Jump to content

Factory "Rancho" Tenneco Shocks Love 'Em or Hate 'Em/Upgraded  

109 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted
so... the ranchos are too stiff for you? Hitting a large bump feels like hitting a large bump. I don't get what the dash has to do with it. It sounds like you are implying the bilsteins are softer, but again, your response doesn't give any real explanation other than you personally hate the ranchos. We already know that.
Shock absorbers aren't about soft vs hard. They're about bump vs rebound. A soft shock will bottom out over potholes and speed bumps and will make the ride feel hard.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)

I'm curious of this as well.  I had stock Ranchos on my 2010 Silverado and it didn't seem to rebound has hard on bumps (maybe they were shot by 40k)

 

My 2015 Sierra with Ranchos can get scary on any type of washboard road where the back end just wants to bounce out sideways.  Add some snow, and there's potential for an accident.

 

I'm debating Bilstein 4600 for replacement in the near future.

 

Edit:  I think the nature of opinions may have to do with an empty truck bed as well.  I recently had 600lbs in the bed and it rode MUCH smoother.

Edited by royalkangaroo
Posted
12 minutes ago, smit303 said:

I had the factory Bilsteins on a 90 stepside Z71. They felt great for the 70K miles I owned the vehicle. It came with LT tires and real metal skid plates too. A very solid truck.

Amen to my point about GM needing a better shock on the AT4 and Trail Boss from the factory :thumbs:

Posted
1 minute ago, royalkangaroo said:

I'm curious of this as well.  I had stock Ranchos on my 2010 Silverado and it didn't seem to rebound has hard on bumps (maybe they were shot by 40k)

 

My 2015 Sierra with Ranchos can get scary on any type of washboard road where the back end just wants to bounce out sideways.  Add some snow, and there's potential for an accident.

 

I'm debating Bilstein 4600 for replacement in the near future.

4600 and 5100 are the same other than outer Color/Finish and the fact that the 5100 has a longer stroke due to the 0-2" lift they can provide (fronts).

Either will be a much better alternative to the Rancho.

AT4 and Trail Boss could benefit from this as well.

Posted

I have a feeling that all of those " Love " votes are guys who have fewer miles.

Sure, no matter what shock is on the back, bed weight will make the ride better.

Posted

I like mine, 82,400 miles and counting. The rear end is skittish at times, but that's nothing throttle control can fix :thumbs:

 

One thing I've noticed is that the Ranchos handle more noticeable bumps with ease. Deep potholes, ruts on ratted out old two tracks, They don't bottom out and they don't slam the undercarriage on the ground. I've heard that they are designed as such to work well in offroad situations. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I am happy with their performance. 

 

I'd like to see a comparison of Bilsteins and Ranchos both on and off road. We know Bilsteins ride better on road, that's been validated countless times. Where it would count is off road, which is the point of the Z71 package. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, CadillacLuke24 said:

I like mine, 82,400 miles and counting. The rear end is skittish at times, but that's nothing throttle control can fix :thumbs:

 

One thing I've noticed is that the Ranchos handle more noticeable bumps with ease. Deep potholes, ruts on ratted out old two tracks, They don't bottom out and they don't slam the undercarriage on the ground. I've heard that they are designed as such to work well in offroad situations. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I am happy with their performance. 

 

I'd like to see a comparison of Bilsteins and Ranchos both on and off road. We know Bilsteins ride better on road, that's been validated countless times. Where it would count is off road, which is the point of the Z71 package. 

I think you are an exception to the rule. I am glad to hear you are happy with the Stock Ranchos and that they have held up well for you. :thumbs:

  • Like 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, CadillacLuke24 said:

I like mine, 82,400 miles and counting. The rear end is skittish at times, but that's nothing throttle control can fix :thumbs:

 

One thing I've noticed is that the Ranchos handle more noticeable bumps with ease. Deep potholes, ruts on ratted out old two tracks, They don't bottom out and they don't slam the undercarriage on the ground. I've heard that they are designed as such to work well in offroad situations. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I am happy with their performance. 

