frame set trek stopped using carbon on the rear triangle. my friend just got a 2009 2.1 but the 2.3 in the shop did not have the carbon rear. also use that bit of info to help lower the price. 

karl


----------



## easyridernyc (Jan 10, 2008)

1000 would be a steal

IF it has as little use as he says. that's a nice bike, i seen it in local lbs for more than the 17. and it sounds like it is still pretty new

too bad about the stays...


----------



## Doug B (Sep 11, 2009)

easyridernyc said:


> 1000 would be a steal
> 
> IF it has as little use as he says. that's a nice bike, i seen it in local lbs for more than the 17. and it sounds like it is still pretty new
> 
> too bad about the stays...


Yep. I got a 2009 2.3 at the very last minute. Carbon stays. But, I like the paint on the 2010 much better. Wonder if I'd even notice the difference in the stays?

With my bike on the trainer, I can look down, and see the fram flexing, the seat post flexing. I focus on my form, to eliminate the side-to-side motion that is causing the flexing.


----------



## easyridernyc (Jan 10, 2008)

the stays definitely make a difference in the comfort of the ride, you get bounced around a little bit less in the saddle when you hit bumpy terrain. 

the 2.3 is a nice bike, the compact 105, the madone geometry, not bad/decent wheelset, not cheap, but kinda worth the money. and btw that flexing motion is not gonna be in the carbon post...carbon does not bend, it breaks. 

btw what color did you get and how much did you pay? just curious...


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

Carbon stays sound better than they actually work. It's actually heavier and doesn't really help with comfort any more that well designed aluminum ones (CAAD9 actually rides nicer than the carbon stays on the 2.x).

I frankly wouldn't buy either of the 2.x bikes... they use old Shimano parts that are going to see really dated in a couple months when even 105 moves to the new drivetrain. I'd buy SRAM Rival or Ultegra 6700 at that price range.


----------



## WhyRun (Dec 29, 2008)

Sold a Used 2008 2.3, with upgraded saddle and new RL tires (bike had total of 1k miles of training) for $900 - granted I had a warranty on the components from the shop that had 2 years left and fully transferrable. $1200 is fair for a 2010, wouldn't go much less.


----------



## aggarcia (Aug 28, 2009)

At 1200-1300 you are getting a deal. The 2.3 is a great bike. Yes 105 is changing models this fall, but not matter with driveline you have, they always change. These are nice intermediate level bikes. Good Luck.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Doug B said:


> Yep. I got a 2009 2.3 at the very last minute. Carbon stays. But, I like the paint on the 2010 much better. Wonder if I'd even notice the difference in the stays?
> 
> With my bike on the trainer, I can look down, and see the fram flexing, the seat post flexing. I focus on my form, to eliminate the side-to-side motion that is causing the flexing.


Wondering if you'll notice the difference? A buddy of mine works for Trek. He told me that the reason Trek stopped using the carbon rear frame was because the ride quality was identical to the TFT carbon Madone 4.7, only the 4.7 was more expensive being that it was full carbon. Basically, people were catching on so Trek put a halt to it. Also, The full aluminum frame is essentially the frame used on the 1 series models.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

The 2.3 is a great bike. I have two. Any price below $1200 is OK.


----------



## scarecro (Jul 25, 2012)

Hey guys I know this is an old thread but since it currently applies to me I was wondering if I might be able to get some advice from the more experienced.
I have recently become almost obsessed with getting myself a decent road bike because ever since my car died i started biking everywhere. (On my 1995 Raleigh Mountain bike)
Long story short I have bought a new car but my new obsession has stuck.
I am wondering what the best entry level bike would be at $1,000 or below. (I am not even looking at new bikes as i would very much like the best bang for my buck.)
This thread caught my attention becasue i have found an online listing for a 2009 trek 2.3. How much should I expect to pay for that model?
Should I look at something else to begin with?
Thanks very much in advance.


----------



## pdk42 (Aug 17, 2012)

No replies? Would be interested in any answers too.


----------



## pdk42 (Aug 17, 2012)

No replies? Would be interested in any answers too?


----------



## pdk42 (Aug 17, 2012)

Test.


----------



## pdk42 (Aug 17, 2012)

*What is my Trek model*

oops.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

terbennett said:


> Wondering if you'll notice the difference? A buddy of mine works for Trek. He told me that the reason Trek stopped using the carbon rear frame was because the ride quality was identical to the TFT carbon Madone 4.7, only the 4.7 was more expensive being that it was full carbon. Basically, people were catching on so Trek put a halt to it. Also, The full aluminum frame is essentially the frame used on the 1 series models.


You CAN certainly notice the difference between a 4.7 and a 2 series *withOUT* the carbon stays. My 2011 Trel 2.1 transfers much more road vibration that my either my old 2.3 (with carbon stays) or my newer 4.7.

In 2009, the 2.1 and 2.3 were BEST BUYS.


----------

