Bilstein 6112 thread for ‘19-‘20

[Dunn]

9 hours ago, rmac4 said:

Can anyone say if the 6112s are capable of handling the additional weight of a winch bumper? I have a Fab Fours Matrix bumper ordered and it weighs 150 lbs. Trying to avoid having additional squat up-front and increasing the already drastic rake.   Truck is a 2020 Sierra 1500 AT4. Thanks.

Springs are fir weight of the truck.....just go up in spring rate if you have an extra 100lbs on front

 

 

Check out proper springs fir your weight....call eibach (believe they supply bilstein anyway for springs

 

TB owners @ 3.2 inches over stock height ( 1.2 over TB height) in front I would for sure do UCA and diff......its not that much $$ to correct...problems will start eventually

 

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by Dunn

[lapoolboy]

8 hours ago, Dunn said:

TB owners @ 3.2 inches over stock height ( 1.2 over TB height) in front I would for sure do UCA and diff......its not that much $$ to correct...problems will start eventually

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true.  I've grown weary of all the misinformation out there about these trucks and the damn UCAs.  Stop drinking the Cognito Kool-Aid.  How many upper ball joint failures on these trucks can you find on the internet? - only a couple out of the thousands and thousands that are lifted.

 

Again, the control arms can only move so much as they are bound on the upper and lower end of their range of motion.  The ball joints and axles are still operating within this travel envelope no matter where the static starting position may be; i.e. lifted trucks are going to have a static position toward "more droop" to achieve the lift, but all the components are still within the normal engineered range of motion as designed by GM.  GM even adds longer axles to compensate for the increased distance from the diff to wheel hub.  There is no need to swap the UCAs because they are still within range.  

 

Jack up your truck and take a front wheel off.  The suspension is going to droop to the stop.  This is going to be the case whether the truck is lifted or not.  The factory GM upper ball joint is designed to operate within the range.

[Dunn]

17 hours ago, lapoolboy said:

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true.  I've grown weary of all the misinformation out there about these trucks and the damn UCAs.  Stop drinking the Cognito Kool-Aid.  How many upper ball joint failures on these trucks can you find on the internet? - only a couple out of the thousands and thousands that are lifted.

 

Again, the control arms can only move so much as they are bound on the upper and lower end of their range of motion.  The ball joints and axles are still operating within this travel envelope no matter where the static starting position may be; i.e. lifted trucks are going to have a static position toward "more droop" to achieve the lift, but all the components are still within the normal engineered range of motion as designed by GM.  GM even adds longer axles to compensate for the increased distance from the diff to wheel hub.  There is no need to swap the UCAs because they are still within range.  

 

Jack up your truck and take a front wheel off.  The suspension is going to droop to the stop.  This is going to be the case whether the truck is lifted or not.  The factory GM upper ball joint is designed to operate within the range.

Have seen quite a few failures in newr trucks and I myself had failures because of doing this in past and had friends with issues....

 

So yeah its not Cognito Kool aid.....

 

You take GMs word and I'll take my experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Dunn

[lapoolboy]

Exactly, so I'd say a handful out of thousands and thousands is a very low percentage and can probably be chalked up to a defective part or just good old-fashioned bad luck.

[RWTJR]

23 hours ago, lapoolboy said:

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true.  I've grown weary of all the misinformation out there about these trucks and the damn UCAs.  Stop drinking the Cognito Kool-Aid.  How many upper ball joint failures on these trucks can you find on the internet? - only a couple out of the thousands and thousands that are lifted.

 

Again, the control arms can only move so much as they are bound on the upper and lower end of their range of motion.  The ball joints and axles are still operating within this travel envelope no matter where the static starting position may be; i.e. lifted trucks are going to have a static position toward "more droop" to achieve the lift, but all the components are still within the normal engineered range of motion as designed by GM.  GM even adds longer axles to compensate for the increased distance from the diff to wheel hub.  There is no need to swap the UCAs because they are still within range.  

 

Jack up your truck and take a front wheel off.  The suspension is going to droop to the stop.  This is going to be the case whether the truck is lifted or not.  The factory GM upper ball joint is designed to operate within the range.

Just because the engineered design allows for movement through a specific range doesn't mean it's designed to operate in that condition on a regular basis long term. The engine is designed to run up to red line, so it must be okay to run at red line on all the time, right? I mean, it's in the engineered range of operation so it must be okay, just drive in 2nd gear all the time.

 

GM engineered the front suspension to run from a 0" lift on the standard 1500 to the 2" lift on the TB/AT4. Does that mean the suspension travel doesn't allow for a 3.5" (or 1.5" on the TB) lift to be installed? No. Does it mean it was actually engineered and designed for a 3.5" lift?, also No.

 

Droop normally occurs when the wheel/suspension is not under load on a truck without additional lift. Lifted, that same droop/ball joint angle now occurs under continuous load. So is the ball joint designed to be under load on a continuous basis at the higher angle now created by the droop that's a result of the additional lift? Just because the suspension moves through that range of motion doesn't necessarily mean it's designed to be under continuous, or additional, load throughout that entire, or even a greater, range of movement.

