But does it make a sound if no one is around to hear it
Testing for Bilstein - LC200 6112/5160 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mogwai
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Official release date is the 5th of Never. Mark your calendars.
If I recall, that's right around the 32nd of Octnember, correct?
Well, it is a leap year after all. . .
bloc
SILVER Star
I won’t pretend to know how much they spend developing these things but considering there is a tundra application it should be quite simple to adjust the valving and spring rates and put a kit out. They’d sell a bunch right off the bat just from people that have had great experiences with other bilstein products. Like me. Plus the huge number of people considering used 200s for builds now with the overlanding craze taking off like it is.
I agree. They are handling this very poorly.
I agree. They are handling this very poorly.
afgman786
SILVER Star
With the other options out there is there something better about Bilstein that the other brands don't offer/aren't reputable for?
I’d like to see these hit the market. The set they gave me after testing on my truck are fine for my use but really they should just be straight on when the higher end stuff is coming out. Sure things get pushed back, there are delays etc. Better communication would be nice.
But let’s be real... they’re following the money. We’re the 1%. If it was my business I would do the same...
But let’s be real... they’re following the money. We’re the 1%. If it was my business I would do the same...
bloc
SILVER Star
Tundra stuff is already developed, so that shouldn't be taking away from time developing the 200 application.
The Tundra fronts physically bolt in. Would simply involve a valving and spring change, no new CNC other than maybe different reservoir brackets.
The rears would (could?) be moderately more complicated with different ends on the shocks, and again different valving. I guess it's possible different stroke length too. But the vast majority of the work is done.
I get that they are putting the money where it is a good investment, but this seems very simple to wrap up and release, and they'd probably get a fair number of sales right away.
- Thread starter
- #70
Hot off the press, 6112s and 5160s, looks like they finalize development of their springs too: Search Results
If you have any questions/information they don't share let me know and I can ask their product guy.
Edit, more info from Bilstein:
"The rear springs we have now, kit part#53-292018, will lift the rear 1.75” unloaded. Free length is 472mm. These springs are 177 lbs per inch with a linear curve. We will be designing a heavy load rear spring but it will be at least 6 months out."
"The front springs are custom with a different ID top and bottom, specially made to fit the 6112 requirements. The front spring rate is 650 lbs per inch."
If you have any questions/information they don't share let me know and I can ask their product guy.
Edit, more info from Bilstein:
"The rear springs we have now, kit part#53-292018, will lift the rear 1.75” unloaded. Free length is 472mm. These springs are 177 lbs per inch with a linear curve. We will be designing a heavy load rear spring but it will be at least 6 months out."
"The front springs are custom with a different ID top and bottom, specially made to fit the 6112 requirements. The front spring rate is 650 lbs per inch."
Last edited:
bloc
SILVER Star
Will they be producing different rate springs? Or are they a common diameter and length so that we can run other stuff if it suits us better?
Also what is the minimum front lift with this setup assuming stock weight?
- Thread starter
- #73
I can ask about the front min. but website lists 1" min lift. I don't think you can swap out the front springs, he made it sound like the top and bottom seats of the 6112s are not a standard diameter. In the rear you can do whatever you want but I'd assume they tuned the shocks to match the springs. Interesting the stock load rear spring rate is a fair amount lower than the 2721s (270 - 340 lbft/in) or 2722s (275 lbft/in), anyone know what "stock" spring rates are? He said "heavy" load springs are in development, 6 months away, yada yada... didn't say how many versions.
FYI the segment product manager for light truck/off-road is [removed Shane's info - he said to reach out to general sales/marketing teams]
Last edited:
According to the OME Spring Rate Chart: OE Spring Rate is 170
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #75
More from Shane:
"The main reason why we chose to develop a rear spring for the LC200 is directly related to creating a really nice “front to rear” stance with our 6112 package. We researched some of the popular springs on the market and we found the “rake” was excessive when unloaded. Basically, it would look like a “stink bug”!"
'I attached a picture so you can see the stance with our complete package [same photo "Dom" shared on Pg. 1 of this thread]. The LC200 in the photo has a 3” front lift and the 1.75” rear lift springs. Our design intent was to offer a spring that would not only retain a little bit of “rake”, but also improve the rear departure. I have a found a 1-2” rear lift on trucks and SUV’s really goes a long way for improving the off road capability. Especially, when combining with a front 2-3” lift."
"Regarding the spring rate, As you have seen, our spring has a softer rate, but it is also longer than the 2721 and 2722. Essentially, our 177 lb spring will need to collapse much further to achieve ride height. Our springs are cold wound which have greater spring travel than, the more common, hot wound coil."
[I asked if free spring lengths for rear springs were different passenger/driver] "Regarding the side to side stance, I just checked with our engineer on the project. He was able to look back in his notes and verified the side to side rear ride height was within the millimeter." [Hmmm...]
