Jump to content

Bilstein shocks thread

yanzhixiang

By yanzhixiang
in Modifications & Accessories

 Share

Recommended Posts

2024Denali Enthusiast

2024Denali

Posted
Posted

I just had my truck leveled... like a couple weeks ago. I wish I instead used the 5100s. I am assuming I still can, right?

  • 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

Grjfer Enthusiast

Grjfer

Posted
Posted

Yes you can. Ditch the level and add the 5100's instead. That is what I am in the process of doing.

2024Denali Enthusiast

2024Denali

Posted
Posted

Yes you can. Ditch the level and add the 5100's instead. That is what I am in the process of doing.

 

 

Then I just feel like I wasted that money haha! Maybe they will give me some money back to remove and put the shocks on.

Hiserman79 Enthusiast

Hiserman79

Posted
Posted

I bought a full set of 5100s. Installed the rear and have been happy and impressed. I have been putting off the fronts because I am going back and forth on the level to install the fronts. I would like the highest setting but have heard that it affects ride quality and put them on the third setting then I have also heard it doesn't. I'd like to get the front as close to the back as possible in hight but I don't want the ride to be too harsh. I do pull a trailer occasionally but plan to install air bags on the rear to level the truck out. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks.

Spoke many times with bilstein engineers they claim ride difference is negligible. To top it off I had the privilege of driving one set on 1 notch below max. Mine are max and I can't tell a difference in ride quality between settings.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Hiserman79 Enthusiast

Hiserman79

Posted
Posted

Any vibrator trucks switch to bilsteins and have good luck?

Seemed to help mine along with the other parts slowly replaced. Mine was a process with new parts taking a bit of vibration out at a time until I found it marginally acceptable. Still probably won't buy another gm after owning 10 or so new ones.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

spartantx117 Enthusiast

spartantx117

Posted
Posted

Spoke many times with bilstein engineers they claim ride difference is negligible. To top it off I had the privilege of driving one set on 1 notch below max. Mine are max and I can't tell a difference in ride quality between settings.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the info. Going to do them on the highest setting this weekend. Worse case I can change it later but I think it will be fine.

  • Like 1
Mg1221 New Member

Mg1221

Posted
Posted

Hey all. Just tried to installing my 5100s tonight. They didn't fit!

 

I dont know if anyway else ran into this problem, but the diameter of the piston is larger than the inside diameter of the spring hat. I grabbed a caliber and measured out of confusion. Sure enough, the diameter of the 5100s were about 1/32" larger than the stock piston.

 

Not sure if this is an isolated isue with me or not. Some insight would be much obliged.

 

And i broke a spring compressir :( what a night lol

STINSAN3 Senior Enthusiast

STINSAN3

Posted
Posted

So on my old '7 GMT-900 before I added my 6" BDS lift. I added a 2" RC leveling kit and added 305/50/20s. I love how the truck drove and handled afterwards.

Before I got my '14 Silverado, I had a '08 Toyota Tundra Crew Max that I had put 5100s on top setting to achieve my level look. Just wondering what I should do?

OutBurst Enthusiast

OutBurst

Posted
Posted

I have a 2016 Sierra CC STD Bed, NHT with 1" level spacer in the front and a 1" lift spacer in the rear. I plan on keeping the spacer in both - what combination should I go with? 4600's in front and 5100's in back?

JTP004 New Member

JTP004

Posted
Posted

So, I'm trying to determine my best option. I have a '16 CC Z71, front measurement 36.3 and rear 39.6. I'm looking to replace the stock tires with something a little more aggressive and am looking to go with a 275/60/20 with the stock wheels. In your opinions, is it possible to go with the front 5100's on the third setting, potentially raising the front end to around 37.5 and is it possible/advisable to pull the rear blocks and go with the rear 5100's on stock setting, leaving the rear to be sitting roughly at 38.4, leaving a little bit of rake? Also, if this is something that is advisable, will 275/60 wheels fit without rubbing? Thanks all.

Alex2015sierra Enthusiast

Alex2015sierra

Posted
Posted

So, I'm trying to determine my best option. I have a '16 CC Z71, front measurement 36.3 and rear 39.6. I'm looking to replace the stock tires with something a little more aggressive and am looking to go with a 275/60/20 with the stock wheels. In your opinions, is it possible to go with the front 5100's on the third setting, potentially raising the front end to around 37.5 and is it possible/advisable to pull the rear blocks and go with the rear 5100's on stock setting, leaving the rear to be sitting roughly at 38.4, leaving a little bit of rake? Also, if this is something that is advisable, will 275/60 wheels fit without rubbing? Thanks all.

