Jump to content

Bilstein shocks thread

yanzhixiang

By yanzhixiang
in Modifications & Accessories

 Share

Recommended Posts

huntr1117 Enthusiast

huntr1117

Posted
Posted



Battle Born, wondering your two cents on this... since I've already got the 2.25" ProComp kit for up front, what would be the advantage of running the 5100s with the 1/2" spacer as you suggested, vs running the 2.25" ProComp kit along with 5100s at the lowest setting? I got the kit a few months back so I'm pretty sure I'm stuck with it unless I sell it privately.  Ultimately, will there be much of a difference in doing  either setup?


I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the factory rear block is 1.25" so the 3" block netted me 1.75" lift. If you use the front 5100s at the highest setting you should be at 1.85" lift. Add a 1/2" spacer that will put you at 2.35". Keep in mind that the spacer thickness is not 1 to 1. It's more like 2 to 1. So a 1/2" spacer is actually a 1/4" spacer. If you use an actual spacer that's 1/2" thick you'll gain 1" putting you at a total of 2.85" lift. I didn't catch what the year of your truck was but if it has stamped steel ucas you'll probably need aftermarket ucas if you go that high.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  • 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

SkiDooNick700 Enthusiast

SkiDooNick700

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, huntr1117 said:


 

 


I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the factory rear block is 1.25" so the 3" block netted me 1.75" lift. If you use the front 5100s at the highest setting you should be at 1.85" lift. Add a 1/2" spacer that will put you at 2.35". Keep in mind that the spacer thickness is not 1 to 1. It's more like 2 to 1. So a 1/2" spacer is actually a 1/4" spacer. If you use an actual spacer that's 1/2" thick you'll gain 1" putting you at a total of 2.85" lift. I didn't catch what the year of your truck was but if it has stamped steel ucas you'll probably need aftermarket ucas if you go that high.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

 

 

Agreed, i believe it is 1.25" as well.  I have a 2015, I believe I have the stamped steel ucas, a magnet stuck to them.  So you're saying a 1/4" spacer would get me the 1/2" of lift to put be around 2.35".  Based on your response, it sounds like you'd suggest the Bilstein 5100s with a small spacer vs the leveling kit?

huntr1117 Enthusiast

huntr1117

Posted
Posted
 
Agreed, i believe it is 1.25" as well.  I have a 2015, I believe I have the stamped steel ucas, a magnet stuck to them.  So you're saying a 1/4" spacer would get me the 1/2" of lift to put be around 2.35".  Based on your response, it sounds like you'd suggest the Bilstein 5100s with a small spacer vs the leveling kit?
My co worker has a 15 and his truck has cast steel ucas. You probably have the same. You can pretty much do either. 2.25" lift or 2.35". They'll look the same. Bilstein doesn't reccomend using any spacers with the 5100s. I ran them at stock height with the spacers hoping for the best ride. I also knew I didn't want to compress them again to change the height when I added my actual lift. I dont have experience using them any other way so I can't tell you that it would ride any worse running them at the highest setting with a small spacer. I imagine that it would be a little harsher because you're pre-loading the spring to achieve the majority of the lift.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 1
Grinnen Enthusiast

Grinnen

Posted
Posted (edited)

I would like to know someone who has rode on the 5100 at lowest settings and at top settings so we could know, from experience and not 3rd party anecdotal heresay, how the ride differs on and off road.

Edited by Grinnen
MBSierra17 Enthusiast

MBSierra17

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Grinnen said:

I would like to know someone who has rode on the 5100 at lowest settings and at top settings so we could know, from experience and not 3rd party anecdotal heresay, how the ride differs on and off road.

I've had top setting, and currently have stock height setting with my zone 4.5" lift. I couldn't really tell a huge difference to be honest. I think stock setting is a little more comfortable, but hard to say. I think a bigger influence is the control arms / cv axles being strained. 

huntr1117 Enthusiast

huntr1117

Posted
Posted
Would you recommend the leveling kit and stock seeing for the 5100?
I would. Definitely rode better than the stock Ranchos

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Grinnen Enthusiast

Grinnen

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, huntr1117 said:

I would. Definitely rode better than the stock Ranchos

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 

So keep the 5100s at stock and use the leveling kit would be a smoother ride over setting shocks at the highest setting?

 

I'm aiming the best ride possible 

Silverado-Hareek Senior Enthusiast

Silverado-Hareek

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Grinnen said:

So keep the 5100s at stock and use the leveling kit would be a smoother ride over setting shocks at the highest setting?

