Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

I had my fronts done yesterday at a local Tire Kingdom. They quoted me 1.6 hours which was $175 in labor. I added an alignment for $75, and was out the door for a bit over $250. I did the rears myself, took about 20 minutes. All you need for the rear is a couple 21mm (i believe that was the size) wrenches. All together I have a little under $600 in the setup.

Ok I'll call my local Tire Kingdom. Did you buy the shocks online and then just have them install them? Also, can the shocks level the truck or are they just adjustable to accommodate a lift as the dealership told me?

Posted

Ok I'll call my local Tire Kingdom. Did you buy the shocks online and then just have them install them? Also, can the shocks level the truck or are they just adjustable to accommodate a lift as the dealership told me?

The shocks have a method of doing the lift it's self. Your dealer smokes too much wacky weed.

 

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

Posted

Ok I'll call my local Tire Kingdom. Did you buy the shocks online and then just have them install them? Also, can the shocks level the truck or are they just adjustable to accommodate a lift as the dealership told me?

 

I bought the shocks through Autoanything.com and took them with me. The shocks can be adjusted up to 1.87" i believe in the front. I left mine stock height since I already had a level up front.

 

Auto Anything will match prices as well, I got all 4 shocks for $344.

Posted (edited)

I paid $319 for install and alignment. Thought that was a good deal. Installed the 5100s on the front

 

 

2014 Chevy silverado Z71 DCSB w/Bilstein 5100 level

Edited by Knotsure
Posted

Ok I'll call my local Tire Kingdom. Did you buy the shocks online and then just have them install them? Also, can the shocks level the truck or are they just adjustable to accommodate a lift as the dealership told me?

post-167554-0-51493600-1500658728_thumb.jpg

 

The different groves in the shock body is what gives you the lift, hence "ride height adjustable". The fronts are the only ones adjustable. The rear 5100's are designed to accommodate 1" lift. If you cane change your own oil you can replace the rears. An extra set of hands are handy to compress the shock while installing the bottom bolt, but not required.

 

http://www.mrtmotorsports.net forum sponsors and good pricing.

post-167554-0-51493600-1500658728_thumb.jpg

post-167554-0-51493600-1500658728_thumb.jpg

post-167554-0-51493600-1500658728_thumb.jpg

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

My new Bilstein 5100's came in over the weekend and I already installed the rear ones. It made a big difference. I am going to have a shop install the fronts, but I am having a hard time deciding what height to set them at. From what I have read on here the top setting will ride stiffer and will almost completely level the truck. I am looking for a good ride and to get rid of some of the rake- not necessarily a complete level. I still have stock tires (255/70/17), so I dont want the tires to look small. I will be getting new tires next year and will probably up the size to 265/70/17 or 275/70/17 (these may even fit on stock setting). I am leaning towards the first notch above the bottom or possibly the second (just below top setting). I think either of the new tire sizes would fit. Can anyone give me some advise and has anyone compared the ride between the two settings? Will my truck look dumb on the third setting with stock 17" wheels noted above?

Posted

My new Bilstein 5100's came in over the weekend and I already installed the rear ones. It made a big difference. I am going to have a shop install the fronts, but I am having a hard time deciding what height to set them at. From what I have read on here the top setting will ride stiffer and will almost completely level the truck. I am looking for a good ride and to get rid of some of the rake- not necessarily a complete level. I still have stock tires (255/70/17), so I dont want the tires to look small. I will be getting new tires next year and will probably up the size to 265/70/17 or 275/70/17 (these may even fit on stock setting). I am leaning towards the first notch above the bottom or possibly the second (just below top setting). I think either of the new tire sizes would fit. Can anyone give me some advise and has anyone compared the ride between the two settings? Will my truck look dumb on the third setting with stock 17" wheels noted above?

Doesn't matter which setting all 3 ride about the same. I have mine in highest setting rides no different than one I drove that was on middle setting. I spoke at length with bilstein engineers on the phone regarding this. Basically the reason the highest setting doesn't 100% level the truck but it's the max they could design without adversely affecting the ride quality. They are designed so all 3 setting produce the same ride. The certified internet Google trained mechanics may say otherwise but I went straight to the source. Also have a truck right down the road set in the middle setting if I put you I either one you'd never know they are different settings other than a bit more rake on one of em.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Posted

My new Bilstein 5100's came in over the weekend and I already installed the rear ones. It made a big difference. I am going to have a shop install the fronts, but I am having a hard time deciding what height to set them at. From what I have read on here the top setting will ride stiffer and will almost completely level the truck. I am looking for a good ride and to get rid of some of the rake- not necessarily a complete level. I still have stock tires (255/70/17), so I dont want the tires to look small. I will be getting new tires next year and will probably up the size to 265/70/17 or 275/70/17 (these may even fit on stock setting). I am leaning towards the first notch above the bottom or possibly the second (just below top setting). I think either of the new tire sizes would fit. Can anyone give me some advise and has anyone compared the ride between the two settings? Will my truck look dumb on the third setting with stock 17" wheels noted above?

