Jump to content

Bilstein Front Shocks

lt1z
 Share

Recommended Posts

BassNBrew Enthusiast

BassNBrew

Posted
Posted

Question for anyone with knowledge of this type of setup... I apologize in advance if this is a stupid question.

I have an AT4 with the factory 2" lift. I also have the RL +2 SST level kit installed (with the upgraded UCA's). 

 

Could I go up another inch by swapping the stock ranchos with these without messing up the suspension geometry?

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

pewterliftedz
pewterliftedz

BIlstein will not soften up the ride, these trucks are already so floaty and bouncy, IDK how you want it to be any softer.

BurnsMax
BurnsMax

I ordered front and rears.  Should be here in a week.  I'll give a report in 2-3 weeks. Pending they aren't on backorder

bobbobtar
bobbobtar

Just ordered the Bilstien 5100 #24-293297 front adjustable shocks for my LT I'm 2 1/4" lower in the front than the rear and  I will set the shock at 2" with Fox in the rear I should be good.

Posted Images

RadoPhan Enthusiast

RadoPhan

Posted
Posted
Question for anyone with knowledge of this type of setup... I apologize in advance if this is a stupid question.
I have an AT4 with the factory 2" lift. I also have the RL +2 SST level kit installed (with the upgraded UCA's). 
 
Could I go up another inch by swapping the stock ranchos with these without messing up the suspension geometry?

I would highly recommend not going that high. You are already 4” above from a standard model. Yes our trucks have different CVs but I would imagine going 5” total over factory without dropping your differential will hurt the truck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lt1z Enthusiast

lt1z

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Question for anyone with knowledge of this type of setup... I apologize in advance if this is a stupid question.
I have an AT4 with the factory 2" lift. I also have the RL +2 SST level kit installed (with the upgraded UCA's). 
 
Could I go up another inch by swapping the stock ranchos with these without messing up the suspension geometry?

No you would want to set the Bilstein adjustment at the same height as the stock +2” Ranchos fore use with the SST kit
pewterliftedz Enthusiast

pewterliftedz

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

Question for anyone with knowledge of this type of setup... I apologize in advance if this is a stupid question.

I have an AT4 with the factory 2" lift. I also have the RL +2 SST level kit installed (with the upgraded UCA's). 

 

Could I go up another inch by swapping the stock ranchos with these without messing up the suspension geometry?

It will defiantly mess with your geometry, as it is your angles probably look bad

nobaddays Enthusiast

nobaddays

Posted
Posted (edited)

$430 shipped from shockwarehouse.com

Edited by nobaddays
Dunn Senior Enthusiast

Dunn

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, RadoPhan said:


I would highly recommend not going that high. You are already 4” above from a standard model. Yes our trucks have different CVs but I would imagine going 5” total over factory without dropping your differential will hurt the truck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

both UCA and differential unless he already did one

RadoPhan Enthusiast

RadoPhan

Posted
Posted
both UCA and differential unless he already did one

Yeah I think he mentioned he did the UCAs with the ReadyLift SST kit. To be honest, it’s crazy how much people are lifting these trucks with just suspension/spacers. Coming from the Toyota platform, max is usually 2.5” before you have to do drop brackets. Seems like people are going above that on these trucks, some with success and some with failures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BassNBrew Enthusiast

BassNBrew

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, RadoPhan said:


Yeah I think he mentioned he did the UCAs with the ReadyLift SST kit. To be honest, it’s crazy how much people are lifting these trucks with just suspension/spacers. Coming from the Toyota platform, max is usually 2.5” before you have to do drop brackets. Seems like people are going above that on these trucks, some with success and some with failures.

Yah, the UCA's are different to fix the angle. I really just wanted to level the truck. Definitely don't want to do anything to cause damage or excessive wear to the it. That's why I went with the RL kit.

I had no intention of adding more lift, but when I saw to +1 on these shocks I figured why not ask...it's just one more inch, and then I'll stop, I can stop whenever I want, I swear.??

