TRD Pro Bilstein Shocks (1 Viewer)

[aznxfactor]

Very similar lift setup.

@aznxfactor sounds like Tundra front and FJ rear for direct fit. Note the point above from @thechief24 about the UCAs, have you considered converting front end to Tundra OEM parts while you're at it? Reason I say that is the UCAs can be a substantial cost of the suspension.

In the rear you can use any springs you want with the 5160s, though it is another variable and depending on how the 5160s are valved some maybe better than others. I currently run the OME 2721s and so I would start there (no rear bumper added load). But you can use ICON, King, etc... As long as they are the LC application.

I worry the FJ rear applications will all be too soft, even in 5160 series, the truck is a lot lighter than the LC, but who knows.

Hey so for the tundra 6112 will fit with only upgraded upper control arms? That's a plan if it's true. Just curious to why the 6112 will fit that way but with the front reservoir you need to replace uca, lower arms, tie rods, and tundra cv boots? I mean if the 6112 front is just uca than that is a sweet route to go.

The good news is that at stock preload with tundra you get 2 inch lift so second notch 2.5? Both settings seems to put no stress to cv since it will keep it level?

For rear can't we go with tundra 5160? Or fj 5160 and medium to heavy springs with bumpstops isn't bad too I guess.

Either way, sounds like a plan as 4wheel parts is having a sale: 10% off all 6112.

 

[Tremek]

Point of clarification: re: UCAs, could the SPC UCAs for the LC be used with the Tundra 6112s, or is it a must to convert over to Tundra front suspension pieces entirely?

 

[thechief24]

Point of clarification: re: UCAs, could the SPC UCAs for the LC be used with the Tundra 6112s, or is it a must to convert over to Tundra front suspension pieces entirely?

I installed the LC SPC upper control arms with the Tundra 6112s. No issues.

 

[Tremek]

Nice. That's very helpful (I think!) @thechief24 - so if we were to build a list for the front suspension, is it really as short as:

- SPC Land cruiser UCAs
- Bilisten 6112s, for Tundra

?

As for the rears it sounds like 5160s for the 4Runner or FJ Cruiser + a heavier OME spring might be a way to go, but possibly don't have enough dampening?

 

[Mogwai]

Nice. That's very helpful (I think!) @thechief24 - so if we were to build a list for the front suspension, is it really as short as:

- SPC Land cruiser UCAs
- Bilisten 6112s, for Tundra

?

As for the rears it sounds like 5160s for the 4Runner or FJ Cruiser + a heavier OME spring might be a way to go, but possibly don't have enough dampening?

I think you've summed it up. I went ahead and replaced the CVs, lower As, and OTEs w/ the Tundra parts since it would give me an extra 3.5" of width in the front (1.75" per side), some commonality in parts (meaning if I'm out there and shred a CV I can find a Tundra part vs LC which in many cases is the difference between in stock, and special order), plus some claimed additional articulation due to the "longer" arms (+1"?), etc... to do this was +$700 and in the scheme of total lift cost worth it to me (less than the Total Chaos UCAs!!) so I just did it. Anyway, front is the easy part and as it appears you've got a number of options.

For the rear.. that's where we're all hung up. Given the damping issues I don't think there's a direct application for the LC using the 5160s. Tundra prob wouldn't work either given the leaf spring setup? I just couldn't see the valving matching.

My solution was to try and step "up" from the basic OME rear setup by going with Fox but really they are probably on par w/ each other, Fox maybe a bit better match for the 6112s. If you are really wanting 6112/5160 consider 6112/King remote resi for the rear. Cost wise a bit more than the 5160s, but adjustable dampers, etc... something like that should really compliment the 6112s (ICON, others... all offer rear applications for the LC much like the Kings).

Good luck.

 

[Tremek]

My back of the napkin math indicates that I can upgrade the front suspension of the LC for $1000 less than BP-51s by going with the 6112s.

Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the BP-51s are $1000 better, or if the 6112s are $1000 worse? This will be like 95% on-road, 5% off-road usage.

 

[Virgilus11]

@Virgilus11 , what are you unhappy with re: BP-51s?