 

I have them set on the top notch and the ride is great. Better than the Rancho's for sure. I also added a 1" lift in the back to keep the rake since I haul a travel trailer. Next is to replace the rears with 5100's too. You wont be disappointed if you go to the 4th notch. It basically put my nose up almost 2" and left me with about .5" rake, (then I added the rear block).

Posted

Thanks for the responses. I'd still like some rake, so I am leaning towards the 3rd notch. Do y'all think the 3rd notch would look okay with stock 17" wheels (255/70/17) or will that make the tires look small?

Posted

I installed a Rough Country 2" level on my 15 at around 900 miles. It has around 9,000 on it now and would like to upgrade my shocks.

 

Should I ditch the RC level and install the the 5100's at max height?

 

Can anyone comment on ride quality at max height setting vs a 2" front level?

 

I guess my other thought was to keep the level and go with the 4600's. I think it does alright on decent highways, but my complaint is basically everything else, like sharp city street bumps, railroad tracks, washboards on gravel roads.

Posted
I installed a Rough Country 2" level on my 15 at around 900 miles. It has around 9,000 on it now and would like to upgrade my shocks.

Should I ditch the RC level and install the the 5100's at max height?

Can anyone comment on ride quality at max height setting vs a 2" front level?

I guess my other thought was to keep the

I installed a Rough Country 2" level on my 15 at around 900 miles. It has around 9,000 on it now and would like to upgrade my shocks.

Should I ditch the RC level and install the the 5100's at max height?

Can anyone comment on ride quality at max height setting vs a 2" front level?

I guess my other thought was to keep the level and go with the 4600's. I think it does alright on decent highways, but my complaint is basically everything else, like sharp city street bumps, railroad tracks, washboards on gravel roads.

 

I fabbed my own 2" spacers and with the Ranchos it wasnt bad, little stiffer I guess. I upgraded to the 5100's, the ride is better but it's not huge. Also, it's not a 2" at top setting so if you want your truck level these won't do it. My truck sits 3/4 higher in the rear. And it is not recommend to add spacers with the 5100's to compensate. IMO, leave it alone, your gonna pay$$$ for a little bit better ride and you will have to replace them anyways in the future and pay$$$ again. hope this helps.

Posted

Hello all! We have been away from the forums, super busy with our new retail store in Las Vegas..

 

We heard from Bilstein on Monday and wanted to updated everyone on the status of the 6112s.

GM is set for September at the moment. We will have a kit for 07-13 and 14+. Sorry this is taking forever!
We should also have more Ford application done by September as well. We will be releasing the Frontier/Xterra 6112 in August. This should be a good seller.

 

 

The new 5160 Rear Reservoir Shocks are now released & in stock and shipping! They are 1.5" longer than the 5100 rear shock and will accommodate up to a 2.5" rear lift block!

 

90b9d4da-16f1-48b8-b6f5-45082ee00786-420

PN Bil 25-242515

$340 a pair delivered

Posted

Hello all! We have been away from the forums, super busy with our new retail store in Las Vegas..

 

We heard from Bilstein on Monday and wanted to updated everyone on the status of the 6112s.

 

The new 5160 Rear Reservoir Shocks are now released & in stock and shipping! They are 1.5" longer than the 5100 rear shock and will accommodate up to a 2.5" rear lift block!

 

90b9d4da-16f1-48b8-b6f5-45082ee00786-420

 

PN Bil 25-242515

$340 a pair delivered

 

These look sweet! Has anybody tried them out yet?

  • Like 1
Posted

Very nice! That is exactly what I was wanting. I thought they'd given up on the 6112. Haven't heard anything about them for quite some time.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Bilstein 5100 front and back, rides like a champ. Went 1.85 in the front.20616888_10210296515832534_1953537001935

Edited by LongBeachRado
  • Like 1

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

    250.5k
    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, 1,258 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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? 🤔           
    • 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  
    • 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.
    • 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...