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

    342,914
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    AidenVorpagel
    Newest Member
    AidenVorpagel
    Joined

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 1,236 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...