Originally Posted by jgedwa
It is a lower-end Trek. But that makes it a respectably good bike.
I think the issue is the quality of the frame, not the componentry. I'm not sure I would rank this as a lower end frame.
The tubing is True Temper RC2. My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong on this) is that RC2 is high quality seamed Cr-Mo. In fact, I thought that True Temper was one of the tubing manufacturers that really got it right on producing seamed tube sets on par with drawn tube sets. Also, the 92 400 is Cr-Mo through out, including the fork and stays. See
http://www.vintage-trek.com/refurbish.htm for the butting info.
If there is any potential complaint about the quality of the 92s is that I think (repeat, think) that by this time Trek was using a cast head tube that integrated the upper and lower "lugs" and the head "tube" into a single unified cast piece. That is, 1 piece, not 3! This added a bit to the total weight but drove production costs down.
Still, I wouldn't right this off as a low end frame. I would rather have one of these fully Cr-Mo frames than a handbuilt production frame with hi-ten forks and stays.
Last comment.... you get funky RD cable routing issues with the through the CS routing. Many folks have gotten indexed RDs to work with some fiddling.