RadoPhan Enthusiast

RadoPhan

Posted
Posted
Yah, the UCA's are different to fix the angle. I really just wanted to level the truck. Definitely don't want to do anything to cause damage or excessive wear to the it. That's why I went with the RL kit.
I had no intention of adding more lift, but when I saw to +1 on these shocks I figured why not ask...it's just one more inch, and then I'll stop, I can stop whenever I want, I swear.[emoji28][emoji38]

Lol yeah I get it. I’ve been going back and forth on whether I want to lift it or not since I’ve seen some UCA failures. I really like the look on the RL kit with the UCA but it seems like it won’t fit my stock rims and 295 tires so I either leave it alone or buy a lift and new rims. Every truck I’ve owned is a money trap. Trying to avoid the true suspension lifts. Didn’t want to spend 4K+ this time around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BassNBrew Enthusiast

BassNBrew

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, RadoPhan said:


 I’ve been going back and forth on whether I want to lift it or not since I’ve seen some UCA failures. 

All of the failures I've seen were the early kits not designed for the AT4. Haven't seen anyone report a problem with the RL kit yet.

RadoPhan Enthusiast

RadoPhan

Posted
Posted
All of the failures I've seen were the early kits not designed for the AT4. Haven't seen anyone report a problem with the RL kit yet.

Yeah sorry meant OEM UCA failures on any lift above the factory TB suspension. There’s been a few on here lately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      https://precisionlubrication.com/articles/oil-filter-efficiency/     For them it is a problem of $$$$ and compliance. To cover both they have to lie from the heart.    Government wants low waste oil numbers so the bar needs to be very low on contamination to met that requirement.  Consumer wants cheap maintenance (perceived cost). Again requiring a low bar.  OEM wants high margins at a cost effective warranty rate and lots of repeat customers. More low bar.  Filter manufacture wants the same thing the OEM wants. See the pattern?   Consumers are fickle and also want perfection requiring a HIGH bar. Inconsistent with all of the above. Consumers can be, when the put their minds to it, inquisitive, love winning arguments which requires some useful information to be available to support them. And this is where it gets sticky and the lies begin.    Information needs a solid well grounded point of reference if we are to compare in a useful way. There is a standard for this.  ISO 4548-12. This standard sets the particle size at a specific Beta ratio and darn few are faithful to its intent.    If they don't state the test method they change the particle size or the Beta ratio to hit a perceived favorable standard. They obscure the information in a way as to prevent direct comparisons leaving the consumer with one method. UOA's with an ISO 4406 test result. Pricey and not allot of labs willing to do the work. Lobby work happens everywhere, not just at the seat of government.       
    • diyer2
      OCI, not when but why?

      By diyer2 · Posted

      IF,IF,IF. If they cared about quality instead of profit and this applies to any company, what a concept. 
    • Christopher Miller
      2001 GMC Sierra - Banging feeling in steering wheel

      By Christopher Miller · Posted

      Good Morning Gents..hope everyone is enjoying a beautiful saturday morning. I have a 2001 GMC Sierra that I bought used in 2018. I am the 2nd owner and its a beautiful truck. Ive put about 60,000 miles on it and recently the front end has felt funny. Kind of loose when hitting bumps adn sometimes I actually feel a "bang" in the steering wheel. I took it to a local guy who said that everything was tight and he tightened the steering box. It didnt feel much better, so I had him replace the front shocks, which had noto been done since I bought it. It had the check enging light on so I took it into a local garage to fix that and check out the suspension. Everything is original and the rubber bushings that I can see look bad. They said everything was tight and there wasnt any play in the front end. Im concerned about the banging feeling in the wheel. Ive been driving this truck for 8 years, so I know how it usually feels and this is something new. Its a second vehicle, so I dont drive it all the time, but Im trying to use it more often. I live out in the country and some of the  roads are kind of rough and I alive on gravel roads. Anyone deal with anything like this before? 
    • KARNUT
      Joke Thread

      By KARNUT · Posted

      Yes of course. There’s no experience in the Trump organization in hiring contractors. it’s not like they’re experienced in that field.😆
    • davester
      Joke Thread

      By davester · Posted

      Well, 2 no-bid contracts to donors didn't seem to result in a good job...

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...