Jump to content

Bilstein 6112 thread for ‘19-‘20

Tcolburntexas

By Tcolburntexas
in Modifications, Wheels & Tires

 Share

Recommended Posts

xsquid Enthusiast

xsquid

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ok I like them so far. Had them installed today at a shop I have use for some time. They do alignment also. A month I installed KYB's 

on my wife's 2014 impala as I was coming down with Covid. Did the rear. Had front strut off but head was pounding. Called it quits told her take it there. For the price with alignment I was like. Lets do this. I set them at 2 inch's when I installed the spring's .  Anyway Just drove home about 8 miles . Definitely stiffer then the RC's . But not jarring by any means. I like it. It raised it to 39.5 inch's  in the front. Where I was at when first installed the RC. I was down to 38.5 driver side 38 passenger with the RC. Can definitely see the difference in the stance. Had 8000 mile on the RC shocks.  I'm hope they maintain the height with the springs . Some loss but not 1.25.  Again 1.25 block in back from my 2009 Silverado. 1/2 to 3/4 rake. Also made 1/2 sway bar  plates to lower them for the slight lift.   2020 RST 5.3 . 

IMG_5521.jpg

IMG_5522.jpg

IMG_5524.jpg

Edited by xsquid
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Rtalliston
Rtalliston

I just installed the 5100s on my 20 silverado and set them at 2" and added a 1 inch block in the rear....left me with about 1/2" of rake...i ordered the blocks off ebay...came with u bolts and was abo

Duramax3oh
Duramax3oh

@JR09country I will sure give feedback on this thread. I am not expecting King/Fox 2.5 performance although that’s what I’d really like. I just can’t handle the bouncy floaty ride of these ranchos esp

lapoolboy
lapoolboy

Me too!!!

Posted Images

BowtieBill Enthusiast

BowtieBill

Posted
Posted

Bob, Thanks for the follow-up and update.

 

FYI, the 1" rear block kit I ordered from Supreme Suspensions was delivered to my work today. Pretty dang fast, since I just ordered them on Saturday.

 

Now if the 6112's would just get here.............

xsquid Enthusiast

xsquid

Posted
Posted

I think I added the shocks to my cart again after I ordered them from 4WP . Then they sent me an e-mail  left something behind save 5% good for a couple days. Called them asked if i could apply to my order while I waited for my shocks. They did. Worth a shot. Good luck with your set up. Post some pic. 

Sloth0047 New Member

Sloth0047

Posted
Posted

Good morning, new to the forum, but not GM. This will be my 3rd. I will be going to pick up a 21 AT4 3.0 Duramax this weekend. I’ve been browsing the forum for a while and have picked up a bunch and appreciate all of the good info on here. I test drove one yesterday and while the ride is better than my 2016, I would like to upgrade the dampers.

I have a close friend that works for Bilstein so I will be going that route but was hoping someone on here could help clarify some questions for me.

  1. Going from Bilstein’s website, they only show the 5100s and 5160s (rear only) available for the AT4. From what I’ve read, this is because the 5100s actually have a specific part number for the AT4 and are a longer stroke to account for the factory lift.
  2. Contrary to Bilstein’s website, 4WP shows a ton of options from Bilstein for the AT4. Is this because the fitment is the same they are just assuming you will set the damper to a higher lift position to make up for the factory lift and still achieve stock ride height or why would Bilstein not show these for the AT4 on their website?
    1.  If that is correct and I understand it correctly, the 5100s from the Bilstein website have a longer stroke meaning you could set it as 0” lift and still achieve factory ride height whereas the 6112s and other adjustable models would need to be set at the 2” lift position to achieve factory ride height?
  3. Lastly, it sounds like the consensus on the 5100s is that they are better than stock. I drive 90% on road between city and highway and my off-roading is limited to hunting season, camping and visiting family farms in the country. I don’t Baja or do any fast off-roading and I rarely tow anything but do occasionally have loads in the bed. Would the 5100s be fine or is jumping up to the 6112s a noticeable improvement?

 

Thanks in advance!

BowtieBill Enthusiast

BowtieBill

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Sloth0047 said:

Good morning, new to the forum, but not GM. This will be my 3rd. I will be going to pick up a 21 AT4 3.0 Duramax this weekend. I’ve been browsing the forum for a while and have picked up a bunch and appreciate all of the good info on here. I test drove one yesterday and while the ride is better than my 2016, I would like to upgrade the dampers.

I have a close friend that works for Bilstein so I will be going that route but was hoping someone on here could help clarify some questions for me.

