Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The larger body and piston basically allows the shock to do a better job at whatever it is valved to do. I wouldn't be surprised if these both ride better over bumps offroad and handle better. They look like a higher quality shock than the 5100's all around.

 

My concerns personally are:

 

1) The spring rate. Some of their advertising mentions using softer than stock springs which might ride nicely offroad but wouldn't be what you want for towing. I'd want to verify that before jumping.

 

2) Length. I think anybody wanting to spend this much money on front shocks probably is best served with a shock that gives proper suspension travel on a "leveled" front end. If they're the same length as stock you run into the same limitation you do with the 5100s.

 

#2 makes sense if you are talking about travel length. A longer shock doesn't necessarily have a longer travel. Also longer shocks will increase down travel and require new upper control arms.

Posted

Thanks. I think I may go with the 5100s soon. They seem to be the right cost/performance ratio for most folks. And if they dont work out (as some of the mixed reviews might suggest) then it is not the end of the world.

 

I dont really care about offroading too much. I am never going rock crawling or doing anything rough enough to warrant a high end offroad suspension.

 

I bought 4wd to slide through the black mud at our family ranch. You dont sink, you just slide all over if you hit a slick spot. And even then, I would probably go out in the tractor or Polaris so that I dont have to wash my truck later :-)

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

These do not ride anything like the 5100, its a much smoother riding shock. Ive been testing the development set for 6 months now and I am loving them - a nice improvement for me over the 5100s. The suspension travel length is slightly different too to maximize travel.

 

The 5100s are a great OE replacement shock that will provide a bit of lift, where as this is a tuned Bilstein BTS suspension that is designed for the weekend offroader and will provide much more dampening and control.

 

800 is the MSRP price, the sets that have been out and selling now are going for under 675ish

Posted

These do not ride anything like the 5100, its a much smoother riding shock. Ive been testing the development set for 6 months now and I am loving them - a nice improvement for me over the 5100s. The suspension travel length is slightly different too to maximize travel.

 

The 5100s are a great OE replacement shock that will provide a bit of lift, where as this is a tuned Bilstein BTS suspension that is designed for the weekend offroader and will provide much more dampening and control.

 

800 is the MSRP price, the sets that have been out and selling now are going for under 675ish

How do they ride on road compared to stock/5100's?
Posted

Smoother, much smoother. The 5100s with stock springs were better than stock, but seemed to jar a bit over larger bumps and werent anything special on the highway.

 

These are on a whole differnet level in terms of the ride smoothness on road. Because they use a larger shock with more dampening force, they are able to use a lighter, linear rate spring which provides an awesome ride that isnt stiff, but not loose either. There is less front end dip under braking, the truck stays much flatter during freeway on-ramps and corners and the freeway ride is caddy smooth. Less body roll too!

Posted

If he is testing them on a Silverado for 6 months then they are probably close. Can't see them needing testing for over a year since they are just tuning them to work the best on the application.

Posted (edited)

 

 

Just asked Bilstein for ya. I know the GM/Chev application is the next one they are going to release for sure.

Thanks, I plan on selling my rancho quicklifts and upgrading to these.

Edited by projectsummit
Posted

Smoother, much smoother. The 5100s with stock springs were better than stock, but seemed to jar a bit over larger bumps and werent anything special on the highway.

 

These are on a whole differnet level in terms of the ride smoothness on road. Because they use a larger shock with more dampening force, they are able to use a lighter, linear rate spring which provides an awesome ride that isnt stiff, but not loose either. There is less front end dip under braking, the truck stays much flatter during freeway on-ramps and corners and the freeway ride is caddy smooth. Less body roll too!

 

What kind of lift did you get with the 6112s in the front? I'm having trouble finding any lift information on Bilstein's website....

Posted

Great info in this thread.

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Where are you guys buying the 5100s from also are you guys putting steering stabilizers on?

 

Let me get this straight the 5100s are height adjustable but you I dont need to adjust the rear height of the rear shocks. On my last truck I had Ranchos RS9000 I could adjust the ride tension based on the amount of weight I had in the bed.

Posted (edited)

 

One of the members here got some standard black shocks that were someone's take-offs. I don't recall what he had to say about them. Might be a path worth exploring if budget is limited.

That was me that put some new take off black stock shocks on. The ride is better took the jarring away that I was having. Only cost me $174.00 on ebay. I installed them myself and added 1/2 inch lift blocks under the front shocks which raised the front 1.25 inches and leveled my truck perfect. I carry weight in the back so it squats alittle.

