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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Black02Silverado
      Missing thrust bearing? And oil selection

      By Black02Silverado · Posted

      Maybe, but it seems he is the only one that has backed up data to prove what he is stating. I think he is doing this more because he enjoys it and wants to get the information out to us. He's got the knowledge and access to the proper equipment and having the funds doesn't hurt.  I would love to do what he is doing and would do it if and when I hit the Powerball.  I'm not a Tribologist by any means but love to learn what I can.   I would bet there would be doubting people out there if a completely independent lab with high quality work and highly respected in the automotive industry, put out information like this.  The world can't be pleased, one just has to take the information that they are given, do more of their own research to find actual lab data to back up what they are trying to figure/find out.  Most don't bother, they just want to believe what they first see.     I don't have the minimax but my 6.2 in my 2019 Silverado with 64k miles shows excellent UOA results with 0w-20 and for my own purposes 5w-20.  Since not much of a change using 5w. I liked the data sheet information on the SS 5w-20 and figured I would give it a try.  Still the same viscosity at 100℃.   In the end we all just do what makes us happy, life is too short to get upset over trivial social media.   On a side note, I do feel GM has dropped the ball and just cares about the bottom dollar and not quality anymore.  "Like a Rock" has been long gone.  Seems "Built Ford Tough" has as well.
    • Tyler Gibbs
      Thoughts on these wheels?

      By Tyler Gibbs · Posted

      Better than stock but that's like putting lipstick on a pig
    • flattop
      2026 sierra bad brake controller

      By flattop · Posted

      Hello, my 3 month old Sierra Elevation wont recognize a trailer with electric brakes? All the lights work correctly, but no power to the brakes?   This is the factory installed brake controller. If you manually push the knob, the display shows the power % but does not light up like my 2022 silverado.   I have an appointment with the dealer, but was checking to see if anyone else has seen this issue.    Thanks, 
    • Black02Silverado
      Post your latest oil change.

      By Black02Silverado · Posted

      Been using SS 0w-20 from new, but wanted to change to the 5w-20 because I liked the data on the data sheet, to me it seems like a little better product. But as you can see, not much difference. This is also with running a mix of 10 gallons E85 to a tank topped with 93. It isn't a flex fuel vehicle so any higher I get a CEL for running lean on both banks. Yes my mileage takes a hit. Instead of 20 mpg I normally get on trips I get 17mpg. This is also using EaO17 filter.  What is amazing is I have the AMSOIL cone filter on it since I have the GM Performance intake installed and that air filter has 44k miles on it.  I just take it out and shop vac it off once a year.  I use the upholstery tool on my shop vac.  Works well.   
    • revmanii
      Starting a new thread regarding mounting my 2014 OEM wheels to my 2026

      By revmanii · Posted

      So, lot's of googling and reading, and a trial fit found, that indeed they hit the newer fatter caliper. I did some re-testing today, and found just 3/16" worth of washers was enough for the wheel to spin freely. I added 2 more on each, and again it spun freely. Tested lock to lock with the 4 washers, about 5/16" not quite the 3/8" Im considering, but pretty close. No issues. I've been looking at the BORA .375" spacers and using extended lugnuts to get back lost thread due to the spacer. All the ET lugs I've seen are all .33" reach inside the wheel lug holes. For those that don't like spacers or think they're unsafe, I think it depends on what type of spacers you're using and making sure you get good quality hubcentric ones, and if you're using bolt on ones, regular mainenance, checking the spacer lugs. Not wanting or needing that much spread. Looking for the minimum that will let me run these rims and tires.  it does look to stick out a little, but I really want put these on. and use the stock all-terrains in the winter. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...