The noise in the front. They replaced two shocks and still no fix. I read that they came up with a new shock and Arich is testing them. Lets hope.

 

[Mogwai]

Plus rebuilds in future. Can't comment on ride, would have to suspect BPs would have the advantage, plus adjustable based on your desired comfort. But $1000 better? And knowing rebuild costs, plus re-install down the road if you're not DIY cost is a bit more.

If it helps, my setup cost me just under $3500k going from stock to Tundra front, and all the small parts in between. Price includes having Wheeler Off-road mount the 6112s and the needed mounting tops and hardware. All parts plug and play from there.

Tundra OEM - $650
Total Chaos UCAs - $750
6112s, Fox, OME springs - $1450
Adjustable pan hard - $240
Rear wheel spacers - $125
SS brake lines - $185
Alignment -$100

I would not have spent the extra "$1k" or whatever the difference would have been with BPs, mainly because of the noise and constant replacement issues some are dealing with, after this install I also don't want to have to tear things down again for a while.

 

[Tremek]

I did some more digging through Bilstein spec sheets yesterday; if the belief is that the FJ parts weren't dampened enough, does it stand to reason that if we can determine what the dampening rates were on the FJ part, we could determine what it needs more or less of?

Having just found this PDF: http://cart.bilsteinus.com/pdfs/off-road.pdf

I went digging through the 5160s looking for something that would apply in our scenario (stem top, eyelet fitting bottom?) and didn't find anything that stood out as being both that configuration (looks like many/most trucks are eyelet top/bottom?) and a coil-sprung rear platform (rare in the big trucks) that would be comparable in weight to our 200s, with my idea being that valving for coils vs leaf-spring trucks might be different...

Is that a wrong assumption? I may be confusing myself but I thought someone said the Tundra 5160s (part # 25-237429 didn't work?

I feel like we have a lot more info to go off of re: 5165s, which I believe are mechanically the same as the 5160 but for custom fit applications (see excerpt below):

... But I can't find any concrete specs on the 25-227611 5160 part for the FJ itself. Internet sleuths, care to take a shot too? I readily admit to not knowing enough about valving or other specs to understand how a relative difference between the FJ part and other parts would be reflected on the vehicle, but I have to think we have enough experts in this thread to do so.

If sleuthing fails - I sent Taryn an email yesterday asking for specs on the FJ 5160 part, hopefully she comes back with something.

In terms of exterior specs we need for the rear: am I correct in thinking we need a stem/stud upper fitting, and the 5/8" eyelet fitting at the bottom? There's 3 stock 5165 options that if my assumptions are right wouldn't need modification to the mounts and would just bolt in.

Granted, only 3 options, but if we're working off the King Shock specs on the previous page:

25001-133 FJ Cruiser 10+ Front Coil Overs Compressed: 16.8" Extended: 21.69" Diff: 4.89"
25001-125 FJ Cruiser 06-09 Rear Shocks Compressed: 15.58" Extended: 24.29" Diff: 8.71"

25001-266 Land Cruiser 200 08+ Front Coil Overs Compressed: 18.397" Extended: 25.271" Diff: 6.874"
25001-267 Land Cruiser 200 08+ Rear Shocks Compressed: 15.872" Extended 24.338" Diff: 8.617"

And for fun...

25001-143 Tundra 07+ Front Coil Overs Compressed: 18.396" Extended: 25.27" Diff: 6.874"
(rear application not comparable)

- On the face of things I'm not sure if any of the 5165s line up perfectly, but if nothing else we could try and figure this out?

One more page/resource I found that had a lot of detail on the 5165s: 25-187700 - BILSTEIN Truck & Off Road - B8 5165 Series Shocks - Total Automotive Performance - Your Source for Auto Parts and Accessories

Re: compressed/extended lengths, valving, and the housing body specs, do we have any OEM numbers to work from?

Re: costs, I'm stuck on the idea that I should be able to pick up a set of these 6112s/5160s from 4wheelparts.com for $903 shipped for all 4 corners. Then I need $577 UCAs and $228 OMEs for the rear and I'm done, or so I think?

