Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The 6112 is a shock and spring package not sure about the pro comp. The 6112 spring will be softer than the oem spring

The Procomp black series is a 2.75" strut with springs, that's why I'm asking how the 6112 compares as a direct competitor of the Black Series.

 

The link I provide shows all of the detail, I'm not sure of the price point on the 6112 but these are 499ea and maybe an alternative to the 6112

Posted

The Procomp black series is a 2.75" strut with springs, that's why I'm asking how the 6112 compares as a direct competitor of the Black Series.

 

The link I provide shows all of the detail, I'm not sure of the price point on the 6112 but these are 499ea and maybe an alternative to the 6112

Not sure about the price Iam thinking about 750 for the pair will available.

Posted

The other must be better these don't exist yet.

 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Happy New Year everyone. I will have some R&D photos of the GM being tested in the coming weeks.

Do you know if the 6112's are the same length as the stock shocks? I've run 5100's on my past two vehicles, and the upper settings have always lead to a fairly stiff ride. I know with the new springs this may not be the case, but I was looking to run a 1" lower mount spacer and then set the 6112's to the 1" setting for 2" of lift and a less-harsh ride. If the 6112's are longer than stock though, this may not be possible.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

I wonder how Bilstein is addressing the difference between the steel arm and aluminum arm trucks? Fox sells two completely different units, the ones for the aluminum trucks only giving about 1/2" of lift (found out the hard way). Other companies sell one model for both trucks. I ditched my Fox units because how little lift they gave me and am considering the 5100's but the 6112 has had my attention since last year, just the never ending wait to see if they will be built and if they'll work on my truck.

 

I'm thinking of ordering the Cognito UCA's to go with what ever I do. I have a feeling the stock UCA is a big issue with ride quality and definitely suspension travel when we lift these trucks with leveling kits or the like.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Posted (edited)

I wonder how Bilstein is addressing the difference between the steel arm and aluminum arm trucks? Fox sells two completely different units, the ones for the aluminum trucks only giving about 1/2" of lift (found out the hard way). Other companies sell one model for both trucks. I ditched my Fox units because how little lift they gave me and am considering the 5100's but the 6112 has had my attention since last year, just the never ending wait to see if they will be built and if they'll work on my truck.

 

I'm thinking of ordering the Cognito UCA's to go with what ever I do. I have a feeling the stock UCA is a big issue with ride quality and definitely suspension travel when we lift these trucks with leveling kits or the like.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Only difference between the aluminum and steel suspension is the ball joint taper sizes. I don't see why companies would make different shocks for the different styles. UCA's are the only thing that would need to be different.

 

Edit - I just took a look on the fox website and you're correct they make the 2.0 specifically for aluminum suspension, I wonder if it's just valved differently to compensate for the reduced unsprung weight.

Edited by projectsummit
Posted

That is exactly what Cognito told me. I was so disappointed with my Fox 2.0 experience I sold them with 5 miles on the for half of what I'd paid. The solution from Fox was to crank up the pre load. After they shipped them back I sold them instead of putting them back on. They told me if I had bought the version for steel arm my truck would've had almost 3" of lift. Better than 1/2" IMHO.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Posted (edited)

Only difference between the aluminum and steel suspension is the ball joint taper sizes. I don't see why companies would make different shocks for the different styles. UCA's are the only thing that would need to be different.

 

Edit - I just took a look on the fox website and you're correct they make the 2.0 specifically for aluminum suspension, I wonder if it's just valved differently to compensate for the reduced unsprung weight.

Nope, different overall length and shorter stroke/travel for their aluminum version. Different coil spring too.

 

King and pretty sure Icon (plus Bilstein 5100) only spec one model for both trucks.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited by TeeDub21
Posted (edited)

Very odd, but you never did try adjusting them? I'm about to buy a full 2.0 set for my 2015 f150.

Edited by projectsummit
Posted

Very odd, but you never did try adjusting them? I'm about to buy a full 2.0 set for my 2015 f150.

The springs are so stiff the average person with a rented spring compressor would have a tough time. Plus the coils are so small and close together the one I rented wouldn't work. Took them to a shop with a wall mount compressor and they couldn't do it either because their compressor wouldn't hold the smaller diameter fox coils. Fox agreed to pay round trip shipping so they could adjust them. They cranked up the pre load (which would probably make them ride worse) and said that I "should get 1.5 inch of lift with them". Had a bad taste after spending over $1,000 and not feeling I got what I'd paid for, so I sold them.

 

Put my 2" level kit back in and went back to my shitty Rancho ride until I can decide which way I'm going to go.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Posted

The springs are so stiff the average person with a rented spring compressor would have a tough time. Plus the coils are so small and close together the one I rented wouldn't work. Took them to a shop with a wall mount compressor and they couldn't do it either because their compressor wouldn't hold the smaller diameter fox coils. Fox agreed to pay round trip shipping so they could adjust them. They cranked up the pre load (which would probably make them ride worse) and said that I "should get 1.5 inch of lift with them". Had a bad taste after spending over $1,000 and not feeling I got what I'd paid for, so I sold them.

 

Put my 2" level kit back in and went back to my shitty Rancho ride until I can decide which way I'm going to go.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

that sucks, I hate situations like that.

 

The problem with the 2.0's for my new truck is that they were originally made for the 2014's so now that they have an aluminum body they give about 2.25" of lift. I'm having fox adjust them for me to 1.75" before sending them. I'm hoping that lowering it will make the ride more plush.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined
  • Who's Online   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2,226 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • So I'm in the middle of a DOD AFM delete on my 6.2 L86 Sierra. I had a pick holding the tensioner but after I got the Cam phaser gear off I was cleaning off all the rtv and apparently I didn't have the pick seated far enough in. I bumped it and the tensioner sprang forward.  I think everything is good but I want a second opinion. The top of the tensioner is just a looped piece of plastic that rides in that channel right? There is no spring or anything is there? I got the gear and chain back on and it seems tight and everything looks right. I'm hoping nothing fell out.
    • My 2015 1500 LTZ Silverado suddenly won't go into 4 x 4 low. It will go into 4 x 4 high.
    • Yep, just a quick reference point.    My main point being I’d do a thousand other things before I’d pay 10k for a transmission.    Speaking in ignorance cause I don’t look at these trucks, what is it worth? 20k?
    • I think users are going to want to pick their monitored parameters, which parameters they want to see first.    It should probably start with baseline at a minimum and adjust to learned, but be able to overlay baseline for comparison.   A simple severity level would be able to determine what type of alerting is appropriate or user selectable.    Why not use the OBD port though?   I think a phone connection would be a good idea, push notifications type deal.   Number 1 issue is having data is useless if you don’t know what the data should be under normal conditions. 
    • I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...