 

I'd like to see a comparison of Bilsteins and Ranchos both on and off road. We know Bilsteins ride better on road, that's been validated countless times. Where it would count is off road, which is the point of the Z71 package. 

same for me my drivers side front started clunking at 80,000 miles so i swapped them all with new take offs.

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, royalkangaroo said:

I'm curious of this as well.  I had stock Ranchos on my 2010 Silverado and it didn't seem to rebound has hard on bumps (maybe they were shot by 40k)

 

My 2015 Sierra with Ranchos can get scary on any type of washboard road where the back end just wants to bounce out sideways.  Add some snow, and there's potential for an accident.

 

I'm debating Bilstein 4600 for replacement in the near future.

 

Edit:  I think the nature of opinions may have to do with an empty truck bed as well.  I recently had 600lbs in the bed and it rode MUCH smoother.

the feel of a rear end that wants to bounce out sideways is more of a solid rear axle issue.  

  • Like 1
Posted

Got the factory rancho’s at 116k miles. Honestly I don’t think they ride bad at all. Feels like a 2500 to me which I enjoy. I hate soft suspensions. I’m replacing them this weekend with Bilstein’s because they are worn out and I’m leveling the truck. But in reality they aren’t bad. The stock rancho’s are like nickleback. The internet says you have to hate them but when asked why you never get a straight answer.

I will concede and say that these aren’t as good as the Rancho’s of yore but then again neither are Bose speakers but people still buy them and enjoy them. It’s all a matter of preference.


2014 z71 LTZ
Volant Intake
Borla Exhaust
Diablo

  • Haha 2
Posted

True indeed Centex.

Ranchos of today are not like those in the past.

This is why i petition for GM to include a truly well built shock such as Bilstein, Fox etc on the z71

and especially AT4,X31 and Trail Boss for 2019.

You will Love your Bilsteins!

Please report once you have them installed. It is then you will see the point about the Ranchos :thumbs:

Posted
23 minutes ago, djw88 said:

the feel of a rear end that wants to bounce out sideways is more of a solid rear axle issue.  

With Bilstein there is no bucking action.

They are well valved and planted.

You can clearly see the bucking pogo action in the bpack AT4 vid.

Posted
7 hours ago, kevinfranklin said:

Rode with my factory Rancho's for 8,000 miles.  This is my first truck, and was rather surprised at 3 things:   how much I could feel on the road (small bumps, ridges, pennies, etc) , how hard they hit over speed bumps and the like, and also at the amount of "float" I'd feel at speed over bumps on the highway. 

 

So I upgraded to Bilstein 5100's for $320(left stock rake, though) , and am happy with the results.  I don't drive offroad much, but they handle all terrain that I encounter much better.  Bumps, holes, ridges, etc.  Smoother, more "grounded," and feels safer.  I'd do it again in a heartbeat. 

That 'float' was what amazed me about the Bilstein's.  There is an intersection on my way to work that has a ~1' drop once you go through it.  At 35 mph the truck would drop then 'float' back up then settle back down.  With the Bilstein's, the truck dropped, then slowly settled back to ride height.  They could just eat that drop, no problem.

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, djw88 said:

the feel of a rear end that wants to bounce out sideways is more of a solid rear axle issue.  

With Bilstein there is no bucking action.

They are well valved and planted.

You can clearly see the bucking pogo action in the black AT4 vid.

 

Here is what a Rancho does when bad.....it acts more like a spring than an absorber.

Most of you think your Ranchos are fine, but this is what is really going on as you drive:

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a6w9wv06s_0

 

Edited by Sierra Dan

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 never understood the hate for the column shifter. The console shifter just gets in the way, takes up prime cargo space and in my wife's Jeep, the dog constantly bumps the console shifter into neutral!    Best choice ever to just make it a column shifter across the lineup and be done with it.    (Bonus: Makes swapping from a 5 seater to a six seater far easier)
    • 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.     
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...