Bilstein shocks thread

quail hound · January 21, 2016

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.

oscyjack · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 January 21, 2016 by projectsummit

nando87 · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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 January 21, 2016 by southern_sierra

nadrojcote · January 21, 2016

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 · January 21, 2016

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.