Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The larger body and piston basically allows the shock to do a better job at whatever it is valved to do. I wouldn't be surprised if these both ride better over bumps offroad and handle better. They look like a higher quality shock than the 5100's all around.

 

My concerns personally are:

 

1) The spring rate. Some of their advertising mentions using softer than stock springs which might ride nicely offroad but wouldn't be what you want for towing. I'd want to verify that before jumping.

 

2) Length. I think anybody wanting to spend this much money on front shocks probably is best served with a shock that gives proper suspension travel on a "leveled" front end. If they're the same length as stock you run into the same limitation you do with the 5100s.

 

#2 makes sense if you are talking about travel length. A longer shock doesn't necessarily have a longer travel. Also longer shocks will increase down travel and require new upper control arms.

Posted

Thanks. I think I may go with the 5100s soon. They seem to be the right cost/performance ratio for most folks. And if they dont work out (as some of the mixed reviews might suggest) then it is not the end of the world.

 

I dont really care about offroading too much. I am never going rock crawling or doing anything rough enough to warrant a high end offroad suspension.

 

I bought 4wd to slide through the black mud at our family ranch. You dont sink, you just slide all over if you hit a slick spot. And even then, I would probably go out in the tractor or Polaris so that I dont have to wash my truck later :-)

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

These do not ride anything like the 5100, its a much smoother riding shock. Ive been testing the development set for 6 months now and I am loving them - a nice improvement for me over the 5100s. The suspension travel length is slightly different too to maximize travel.

 

The 5100s are a great OE replacement shock that will provide a bit of lift, where as this is a tuned Bilstein BTS suspension that is designed for the weekend offroader and will provide much more dampening and control.

 

800 is the MSRP price, the sets that have been out and selling now are going for under 675ish

Posted

These do not ride anything like the 5100, its a much smoother riding shock. Ive been testing the development set for 6 months now and I am loving them - a nice improvement for me over the 5100s. The suspension travel length is slightly different too to maximize travel.

 

The 5100s are a great OE replacement shock that will provide a bit of lift, where as this is a tuned Bilstein BTS suspension that is designed for the weekend offroader and will provide much more dampening and control.

 

800 is the MSRP price, the sets that have been out and selling now are going for under 675ish

How do they ride on road compared to stock/5100's?
Posted

Smoother, much smoother. The 5100s with stock springs were better than stock, but seemed to jar a bit over larger bumps and werent anything special on the highway.

 

These are on a whole differnet level in terms of the ride smoothness on road. Because they use a larger shock with more dampening force, they are able to use a lighter, linear rate spring which provides an awesome ride that isnt stiff, but not loose either. There is less front end dip under braking, the truck stays much flatter during freeway on-ramps and corners and the freeway ride is caddy smooth. Less body roll too!

Posted

If he is testing them on a Silverado for 6 months then they are probably close. Can't see them needing testing for over a year since they are just tuning them to work the best on the application.

Posted (edited)

 

 

Just asked Bilstein for ya. I know the GM/Chev application is the next one they are going to release for sure.

Thanks, I plan on selling my rancho quicklifts and upgrading to these.

Edited by projectsummit
Posted

Smoother, much smoother. The 5100s with stock springs were better than stock, but seemed to jar a bit over larger bumps and werent anything special on the highway.

 

These are on a whole differnet level in terms of the ride smoothness on road. Because they use a larger shock with more dampening force, they are able to use a lighter, linear rate spring which provides an awesome ride that isnt stiff, but not loose either. There is less front end dip under braking, the truck stays much flatter during freeway on-ramps and corners and the freeway ride is caddy smooth. Less body roll too!

 

What kind of lift did you get with the 6112s in the front? I'm having trouble finding any lift information on Bilstein's website....

Posted

Great info in this thread.

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Where are you guys buying the 5100s from also are you guys putting steering stabilizers on?

 

Let me get this straight the 5100s are height adjustable but you I dont need to adjust the rear height of the rear shocks. On my last truck I had Ranchos RS9000 I could adjust the ride tension based on the amount of weight I had in the bed.

Posted (edited)

 

One of the members here got some standard black shocks that were someone's take-offs. I don't recall what he had to say about them. Might be a path worth exploring if budget is limited.

That was me that put some new take off black stock shocks on. The ride is better took the jarring away that I was having. Only cost me $174.00 on ebay. I installed them myself and added 1/2 inch lift blocks under the front shocks which raised the front 1.25 inches and leveled my truck perfect. I carry weight in the back so it squats alittle.

