I rode both of these recently and bought the Kona, a 2008 which comes with an Ultegra R/D & 105 F/D and shifters. It's better equipped all around and rides beautifully. The steering is quicker than you might expect which, depending on what you're looking for, might be a good thing or a bad thing. I swapped the Ultra Sport tires for 700x28 Conti Contacts and had no problem fitting them. IMO, the Trek comes close but no cigar in all departments which is why I happily dished my dollars over to Kona.
I got to ride the trek and really liked it but thought the Kona was better spec but unfortunately will not be able to ride it before i buy it so have taken other Konas on that range for a spin to check sizing.
I can get the 2007 model at almost half the 2008 price so no super fancy ultegra r/d for me but 105 is still pretty good for this kind of bike.
Did you find any difference in terms of smoothness? Was just wondering if the carbon seatpost and carbon stays in the trek made much diff in terms of comfort?
Will mull over this for another day as the order will go in tomorrow one way or the other!
When I looked for PhD a few months ago I couldn't find a 2007 so I opted to wait for the 2008, but in your case 1/2 price is a real bargain for essentially the same bike. I was fortunate enough to find a bike shop that would order the Kona for me with no obligation to buy it if it didn't fit or feel right. The FX is a decent bike, but when I finally rode the Kona I knew right away it was the right bike for me.
I'm used to my CF Kestrel so I was expecting a bit more of a jarring ride on the aluminum Kona. I'm still under 100 miles on it but I find it far smoother riding than I was expecting. A friend of mine took it for a spin and commented similarly on how smooth and sure handling it felt. It was a few months ago when I rode the FX but I don't recall any noticeable advantage of the Trek's carbon seat stays. What still stands out the most to me is the Kona's more responsive steering.