  1. Going from Bilstein’s website, they only show the 5100s and 5160s (rear only) available for the AT4. From what I’ve read, this is because the 5100s actually have a specific part number for the AT4 and are a longer stroke to account for the factory lift.
  2. Contrary to Bilstein’s website, 4WP shows a ton of options from Bilstein for the AT4. Is this because the fitment is the same they are just assuming you will set the damper to a higher lift position to make up for the factory lift and still achieve stock ride height or why would Bilstein not show these for the AT4 on their website?
    1.  If that is correct and I understand it correctly, the 5100s from the Bilstein website have a longer stroke meaning you could set it as 0” lift and still achieve factory ride height whereas the 6112s and other adjustable models would need to be set at the 2” lift position to achieve factory ride height?
  3. Lastly, it sounds like the consensus on the 5100s is that they are better than stock. I drive 90% on road between city and highway and my off-roading is limited to hunting season, camping and visiting family farms in the country. I don’t Baja or do any fast off-roading and I rarely tow anything but do occasionally have loads in the bed. Would the 5100s be fine or is jumping up to the 6112s a noticeable improvement?

 

Thanks in advance!

FYI, if I remember correctly, on the 4WP site, it may show up for your truck in the search, but in the part description it may say "for TB and AT4 only" or "Not for TB & AT4".

BowtieBill Enthusiast

BowtieBill

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, lapoolboy said:

Me too!!!

PXL_20210406_195605936.jpg

Looks really good! Do you recall what setting you had it installed at? Is yours a 5.3L or 6.2L? Notice any sag since install?

BowtieBill Enthusiast

BowtieBill

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Duramax3oh said:

Had my 6112’s for 2+ months now and am just so happy with them still. Glad I went this route. 

84AFEC00-382C-4E8B-8239-563407D905D5.jpeg

Looks great! Do you recall what setting you had it installed at? Any sag after 2+ months? Looks real close to level.

Sloth0047 New Member

Sloth0047

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, BowtieBill said:

FYI, if I remember correctly, on the 4WP site, it may show up for your truck in the search, but in the part description it may say "for TB and AT4 only" or "Not for TB & AT4".

That makes sense, I will check the descriptions. 

 

Thanks!

lapoolboy Senior Enthusiast

lapoolboy

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, BowtieBill said:

Looks really good! Do you recall what setting you had it installed at? Is yours a 5.3L or 6.2L? Notice any sag since install?

Thanks.  I installed them at the third notch (highest setting = 1.2").  Mine is a 6.2L.  They have settled just a tiny bit as expected but nothing noticeable at all.  

BowtieBill Enthusiast

BowtieBill

Posted
Posted

Just got off the phone with 4WP. They are now saying Bilstein is not expecting the 6112's in until mid to late July.

Very disappointing. 

I have all the other parts here. Going to do a search, but don't think I will find any 6112's available sooner.

RSVolcom Enthusiast

RSVolcom

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, BowtieBill said:

Just got off the phone with 4WP. They are now saying Bilstein is not expecting the 6112's in until mid to late July.

Very disappointing. 

I have all the other parts here. Going to do a search, but don't think I will find any 6112's available sooner.

Why not just install the 5100 then?  

 

https://www.bilsteinlifts.com/shop/chevy-gmc/silverado-1500/2019/bilstein-b8-5100-0-2-5-front-lift-shocks-for-2019-2020-chevrolet-silverado-1500-2wd-4wd/

BowtieBill Enthusiast

BowtieBill

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, RSVolcom said:

Why not just install the 5100 then?  

 

https://www.bilsteinlifts.com/shop/chevy-gmc/silverado-1500/2019/bilstein-b8-5100-0-2-5-front-lift-shocks-for-2019-2020-chevrolet-silverado-1500-2wd-4wd/

I may consider it. But the 5100 only gives 1.5" lift at max setting for the 6.2L Crew Cab. I was looking for 2". I have already purchase 1" rear blocks. 

  • Like 1
Ioniq MPG Enthusiast

Ioniq MPG

Posted
Posted (edited)

Great dampers. They really soak up bumps and take all mush out of the ride. Sucks they are on back order.

 

I set the 6112s on slot 2 which is .40”

 

Then I added the N35 Deaver mini pack. Now I will go up to slot 3 or 4. I don’t want to go a full 2” without new front 1/2 shafts.

 

damn 90 out photos smh.

9B224F7B-DA42-414E-8016-B8E11B2C5542.jpeg

7DD965A2-5F66-4A8D-9D10-90DFDD90E966.jpeg

4957C876-498D-4FDF-A4BE-21A400E845AB.jpeg

Edited by GK Hill
  • Like 1

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

    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...