SweetLou

Too slack causing the smaller frames to be too sluggish. Don't care about tire clearance or the uncommon 27" size. There are plenty of 27" tires that I like for touring. I don't consider any of your arguments make the LHT superior as you said, except for the stronger axles of a cassette over a freewheel. Well, the axles aren't stronger, the placement of the bearings in a freehub give better support so there is less of a chance to bend or break an axle.

I don't know about the 1 1/8" steerer tube better for touring. Can you explain this? I've never had a problem with a 1" threaded steerer.

For me, the 520 is a far superior frame. The LHT is too uncomfortable for long trips. Any shortcomings of the components can be changed, whereas the frame cannot. If you want a 9 speed, no problem. Just put one in.

If you want 700c wheels, you can do that also. You say it is not ideal, but the change to 700c wheels will have less effect than the bad angles of the smaller LHT.

Edit: I just did the math. The '88 Trek in my size has a trail of 67.2mm with 27" 40mm tires and with 700c 40mm tires it is 62.4mm. The bad angles of the LHT in my size has a trail of 75.5mm. In the 56cm LHT the trail is 63.5mm.

As you can see, the '88 Trek is closer in geometry to the 56cm LHT than the LHT in my size. Changing the tires from 27" to 700c effects the trail by 4.8mm. If I changed the geometry of the LHT the affect on the trail would be 5.1mm. Changing from 27" to 700c has less effect on trail than the head tube angle.

The LHT in 56cm and above is good. It is not good in smaller frames, older Treks like the 620 and 720 are much better. The Miyata 1000 has great geometry in the smaller frames. If you like the ride of 56cm and above LHT, then you should like the '88 Trek in smaller sizes better than the smaller LHT.