Jump to content

Bilstein shocks thread

yanzhixiang

By yanzhixiang
in Modifications & Accessories

 Share

Recommended Posts

quail hound Enthusiast

quail hound

Posted
Posted

I would not compare the fox 2.0 to a 5100.

 

5100 digressive, non rebuild-able, zinc coated brushed metal finish (corrodes fairly quick in extreme weather)

 

fox 2.0 progressive, rebuild-able, billet aluminium, zinc plated double clear coated

I wouldn't compare them either just based on price. A pair of 5100's for the front only costs $180.

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

bwilloby46
bwilloby46

I put the bilstein 5100s on the rear of my 14 High Country with a new 2" block a few weeks ago. Ride is unbelievable compared to stock. Liked it so much I got the adjustable 5100s for my front, remove

schloppy
schloppy

Hello, I'm not new to the forum but I just joined and figured I'd contribute to the community.   2016 Silverado 1500 "Z71" removed rancho's and swapped with Bilstein 5100's all around. So after d

Jullian is not my name
Jullian is not my name

I just got done with installing my 6112's on my 2014 GMC Sierra Crew Cab.  Reading some install guides on here really helped, along with printing some Chilton Repair guide torque specs that I got from

Posted Images

oscyjack Enthusiast

oscyjack

Posted
Posted

I would not compare the fox 2.0 to a 5100.

 

5100 digressive, non rebuild-able, zinc coated brushed metal finish (corrodes fairly quick in extreme weather)

 

fox 2.0 progressive, rebuild-able, billet aluminium, zinc plated double clear coated

A new eibach spring as well, in addition to a larger diameter shock body. I think a fair comparison is the 6112 to fox 2.0...the Fox 2.5 and icons and kings are in a different league.

nadrojcote Senior Enthusiast

nadrojcote

Posted
Posted

I guess when you compare the fact that they are both 2.0" shocks, and the price for the hardware/top mount and eibach springs, they are similarly priced. To me the fox are much more appealing. I think that bilstein should be selling their 6112's assembled to. Making the customer use their stock hardware and top mount is kind of a slap in the face for the price they sell for.

codman232 Enthusiast

codman232

Posted
Posted

So what I am gathering is Bilsten 5100's and the way they are developing the 6112's so there is no need of installing an aftermarket UCA... Have I come to the correct conclusion or would I be better off buying a new UCA? I would be using the stock 20 inch wheels with 275/60/20 tires...

oscyjack Enthusiast

oscyjack

Posted
Posted

If you raise, you'll always be better off with a new UCA. However, the Bilstein 5100 and 6112 will be designed to work perfectly with stock UCA's, as is the Fox 2.0 except for those with aluminum stock U/LCA's

codman232 Enthusiast

codman232

Posted
Posted

Crap so that means if I would buy the 16 AT with the aluminum UCA's when the 6112's come out I will need to replace the U/LCA's. Dang. I was trying to avoid that...

oscyjack Enthusiast

oscyjack

Posted
Posted

No, you misread. The Bilstein's both 5100 and 6112 will work with stock control arms. You would likely benefit some from getting new UCAs, but it is in no way necessary

nando87 Enthusiast

nando87

Posted
Posted

If anyone is interested I have a brand new in the box set of Pro Comp SS struts for sale. I purchased these with the intent to install but decided to go with the Fox 2.0 set up.

 

These are adjustable just like the 5100 and have pretty much the exact same ride characteristics.

 

I purchased for $210 and will sell for $150 shipped.

 

http://www.4wheelparts.com/Suspension/Pro-Runner-SS-Monotube-Shock-Absorber.aspx?t_c=1&t_s=90&t_pt=3306&t_pn=EXPZX2108

las32004 New Member

las32004

Posted
Posted

What's up fellas i have a quick question I bought a 2" kit for my truck to level it with the rear I wanted to know what would be or preferred size and tires to go with

 

Thank you

nadrojcote Senior Enthusiast

nadrojcote

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wonder why fox makes the 2.0 different for the aluminum suspension. do their coils come in contact with the control arms some how? Only difference between aluminum and steel arms is the ball joint tapers.

Edited by projectsummit
nando87 Enthusiast

nando87

Posted
Posted

I wonder why fox makes the 2.0 different for the aluminum suspension. do their coils come in contact with the control arms some how? Only difference between aluminum and steel arms is the ball joint tapers.

This has been discussed in length, I have a thread on here that explains the differences between the two arms.

Jon A Senior Enthusiast

Jon A

Posted
Posted

 

The 6112 is pretty much identical to what comes on the Tacoma & 4Runner Pro Models. The Tundra PRO has a different one-off shock which has a reservoir on it, while the aftermarket Tundra 6112 does not have one.

 

Does the 6112 for this application have position sensitive valving like the Tundra Pro shocks?

southern_sierra Enthusiast

southern_sierra

Posted
Posted (edited)

I guess when you compare the fact that they are both 2.0" shocks, and the price for the hardware/top mount and eibach springs, they are similarly priced. To me the fox are much more appealing. I think that bilstein should be selling their 6112's assembled to. Making the customer use their stock hardware and top mount is kind of a slap in the face for the price they sell for.

I think the 6112 is a 2.5 diameter shock at least thats what I'am reading.

Edited by southern_sierra
nadrojcote Senior Enthusiast

nadrojcote

Posted
Posted

I think the 6112 is a 2.5 diameter shock at least thats what I'am reading.

We were talking about comparing the 5100's to the fox 2.0's

MRTMotorsports Enthusiast

MRTMotorsports

Posted
Posted

So what I am gathering is Bilsten 5100's and the way they are developing the 6112's so there is no need of installing an aftermarket UCA... Have I come to the correct conclusion or would I be better off buying a new UCA? I would be using the stock 20 inch wheels with 275/60/20 tires...

 

The 6112 will not require new arms, but it is always a worthwhile upgrade.

 

 

 

I guess when you compare the fact that they are both 2.0" shocks, and the price for the hardware/top mount and eibach springs, they are similarly priced. To me the fox are much more appealing. I think that bilstein should be selling their 6112's assembled to. Making the customer use their stock hardware and top mount is kind of a slap in the face for the price they sell for.

 

Your posts are not very clear, so I am not sure what you are referring too.

 

The Fox 2.0 is a 2" Diameter shock. The 6112 is a 2.65" Diameter shock. The 5100 is a 2.0" diameter shock.

 

The Fox 2.0 and Bilstein 6112 come with new springs, the 5100 does not.

 

From over a year of testing the 6112 and from personal experience with both systems, the Fox 2.0 are no where near the performance level of the 6112, but are a big upgrade from the 5100, which is much better than stock.

 

The cost is very reasonable for what you get, a 2.65" shock that costs half of all of the other 2.5 options out there. If you want a billet top hat, threaded shock body and all that race level awesomeness you should be looking at a Fox, King or ICON 2.5" coilover system.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 414 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...