@Taco2Cruiser what do you think about this spring they've developed for a stock load truck compared to 2721s/2722s?
"The main reason why we chose to develop a rear spring for the LC200 is directly related to creating a really nice “front to rear” stance with our 6112 package. We researched some of the popular springs on the market and we found the “rake” was excessive when unloaded. Basically, it would look like a “stink bug”!"
'I attached a picture so you can see the stance with our complete package [same photo "Dom" shared on Pg. 1 of this thread]. The LC200 in the photo has a 3” front lift and the 1.75” rear lift springs. Our design intent was to offer a spring that would not only retain a little bit of “rake”, but also improve the rear departure. I have a found a 1-2” rear lift on trucks and SUV’s really goes a long way for improving the off road capability. Especially, when combining with a front 2-3” lift."
"Regarding the spring rate, As you have seen, our spring has a softer rate, but it is also longer than the 2721 and 2722. Essentially, our 177 lb spring will need to collapse much further to achieve ride height. Our springs are cold wound which have greater spring travel than, the more common, hot wound coil."
[I asked if free spring lengths for rear springs were different passenger/driver] "Regarding the side to side stance, I just checked with our engineer on the project. He was able to look back in his notes and verified the side to side rear ride height was within the millimeter." [Hmmm...]
@Taco2Cruiser what do you think about this spring they've developed for a stock load truck compared to 2721s/2722s?
3” front lift? I’d worry about CV angle.
Taco2Cruiser
Crazy American Off Road
It could be a good option for the right driver. I don’t think I would recommend it at first over a 2721/2 because with an increase of ride height, comes a higher center of gravity. With a higher center of gravity, when cornering, I like to add a firmer spring to help keep the truck more flat.
Again, only looking at a stock load truck. If the 200 was driven on the really bad roads of Chicago, it could give a more enjoyable ride there. If the 200 was driven on high speed smoother roads of LA, I would lean more to the 2721.
For on road driving, regardless of the rear spring, I still don’t think it’s good to have that much more lift on the front. It’s due to shifting more weight to the rear of the truck, it makes the steering lighter and less responsive. For off road driving, just talking about the front, that much lift gives very little down travel remaining.
I often see that with vehicles, when a company comes out with something that pretty much works, it get repeated on a lot of customer’s outfits. When another company wants to get into that market, they do one of two things. Steal the idea (which happens all too often) or make the case for something that the first product/company failed to acknowledge, then state why the second company’s product does not have those same short comings.
Usually, not always, but usually, just in my opinion, the second company is full of it. I don’t necessarily think Bilstein is providing a gimmicky spring here though. But I do feel like they sat down and said, “ok, we’re not going to beat ARB’s OME line at their own game, which is weight carrying. So let’s talk this whole, ‘lift for stock weights’ thing and get some market shares.”
That’s why I don’t think it will be a bad product, but I don’t think it was one of necessity either.
I did this 200 yesterday (parts were used, so I would of recommended a 2721 rear spring instead). It has BP-51s set to 1mm preload, 2722s, and factory front UCAs. The front is exactly 24mm lower than the front, and left to right balance is within 1mm.
If this customer wouldn’t not have had a little off road trailer, I would of set preload a tad higher. But never mind that. For the ride, it is very smooth, not rough or jarring at all, and for the increased height, corners slightly worse than the factory height. It has slightly less “Cadillac float” than factory, but it looks balanced front to rear and like a “stink bug.” So if I put on a softer spring in the rear, and lifted the front higher like the Bilstein picture in the beginning of this thread, I just don’t see how that would feel better. I feel the Bilstein would feel more unstable and less planted.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #78
It's interesting I just got a reply back and he thinks that with their stock springs the truck will sit an inch or two lower than the 2721s even though they have a higher initial free height. I guess they used the 2721s as initial test units. I dunno, prob not going to work for me but I could see this setup pretty nice for those road warriors out there who want to maintain as close to stock ride height as possible.
Side-side note - they released 5160s for the 100 series, but it's 5160s on all 4 corners, all of them a bit different (4 part numbers).
Bilstein should have simply brought the B60 suspension to market in the USA!
BILSTEIN B60 – Bilstein Suspension Australia
www.bilstein.com.au
So I bought the 6112 a couple of months ago for the tundra app believing that this would never happen so I called Bilstein today to try to fill them out for what the differences were between the tundra application and Land Cruiser application he said it's the exact same coil spring same part number the only difference is the valving in the shocks ..the Land Cruiser has more valving or less softness than the tundra shock and there is more height adjustability in the Land Cruiser shock
so I called Bilstein today to try to fill them out for what the differences were between the tundra application and Land Cruiser application he said it's the exact same coil spring same part number the only difference is the valving in the shocks ..the Land Cruiser has more valving or less softness than the tundra shock and there is more height adjustability in the Land Cruiser shock