$1708 all-in on parts for coilovers and remote reservoirs is 50% the price of a BP-51 setup. The idea of spending 3k+ just on the shocks themselves seems unnecessary for my truck, especially when I can put that difference into a front bumper and armor!

 

[aznxfactor]

I think you've summed it up. I went ahead and replaced the CVs, lower As, and OTEs w/ the Tundra parts since it would give me an extra 3.5" of width in the front (1.75" per side), some commonality in parts (meaning if I'm out there and shred a CV I can find a Tundra part vs LC which in many cases is the difference between in stock, and special order), plus some claimed additional articulation due to the "longer" arms (+1"?), etc... to do this was +$700 and in the scheme of total lift cost worth it to me (less than the Total Chaos UCAs!!) so I just did it. Anyway, front is the easy part and as it appears you've got a number of options.

For the rear.. that's where we're all hung up. Given the damping issues I don't think there's a direct application for the LC using the 5160s. Tundra prob wouldn't work either given the leaf spring setup? I just couldn't see the valving matching.

My solution was to try and step "up" from the basic OME rear setup by going with Fox but really they are probably on par w/ each other, Fox maybe a bit better match for the 6112s. If you are really wanting 6112/5160 consider 6112/King remote resi for the rear. Cost wise a bit more than the 5160s, but adjustable dampers, etc... something like that should really compliment the 6112s (ICON, others... all offer rear applications for the LC much like the Kings).

Good luck.

Do you think we can buy the trd pro Tundra rear suspension as a stand alone?

From other lc200 post. Many of them buy the complete set and from my understanding that only the front needed to be changed to Tundra.

With 6112 tundra front with uca and if we can get rear TRD pro that fits with no problem, that sounds like a big W.

Isn't the TRD pro rear suspension a 5160 anyway???

 

[silverhorse]

There has to be some Australian companies rears we could use if need be like Tough dog, King, and Dobinson... There are a several importers now.

Coil Springs

 

[silverhorse]

Home


*Raised Height Measurements are
Listed as a Guide Only
Prices are subject to change without notice. Torsion Bars: Sold in Pairs.
Coil Springs: Sold in Pairs - Letter Indicates Price Code (A), (B), (C) etc.
FRONT
QTY
PART
NUMBER
PRICE
REAR
QTY
PART
NUMBER
PRICE
S-209
TOYOTA
TOY-96
COIL SPRING
GRJ200 4.0L 6 Cyl. Petrol
Linear Rate
Standard Height
1
C59-536
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (50mm Lift)
1
C59-540
B
UZJ200 4.7L V8 Petrol
URJ200 5.7L V8 Petrol
Linear Rate
Raised Height (25mm Lift)
1
C59-538
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (35mm Lift)
1
C59-540
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (50mm Lift)
0-50Kg Accessories
1
C59-542
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (50mm Lift)
80-120Kg Accessories
(Bullbar OR Winch)
1
C59-544
B
VDJ200 4.5L Twin Turbo
V8 Diesel
Linear Rate
Raised Height (30mm Lift)
1
C59-540
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (50mm Lift)
0-50Kg Accessories
1
C59-544
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (50mm Lift)
80-120Kg Accessories
(Bullbar OR Winch)
1
C59-568
B
SHOCK ABSORBER
Heavy Duty Twin Tube Gas
2
GS59-688
Extra Heavy Duty
Twin
Tube
Gas
2
GS59-690
Extra Heavy Duty
Twin
Tube
Gas
Monster Shock
45mm Piston, 75mm Body
2
GS59-734
Monotube Remote Reservoir
Adjustable
Spring Seat
Heavy Duty
Original Setting of
X = 222mm / 8.74”
X -
Centre of Eye to Spring Seat
2
MR59-60688
STRUT CAP
Strut Top Caps
2
SC59-006
COIL SPRING
Linear Rate
Standard Height
1
C59-543
B
Variable Rate
Raised Height (10mm Lift)
This Variable Rate Coil Allows
Less Height Change and
Provides a Firmer Ride When
Loading
1
C59-559V
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (30mm Lift)
1
C59-535
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (30mm Lift)
100-200Kg Constant Load
1
C59-545
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (50mm Lift)
No Load
1
C59-545
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (30mm Lift)
400Kg Constant Load
1
C59-547
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (50mm Lift)
250-300Kg Constant Load
1
C59-547
B
Linear Rate
Raised Height (50mm Lift)
500Kg Constant Load
1
C59-549
B
SHOCK ABSORBER
Heavy Duty Twin Tube Gas
2
GS59-682
Extra Heavy Duty
Twin
Tube
Gas
Monster Shock
45mm Piston, 70mm Body
2
GS59-698
Heavy Duty Monotube
Remote Reservoir
2
MR59-60682
ADJUSTABLE PANHARD ROD
Complete with Bushes
1
PR59-1421
Recommended for Lifts Above 35mm to Correct Wheel Alignment.
Landcruiser 200 Series
UZJ/URJ/GRJ/VDJ 200
11/2007 on
Station Wagon
JAN17 Rev 0
TYPE:
MODEL:
YEAR:
DETAIL:
4x4