Edited by southern_sierra
Posted (edited)

That was me that put some new take off black stock shocks on. The ride is better took the jarring away that I was having. Only cost me $174.00 on ebay. I installed them myself and added 1/2 inch lift blocks under the front shocks which raised the front 1.25 inches and leveled my truck perfect. I carry weight in the back so it squats alittle.

what did you have before? I really should have just got the black stock shocks instead of rancho quicklifts. They're better than stock ranchos, but they have the same jarring. Edited by projectsummit
Posted

what did you have before? I really should have just got the black stock shocks instead of rancho quicklifts. They're better than stock ranchos, but they have the same jarring.

Mine is a Z-71 had the stock ranchos. The right rear rancho was leaking at 1000 miles replaced by gm. When I replaced them at about 4000 miles with the black shocks the left rear was leaking.

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

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • I had an 88 K1500 with a 5.7 that had those symptoms, I know totally different, it ended up being the ECM. Once you get the fuel system fixed if it still runs lousy you may want to investigate that. it didn't set any codes, stalled ,ran rough at times etc
    • Congratulations Isttype, on your gmc. Really like my 2024 2500hd sle doublecab now with 85,500 miles.  I checked the oil today at 4800 miles since last oil change and barely reading on the stick.  I don't care if GM says it's Acceptable adding a quart every 2000 miles because that is 100% BS, It is not a 1966 Harley Shovelhead! Sounds like it's setting up a future failure like I had with my 1500 6.2l. Other than oil consumption problems, I really like the 6.6l gas and 10 speed is really nice.  Towed a light 4000 pound trailer last week and averaged 14 mpg.  I was pretty impressive that a 7300 pound gas truck did 14mpg towing, Later-
    • Long Term Cold Cycle Limited Testing   Back to the 1990's and XOM's million mile test. Since then there have been others and there will be more. Schaeffer's, AMSOIL to name two. Of these Schaeffer's is the stand alone which I will explain in a bit later.    http://papers.sae.org/600190/:   http://papers.sae.org/850215/:   Up to 75% of  engine wear occurs on cold starts. These two links (above) provide the technical reasons for engine wear. In a nut shell, and by a large margin, cylinder wear is what takes out most motors and even with a pre-oiling system that part of the engine is dry enough on cold starts and cold warm up to pierce Stribeck.   So when you put a motor, or a car, on a dyno for a million miles stopping only for oil changes, (yes fuel is uninterrupted) or break down maintenance, you are depriving the test of the most important part of it's wear cycle. Yes a million is then a pretty easy walk even for a mineral oil under those conditions.    How about cleanliness during the long test cycles? Same thing. Varnishes that stick rings and insulate parts are laid down by repetitive 'heat cycles'. It's the cool down the precipitates the varnishes. These long runs also hinder acidic attack caused by cold start richness and less than optimal cold start ring sealing. They hinder water formation and enhance breathing of the crankcase; the petri dish of acid formation, the first step in sludge formation, amalgamation and precipitation. These motors are also monitored and controlled for water and oil temperatures to within the "normal operating range".      https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-iiih-test.pdf Note the test sequence in some boutique oils literature for testing, API IIIH, is not the standard used for the ILSAC G7 testing. Does that mean it is irrelevant? No, not as used. As used as a 'visual guide' it makes it's point. The G7 weighted piston deposit minimum is lower.      Back to Schaeffer's. That was a cyclical test of an engine in fleet service and not a dyno mule and if you saw the video it was not mirror clean but wear was low.    There are oils like BioSyn and other 'Renewable" source oils that taught cleanliness and have proven themselves in fleet testing. Havoline an other example.    The newest ILSAC G-7 test prioritize cleanliness, LSPI mitigation and fuel economy OVER WEAR. In comparison Porsche C30 Specification Verses ILSAC G-7 Specification below:      Some will balk that this graph isn't apples to apples and I will challenge that in that this graph represent the SPECIFICATION and not the any One Oil Performance.   It is absolutely possible to minimize wear, maximize cleanliness and mitigate LSPI etc., It just isn't cheap and currently I see none that are not walking toward profit over performance.     
    • I don't think you will need a split, separate product, etc., the OBD port should be able to deliver everything you need. Since your device would be plugged into it all the time, it wouldn't miss anything.    Hardware in this case will be the easiest part of your project - ELM 327 devices will already deliver all the data you need. Reporting/software is where your advantage/marketability is.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...