 

You can run a tire under inflated under extreme conditions (off road for example) and some are engineered for that type of usage. That doesn't mean it's engineered be run at highway speeds while under inflated. Just as suspension is designed to droop for travel on varying terrain, or pot holes, it may not be designed to be artificially drooped (specially under load) at all times by a lift over 2". However, just like you can run an underinflated tire at highway speeds (I don't recommend it), you can run a suspension at lift imposed droop at all times (doesn't mean it was engineered to do so).

 

The theory that because a component is engineered to perform under varying conditions on a short term or sporadic basis, it's engineered to run in that condition continuously and long term is questionable.

 

GM engineered the factory suspension to function properly from 0" to 2" of lift (or standard 1500 to TB/AT4). Any claim otherwise is pure conjecture. If anyone can provide GM engineering specs that claim otherwise, I'll happily eat my words.

 

Just as I wouldn't drive with my engine at red line (designed to hit red line under certain conditions) or highway speeds on an underinflated tire (designed for underinflated use under certain conditions), I wouldn't lift a standard 1500 over 2" or a TB/AT4 at all with factory components.

 

The absence of failure is not a confirmation of appropriate usage.

 

JMHO

No expertise implied or expressed

 

 

 

 

[lapoolboy]

Wow!  Thank you for that in-depth dissertation Professor Krump.  Guess I better roll some pennies and get some control arms then!

[RWTJR]

I think some of you might find this new thread interesting:

 

[xsquid]

6112 seem to be back ordered pretty deep. Ordered March 25 from 4 wheel parts. Saved 5 percent on the order anyway. Summit racing says they won't come in till the end of July. Want to replace my Rough Country 2 inch leveling struts. Love the ride of them. But they seem to settled a good 1/2 or more lower from the 2 inch. Well set the 6112 at 2 inch. Hope the springs keeps the height. 

[Dunn]

On 3/25/2021 at 4:28 AM, lapoolboy said:

Exactly, so I'd say a handful out of thousands and thousands is a very low percentage and can probably be chalked up to a defective part or just good old-fashioned bad luck.

nowhere does GM say you can raise a TB up another 2" above stock TB height on their stock arms.....no company has a 0-4" range afaik.....its a bad idea period

[lapoolboy]

1 minute ago, Dunn said:

nowhere does GM say you can raise a TB up another 2" above stock TB height on their stock arms.....no company has a 0-4" range afaik.....its a bad idea period

You're right, GM doesn't say that, but Bilstein says I can raise it another 1.2" and I'm happy with their assessment.  

[Dunn]

some rep told me same thing...ill use my experience 

[Sierra Dan]

It took 5 years for the 6112's to actually be released and available for the '14-'18 K2 GM trucks.

[BowtieBill]

On 4/9/2021 at 1:56 PM, xsquid said:

6112 seem to be back ordered pretty deep. Ordered March 25 from 4 wheel parts. Saved 5 percent on the order anyway. Summit racing says they won't come in till the end of July. Want to replace my Rough Country 2 inch leveling struts. Love the ride of them. But they seem to settled a good 1/2 or more lower from the 2 inch. Well set the 6112 at 2 inch. Hope the springs keeps the height. 

I ordered my 6112's from 4WP about the same time. Had ordered 5160s for the rear as well. Was told the 6112's should be shipped in about 2 weeks, but the 5160's were backordered. Cancelled the 5160s and ordered them from Shock Warehouse. They were in stock, received them pretty quick. Still waiting on the 6112's from 4WP.

[xsquid]

Right after i wrote that I literally I got an e-mail your order shipped. Got them on Saturday. The springs are thicker the the factory. I put a caliper on them. Plus tightly  wound compared to factory or the Rough Country which the springs were even thinner in dia then the factory springs. The Rough Country have settled over a inch. My Front measures at 38.5 now.  I have posted pic when I first got them installed  was at 40 inch's. Factory height was 38 inch's. Have 1.25 blocks in back. Measures at 40.25.  I swapped over the top hats to the Beilsteins with a spring compressor from harbor freight. They were pretty bent. Will try to get them installed this week. I hope they ride nice and will hold there height over time. 2020 RST 5.3 4WD

[BowtieBill]

1 hour ago, xsquid said:

Right after i wrote that I literally I got an e-mail your order shipped. Got them on Saturday. The springs are thicker the the factory. I put a caliper on them. Plus tightly  wound compared to factory or the Rough Country which the springs were even thinner in dia then the factory springs. The Rough Country have settled over a inch. My Front measures at 38.5 now.  I have posted pic when I first got them installed  was at 40 inch's. Factory height was 38 inch's. Have 1.25 blocks in back. Measures at 40.25.  I swapped over the top hats to the Beilsteins with a spring compressor from harbor freight. They were pretty bent. Will try to get them installed this week. I hope they ride nice and will hold there height over time. 2020 RST 5.3 4WD

Thanks for sharing. Right now, my front measures 37.5, rear at 38.5. I am debating whether to set the Bilsteins on the highest lift setting, which is 2" for the 6.2 4wd, or the next one down, which is 1.6". Curious if they are going to settle as much as the RC's you have.