 

[silverhorse]

and these Toyota Landcruiser 200 Series Wagon Silver 56669 | Superior Customer Vehicles

 

[Tremek]

Good point about Australian kits - I'm still amazed at how little of their setups make it here to the US. I was looking at Gumtree recently and there's dozens of bullbar bumpers for 200s for dirt cheap all over it. Such a different market!

My hope re: the Bilstein rears was to have one vendor to get help figuring out what to do on all 4 corners and then have one throat to choke if/when warranty issues arise down the road. I liken it a bit to tires - sure, you can put Michelins on the front and BFGs on the rear, but should you? If you get premature wear on one set, that vendor might be just as likely to point fingers at the gear on the other end of the truck.

Obviously a number of people have done it by I still like to hope we can figure this out, for as nice as that kit you linked above is (and appears to have panhard rods and a diff drop as well - don't know what those are worth?) that's still going to be north of $3k once it hits your door whereas we should be able to do the essentials of Bilsteins + UCAs + rear springs for <$1800 by my math.

Not only that, but having US support for suspension parts that could take weeks or months to replace if we're shipping things back and forth to Australia seems prudent for my purposes.

 

[Tremek]

6/1: Just got an update from Taryn per my ask on different part #s and valving specs - she's awesome:

"We can’t give a thumbs up to use a part number on a different vehicle than what we’ve tested and approved it for, because you’re right, from part number to part number there can be some variation of valving and/or stroke length even if mounts are the same for similar vehicles.

But to answer your question the 25-227611 dimensions are:

Collapsed Length (IN): 14.83
Extended Length (IN): 23.5

This would be measured from center of the bottom shock eye, to base of the stem where the first mounting bushing would sit. We do not include the length of the top stem in the measurement.

Valving for direct fit shocks is considered proprietary, so they do not release exact numbers for those. But the 25-227611 is one of our softer valvings. To compare it to our universal truck valvings in the 5165 universal fit product, it would handle closest to the 170/60 valving option offered in those part numbers."

I dig that even though she couldn't give exact specs, at least she's trying to be as helpful as possible.

I haven't put any time into thinking about the implications here but hey, at least we have some very specific specs to think about...

Edit: So I lied and started thinking about this - based on the feedback above as well as looking at the 3 stem-to-eye 5165 options, those look like they have much higher dampening/rebound rates than what we might? want? Speaking of which, can someone explain the actual valving specs as is referenced from Taryn & the Bilstein catalog and what units those are in? I see different specs on the same shocks from different sites so trying to put this into a frame of reference.

Would I be right in thinking that higher number = stiffer valving?

It seems like trying to adapt one of the eye-to-eye 5165s to a top stem might work. Bilstein has a stem adapter for their 5150 series - 5150 adapter for sale here - does anyone know if that adapter could be used on the 5165 or 5160s?

Edit #2: Found a really terrific resource that (if it can be trusted?) indicates that, for a full-size SUV with IFS and a single rear shock, they recommend a 255/70 valving unit...

Extrapolating this - in the 5165 line the closest unit I see to the specs above are:

Bilstein # 25-177510 - 255/70 valving - 14.60" collapsed, 24.40" extended - 9.8" total travel

So it's only fractionally shorter collapsed than the 5160 unit for the FJ Cruiser (does this impact "lift"?), extends 9/10ths of an inch further (would this be an issue on our LCs under extreme articulation?), and, if it can be converted with the 5150 adapter above ... might work?