Edited by southern_sierra
Posted (edited)

That was me that put some new take off black stock shocks on. The ride is better took the jarring away that I was having. Only cost me $174.00 on ebay. I installed them myself and added 1/2 inch lift blocks under the front shocks which raised the front 1.25 inches and leveled my truck perfect. I carry weight in the back so it squats alittle.

what did you have before? I really should have just got the black stock shocks instead of rancho quicklifts. They're better than stock ranchos, but they have the same jarring. Edited by projectsummit
Posted

what did you have before? I really should have just got the black stock shocks instead of rancho quicklifts. They're better than stock ranchos, but they have the same jarring.

Mine is a Z-71 had the stock ranchos. The right rear rancho was leaking at 1000 miles replaced by gm. When I replaced them at about 4000 miles with the black shocks the left rear was leaking.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Did the KYBs keep it the same height in the front? I was concerned that pre-assembled assembly would raise it up an inch to standard non-z60 height.. I guess which it would make the rake 1 inch instead of 2 inches.
    • Thank you for keeping the train on the tracks and for a thoughtful engagement. I enjoyed the reflection on a previous stance to refine and improve your position. I like that inquisitive flexibility about you Atlas.    No the process isn't sterile. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles of piping, vessels, pumps. Chevron, the people I worked for, were keenly aware that there is a market for what is known as their "ISOCLEAN" line of lubricants. These are lubricants that are the same as those sold bulk that are further processed by filtration to a level your particular application demands. They will filter and package and provide lab documentation as required. Do not kid yourself. Every gallon of oil that goes into a Chevron Turbine, reciprocating compressor, generator is prefiltered and tested before being charged. Lest wise it was when I was there in the plants I worked in.    There are requirements set by manufactures for the cleanliness of the oils used in their equipment. OTR such as CUMMINS has standards shared with customers on this. Commercial interest selling to Ma and Pa do, but don't share that information. Not even upon request but internally, they do exist.    The GM study sited, (Graph from Machinery Lubrication in previous post) only shows "relative" importance.  I find that fascinating. By constructing the graph like this they admit there are dozens of factors in engine life and via scientific method determined the effect of 'relative cleanliness' on engine life not in miles but in 'FACTORS'. This allows a certain amount of reverse engineering does it not?   They even provided some touchstones. Beta 75 as a reference point. Wonderful stuff!!   Smaller blenders CAN and some DO take the time and effort to do better than a refinery or large bulk blender, like Warren Oil, in improving the "in the can" cleanliness. No I don't have a list but testing could generate that information.    Again, but one of several levers we can pull to improve engine life. The simplest is keeping a clean work station while doing your own oil changes.     
    • Thank you. I'll give it a try 
    • I just spent the last 45K miles doing samples every oil change over more than a full year to get the data for seasons and break-in to broke in.    I found the same thing to be true. Something was always teetering on done or had stepped off the cliff long before the OLM was DOA. In fact, I found about a thousand mile difference between summer and winter. That is during the winter half the OLM was STILL too long. Even the severe schedule was to long in the winter.   Now having done the work I can say I was NOT DISAPOINTED. I saw nothing I didn't already know. Nothing my father hadn't already demonstrated in his 2K OCI's pushing dated iron on dated oils and weak filters to mileages well beyond 300K.   Building on his work through use of Lab testing it wasn't hard to find the correlation between 'sight/feel/odor, the things dad relied on, and test results. Use of current viscosity stable chemistries & filters has pushed that marker for my motors out to 3K summer, 4K winter.    So the early lies were 3K on conventional oil and the lie upon the lie was 7K+. turns out to be off by a factor of two.    So... it is true that modern chemistry has doubled the useful oil life. But the base milage that came from was off by double. It's how good lies work. Partly true, sometimes mostly true so that your meter isn't set off. It also means that non-shear-stable shelf oils are only now as good as the old oils were in their best case scenario.    So the question now is how do we improve on that? Thus the question into cleanliness among the other items listed in the post quoted below.    If this bores you, feel free not to participate.       
    • Is it though?  Like LTZ, not a high take rate.  Current Sierra has AT4, Denali and Elevation as its main bread winners.  Each trim accounting for 25-35% of sales for Sierra.  SLT makes up about 10-15% at best.        Like others have predicted here for GMC, it will be:   - Pro (equal to WT Chevy)   - Elevation (replaces SLE and SLT)   - AT4 (and X)   - Denali (and Ultimate).  
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...