Jump to content

Bilstein 6112 Suspension Leveling Kit - 1500 AT4

doggfatherone
 Share

Recommended Posts

doggfatherone Enthusiast

doggfatherone

Posted
Posted

Ok, thought I would post after having the Bilstein 6112 front suspension kit placed on my 2021 1500 AT4 today. I've ordered the 5100's for the back, however they won't be in until next week. So, my goal was to get rid of the dang bounce in the truck. The ride wasn't bad, but I thought I would try the 6112's. Immediately I could tell that the truck definitely sits close to level, which I'm ok with a slight rake and I mean slight. I purposely hit a few bumps and the trucks feels more planted or stiffer. It still has a slight bounce, however you can tell the difference and I'm very satisfied. I can't wait until I get the rear Bilstein's installed, as that is where I feel it is most needed. 

 

If you are on the fence about the 6112's, get them fast. They were on backorder, so I jumped on them when they were in stock. 

 

I'll have to take pics later. Model# is BSN-47-309524

  • Like 2
novarox71 Enthusiast

novarox71

Posted
Posted

The 6112's are pretty good I had them on my 2016 along with the 5160's out back. I didn't realize how good they were until I got my 2021 AT4. the suspension is so soft yet I feel like it bounces over speed bumps. there's  more noticeable body roll and it dives when you break hard. needles to say I am not happy with the Ranchos. what engine do you have? I noticed Bilstein has the 6112 for the 6.2/5.3 but not the 3.0 like I have. I'm wondering what the weight difference in the engines is. I hope they make them available soon. Congrats on your new 6112's you'll love them more with the 51000's installed!

  • Like 1
Grover67 Enthusiast

Grover67

Posted
Posted (edited)

Went the same route with mine as you are. I went with the 5100's last summer after driving it some after purchase and felt the back end didn't feel real planted at times and really didn't care for that. Really noticed the difference after change out to the 5100's so they were well worth it. Was on the fence on what I wanted to do with front if anything but the more miles I put on I could feel the front not responding as well and decided to go with the 6112 setup at 10000 miles on the stock stuff.  Picked them up through Summit Racing(p#47-309524) late this spring and installed myself, #1 setting and was within 1/4" of what the stock height was with the factory Rancho's. Noticed it was a bit better at first but more I drove it they were really more noticeable better especially on the rougher roads pushing it abit, these are worth it for the front. Nice combo with both sets on there now, and hopefully are for long term vs. the factory ones

 

'20 AT/4 3.0l

 

-Grover67 

Edited by Grover67
novarox71 Enthusiast

novarox71

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Grover67 said:

Went the same route with mine as you are. I went with the 5100's last summer after driving it some after purchase and felt the back end didn't feel real planted at times and really didn't care for that. Really noticed the difference after change out to the 5100's so they were well worth it. Was on the fence on what I wanted to do with front if anything but the more miles I put on I could feel the front not responding as well and decided to go with the 6112 setup at 10000 miles on the stock stuff.  Picked them up through Summit Racing(p#47-309524) late this spring and installed myself, #1 setting and was within 1/4" of what the stock height was with the factory Rancho's. Noticed it was a bit better at first but more I drove it they were really more noticeable better especially on the rougher roads pushing it abit, these are worth it for the front. Nice combo with both sets on there now, and hopefully are for long term vs. the factory ones

 

'20 AT/4 3.0l

 

-Grover67 

I see you have a 3.0L too. Any issues with the 6112's? According to Bilstein they don't offer the 6112's for the 3.0 I'm guessing because of the difference in weight of the engine? I'd love the 6112's back in my life lol

Grover67 Enthusiast

Grover67

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, novarox71 said:

I see you have a 3.0L too. Any issues with the 6112's? According to Bilstein they don't offer the 6112's for the 3.0 I'm guessing because of the difference in weight of the engine? I'd love the 6112's back in my life lol

Contacted them and that is what they told me to use with my 3.0l. Located a set from Summit Racing.  No issues with them and like I mentioned about the same height as the factory setup on #1, wasn't looking to level it.  

 

I was going to use the 5100's in the front with the stock springs but figured why not go for complete setup with a more robust shock as I had to pull everything apart to do it anyway, so far no regrets

 

Go for it if you want them back in your life!!😉

 

-Grover67

  • Thanks 1
  • 3 weeks later...
speedjunky78 Enthusiast

speedjunky78

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/29/2021 at 3:23 PM, Grover67 said:

Contacted them and that is what they told me to use with my 3.0l. Located a set from Summit Racing.  No issues with them and like I mentioned about the same height as the factory setup on #1, wasn't looking to level it.  