 

5100's can only adjust the height of the vehicle on the front. The rear 5100's are a little longer than stock shocks so they allow for up to 1 inch of rear lift, but can't actually lift the rear of the truck. I would set the front shocks at the highest setting, which should give you 38.1 inches up front, leaving 1.5 inches of rake if you leave the rear block in. I like the rake because I tow and haul stuff fairly often, and I don't like the look of a sagging truck. That tire size should fit with no issues also.

 

Another thing to consider when trying to find the "leveled" look is the amount of space between the top of your tires and the wheel wells. At least on my truck, when I had a 2.5 inch RC kit in the front, it looked like the front was higher because there was more space between the top of front tire and the wheel well than on the back. It might have been an optical illusion because the wheel well measurements showed that the front was actually still a little lower than the back, but it looked higher. Just my opinion.

  • Like 1
Sierra 5.3 Enthusiast

Sierra 5.3

Posted
Posted

Finally got some pics with nothing in the bed. Third highest setting with stock wheels and tires. I wish I'd gone with the highest setting.

Why is that? If I buy them i plan on going with the third setting and am curious why you would go with the highest instead. I figure you will achieve better ride on the third setting instead of the highest

  • Like 2
Alex2015sierra Enthusiast

Alex2015sierra

Posted
Posted

I would like more height and I doubt i would notice the difference in ride quality. Other members here have riden in trucks on the top setting and the 3rd one and couldn't tell the difference. I'm also confident the top setting will still be way better than the stock ranchos and the stock ranchos with a 2.5 level.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

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

      How many years have I pointed out every point in that link to the folks here and been avalanched with criticisms and outright hostilities at times? I ran counter to even the great CUSTOMBOSS and Lake Speed Jr and the half dozen experts on YouTube and in the final.....GM, Physics (Stribeck) backs that Grumpy old Bear.    Honestly, I never said a thing engineering hadn't studied silly and laid in concrete during WWII. But I'm old, the information is old and yet, the Laws of Physics are eternal.    Okay there is one exception. I vehemently disagree with their use of the word 'tolerances' when what it meant is "clearance".   The clearance is the distance between two objects. The tolerance is the degree of acceptable variation permitted in that clearance. I.E., piston to bore clearance is 0.004" with a tolerance of +/- .0002" so the clearance is in specification if it lies between 0.0038" and 0.0042". Cutting that 'tolerance in half has ZERO impact on lubrication requirements. Makes for more difficulty in manufacturing.  But a tighter clearance 'MAY'. Depends on finish. Anyway....   It's one of those statements made by people to make themselves look smarter than they are to convince people who are as un-enlighten as they seem to manipulate their behaviors. But hey, the blind leading the blind puts them both in the pit. 
    • Grumpy Bear
      Gas Prices

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Out and about yesterday on a long Saturday drive I passed a lot of Shell stations. My preferred, so I pay attention. Lot's of small town Illinois so not six stations in three blocks like the city.    Everyone of them over a radius of say 100 miles had regular at $4.19 but one which was the one closest to home at $4.15. However Premium pricing varied greatly between 85 cents over regular to $1.50 over. I'm not counting the price of the station with the lowest regular so the reference is the same for the remainder and all within the same brand. However the spread discrepancy holds across all brands.     @txab, any thoughts on that? 
    • revrnd
      Future GMC Jimmy

      By revrnd · Posted

      What are your thoughts? The Chevy Blazer relaunch was an epic case of 'lunchbag letdown'. Jeep Wranglers and Ford Broncos stick out like a sore thumb.    The AI photos do not look like a 'retro version', but shrunken Tahoes. Get away from the 'futuristic look'. I've seen two concepts. One had rectangular headlight like a Rivian and the other way to big should include dual round headlights like the early version.   If not this would look OK   At least it has GM styling (albeit the K2XX) A lot of the images floating around look like Bronco IIs or the current Bronco. Looking at the Broncos in my area (central Ontario, it seems to be a mix of 2 doors and 4 doors, 'mall rated' to ones that could go offroad.    I'm sure a AT4 and AT4X RPOs could be outfitted similar to a Rubicon if the braintrust understood the whole offroad scene. Crosing my fingers that if it does see the light that the front air dam/bumper doesn't extend below the center line of the tire...      
    • revrnd
      Silverado 4500-5500-6500 are they still being produced? Would have sold better as GMCs as well

      By revrnd · Posted

      I saw this news earlier this year:   https://theautowire.com/2026/06/12/gm-kills-off-chevys-biggest-silverado-trucks-as-sales-collapse-and-factory-fallout-spreads/
    • revrnd
      RUMOR / INSIDER: 2027 Silverado Dealer Reveal NEXT WEEK

      By revrnd · Posted

      And overpriced. I was in the Oshawa Truck Plant when they were being built. Very few. I could count on one hand how many I've seen since  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...