 

I'm aiming the best ride possible 

My opinion is to use the 5100's as designed for leveling over using another leveling kit with the 5100's set to the lowest setting.  If you do some research on the 5100's, you'll find that if you use them for leveling as designed, you'll end up with the ability for more shock travel distance and your factory spring will still be close to the OEM compression (still slightly more compressed/preloaded though because of the level).  As to whether that rides better or not, it's purely subjective.   You'll find opinions both ways.  My opinion is that no matter what you do, it will be a huge improvement over the stock shocks so either way, you'll be happy.  I will add that I had a 2007 Silverado with the standard size and standard load range D tires and bilstien 4600's.  I currently have a 2014 with larger 33" tires in load range E (stiffer tire/more plies) and bilstien 5100's set the the 2nd highest setting.  My 2014 rides rougher than my 2007 and I tend to think it's the stiffer tires more so than the shocks.  But overall, the truck feels more planted and sturdy and reacts to bumps and potholes etc. incredibly well.  I'm  happy with my current setup as long as this truck lasts a good while and I didn't introduce a ton of problems with these modifications.  We'll see.

 

TLDR:  Be exactly like me and buy the 5100's and use them as intended for leveling and you'll be happy.

  • Like 1
Snowcamo Senior Enthusiast

Snowcamo

Posted
Posted
My opinion is to use the 5100's as designed for leveling over using another leveling kit with the 5100's set to the lowest setting.  If you do some research on the 5100's, you'll find that if you use them for leveling as designed, you'll end up with the ability for more shock travel distance and your factory spring will still be close to the OEM compression (still slightly more compressed/preloaded though because of the level).  As to whether that rides better or not, it's purely subjective.   You'll find opinions both ways.  My opinion is that no matter what you do, it will be a huge improvement over the stock shocks so either way, you'll be happy.  I will add that I had a 2007 Silverado with the standard size and standard load range D tires and bilstien 4600's.  I currently have a 2014 with larger 33" tires in load range E (stiffer tire/more plies) and bilstien 5100's set the the 2nd highest setting.  My 2014 rides rougher than my 2007 and I tend to think it's the stiffer tires more so than the shocks.  But overall, the truck feels more planted and sturdy and reacts to bumps and potholes etc. incredibly well.  I'm  happy with my current setup as long as this truck lasts a good while and I didn't introduce a ton of problems with these modifications.  We'll see.
 
TLDR:  Be exactly like me and buy the 5100's and use them as intended for leveling and you'll be happy.
^^^^
MBSierra17 Enthusiast

MBSierra17

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Grinnen said:

So keep the 5100s at stock and use the leveling kit would be a smoother ride over setting shocks at the highest setting?

 

I'm aiming the best ride possible 

My point is that the shocks shouldn't feel any different in either of your scenarios. It's the rest of the suspension being stretched that makes it ride rougher (my theory anyway). The shock shouldn't care which notch it is on, the length of the spring with vehicle weight on it is the same in any configuration.

Snowcamo Senior Enthusiast

Snowcamo

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, MBSierra17 said:

My point is that the shocks shouldn't feel any different in either of your scenarios. It's the rest of the suspension being stretched that makes it ride rougher (my theory anyway). The shock shouldn't care which notch it is on, the length of the spring with vehicle weight on it is the same in any configuration.

False. How ever it is a combination of both the control arms close to their articulation limits and the strut height. The higher up on the notch setting the more you compress the spring thus more stiff ride will be. It will not be much different because your working within the designed limits of said strut. Not trying to start an argument but I wish I had the correct understanding when I did mine. Probably would of done the lowest setting and a spacer of some sort on the bottom. 

Edited by Snowcamo
MBSierra17 Enthusiast

MBSierra17

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Snowcamo said:

False. How ever it is a combination of both the control arms close to their articulation limits and the strut height. The higher up on the notch setting the more you compress the spring thus more stiff ride will be. It will not be much different because your working within the designed limits of said strut. Not trying to start an argument but I wish I had the correct understanding when I did mine. Probably would of done the lowest setting and a spacer of some sort on the bottom. 

Yes, spring is more compressed when weight is off the strut, but with the vehicle on the ground it should be the same. The spring constant doesn't change just because you moved a snap ring. Compressed length should be virtually identical. You've added no extra weight. 

Damonator New Member

Damonator

Posted
Posted

Hey guys, I’m a newbie to the forum but thought I’d post my shock setup. Recently just changed my magneride to Fox 2.0 front and back. I have the front coilover adjusted to 2” and have a 1/2” spacer on top of the coilover assembly. 

 

02D6E477-F659-490E-BB30-F958E852CCFC.jpeg

Snowcamo Senior Enthusiast

Snowcamo

Posted
Posted
Yes, spring is more compressed when weight is off the strut, but with the vehicle on the ground it should be the same. The spring constant doesn't change just because you moved a snap ring. Compressed length should be virtually identical. You've added no extra weight. 
Willing to bet if someone did a side by side of lowest and highest settings mm measurements we'd see a difference in spring heights. Theory is cool but until we get actual measurments were just spectators. Lowest setting will allow more suspension travel and a better ride vs the notches above. Having said that one wipes all that extra travel away once they add spacers, but the strut still has less preload and more travel, so the ride will be better.

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

    • 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...