 

I was going to use the 5100's in the front with the stock springs but figured why not go for complete setup with a more robust shock as I had to pull everything apart to do it anyway, so far no regrets

 

Go for it if you want them back in your life!!😉

 

-Grover67

Do you happen to have the part numbers that you ordered at Summit Racing? edit: nvm I'm an idiot and didn't read your first post all the way through where you listed them. My bad.

 

I was just on their site and none of the ones available say they are for my truck. 2021 1500 RST 3.0l 4wd. 

 

Any help would be appreciated.  The front suspension on my truck is a little soft for my liking...my Tundra had 5100's and those were solid. Thanks in advance.

Edited by speedjunky78
  • Like 1
Grover67 Enthusiast

Grover67

Posted
Posted

Might talk to them to see or check some of the other places but they have been on backorder from what I understand. I just happen to hit Summit Racing at the right time when they a few sets left. Those parts were for the AT4/Trailboss version and won't work unless you are lifting yours.

 

-Grover67

doggfatherone Enthusiast

doggfatherone

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 7/28/2021 at 12:17 PM, novarox71 said:

The 6112's are pretty good I had them on my 2016 along with the 5160's out back. I didn't realize how good they were until I got my 2021 AT4. the suspension is so soft yet I feel like it bounces over speed bumps. there's  more noticeable body roll and it dives when you break hard. needles to say I am not happy with the Ranchos. what engine do you have? I noticed Bilstein has the 6112 for the 6.2/5.3 but not the 3.0 like I have. I'm wondering what the weight difference in the engines is. I hope they make them available soon. Congrats on your new 6112's you'll love them more with the 51000's installed!

Sorry, didn't see this message, but I have the 5.3L. 

UNSTUCK Enthusiast

UNSTUCK

Posted
Posted

So the 6112 is only for the lifted trucks? My 2021 SLT is stock ride height. I hit a bump in the road and am still bouncing up and down a mile later. Like I have no shocks at all. Driving me nuts. The 6112 is the better option for that vs the 5100's? I've used 5100's many times before on other vehicles and was happy.

Dunn Senior Enthusiast

Dunn

Posted
Posted

6112 just a bit more beefy so would handle offroad better and resi on rear would last a little longer from heat.....just depends.......if that fits the bill better than yeah for the money,  6112 is great option, not alot of competition in this category.....kind of a in betweener suspension system....maybe fox 2.0 competes (?)..... next step up is 2.5s from the big boys

Dunn Senior Enthusiast

Dunn

Posted
Posted
On 8/24/2021 at 7:51 AM, UNSTUCK said:

So the 6112 is only for the lifted trucks? My 2021 SLT is stock ride height. I hit a bump in the road and am still bouncing up and down a mile later. Like I have no shocks at all. Driving me nuts. The 6112 is the better option for that vs the 5100's? I've used 5100's many times before on other vehicles and was happy.

its adjustable....

UNSTUCK Enthusiast

UNSTUCK

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Dunn said:

its adjustable....

5100's are adjustable too, but give a different ride height than that 6112s. Which one give the firmer ride and less bottoming out?

Dunn Senior Enthusiast

Dunn

Posted
Posted

not sure the height range of 6112 but its easy to find......if you want it taller just get ones made for AT4.....give an extra 2'' plus whatever is adjustable......6112 is the beefier unit so would have resist bottoming better, also idk but they may be revalveable as well......thats huge plus if they are and have a tuner who knows what he is doing, 

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

    • B14Sierra
      Cam chain tensioner question

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      So I'm in the middle of a DOD AFM delete on my 6.2 L86 Sierra. I had a pick holding the tensioner but after I got the Cam phaser gear off I was cleaning off all the rtv and apparently I didn't have the pick seated far enough in. I bumped it and the tensioner sprang forward.  I think everything is good but I want a second opinion. The top of the tensioner is just a looped piece of plastic that rides in that channel right? There is no spring or anything is there? I got the gear and chain back on and it seems tight and everything looks right. I'm hoping nothing fell out.
    • dna9656
      No low range 4 x 4

      By dna9656 · Posted

      My 2015 1500 LTZ Silverado suddenly won't go into 4 x 4 low. It will go into 4 x 4 high.
    • asilverblazer
      Transmission Woes :-(

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      Yep, just a quick reference point.    My main point being I’d do a thousand other things before I’d pay 10k for a transmission.    Speaking in ignorance cause I don’t look at these trucks, what is it worth? 20k?
    • asilverblazer
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By asilverblazer · Posted

      I think users are going to want to pick their monitored parameters, which parameters they want to see first.    It should probably start with baseline at a minimum and adjust to learned, but be able to overlay baseline for comparison.   A simple severity level would be able to determine what type of alerting is appropriate or user selectable.    Why not use the OBD port though?   I think a phone connection would be a good idea, push notifications type deal.   Number 1 issue is having data is useless if you don’t know what the data should be under normal conditions. 
    • Chuck FB
      summer road trips in the 2026 2500HD

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...