I welcome feedback!

 

[BW200]

@Tremek I was thinking along the same lines as you. There is probably a Bilstein that will fit and work just fine, off the shelf.

The valving numbers are rebound/compression, in Newtons/10 at a 0.52 meters/sec rate. I don't know if this rate is some industry standard or just what Bilstein uses. That's about 20 inches/second, which seems like a reasonable rate if you think about how it would look. So 255/70 is 2550 Newtons rebound/ 700 Newtons compression. One pound of force is 4.448 Newtons, so this is 573/157 pounds at about 20 inches/sec. Most US makers would use 10"/sec I think, so a typical US number for comparison would be a lot lower.

These seem backwards at first look, but compression valving is a lot lower than rebound, since the compression force is working against the spring with the weight of the vehicle, so it doesn't take as much damping. The rebound is just the spring pushing the wheel and suspension back out, and has stored spring compression to deal with, so it has to be higher to compensate.

I'm hoping Bilstein releases a kit for the LC like they have for the Tundra, 4Runner, etc. Then we will be set.

 

[Tremek]

@BW200: The other thought I had is that Bilstein might be able to just revalve the FJ Cruiser shock. If the lengths are close enough to where they need to be, it looks like Bilstein charges $95/shock to revalve. So while that brings these 5160s to ~$275 a piece, that's still significantly cheaper than anything from OME/King/Icon/Fox!

One more thought: Bilstein's 7100 series. Does anyone have a good reason as to why we're not also looking at these? I have seen people reference the 7100s as "rebuildable" versions of the 5160s, and thus being slightly more expensive. Apparently 5160s are rebuildable by the factory, but the 7100s have more flex in their servicing? There's a ton of info on the 7100s re: rebuilding them, and here's the main Bilstein catalog that lists a bunch of part #s -

I think my main question is can we get adapters for the 5160/5165 and 7100 to change the top mount to a pin/stem, and what is the max stroke length we can use on the rear to avoid bottoming out the shock?

Are there any experts around that can tell us if going from an 8.6" stroke length on Bilstein # 25-227611 up to a 9.8" like this 5165 # 25-177510 or 10" shock like this 7100 # AK7110SB is going to bottom out or have other undesirable side-effects?

 

[aznxfactor]

Great info. Would it be viable to select these rear shocks or rear fj shocks and to add rear 200 series arb heavy coils to help offset the valving difference?

 

[Tremek]

Short answer: I don't know, longer answer: I don't think so as the springs themselves won't solve for unsuitable valving as far as I'm aware. I sent Taryn at Bilstein another email this morning asking directly re: the FJ re-valving, so hopefully will know more soon.

Edit: More detail from Taryn this afternoon, not yet re: the FJ re-valving, but on the subject of 5165s as well as whether the 5150 stem adapters can be used:

"The 5150 stem adapter kit wouldn’t be applicable to the 5165’s, as on the body end of the shock the eyelet is welded on, and on the shaft end, this 5150 adaptor piece cannot made with our eyelet style piston rod of the 5165 even if you were to thread the eyelet off.

If a stem to eye 5165 is not available in the needed length, then really the only option would be to change the vehicle mount to have it accept one of the eye to eye 5165’s.

I actually had not seen that valving recommendation chart from eshocks, but I would definitely feel comfortable in using that as a beginning guideline. They are a direct dealer of ours, so they definitely do have a lot of product knowledge with our off road packages as well. I also think you would be fine with a 255/70 rear option as long as the extended and collapsed measurements worked out, though the problem would still be the mounting. I do not have a way around that."

So at the very least this answers a very specific question: can the 5165s' top mount be changed? No.

As far as I can figure that closes the door on 5165s for our 200s, but, if we can figure out the revalved FJ route, we may be in business.

Just replied to her again re: the FJ part # 25-227611 being re-valved to 255/70 or 275/78, and will let you (all) know what I find out.

 

[aznxfactor]

Safe bet would be to just order ome rear shocks and coils in the meantime. Guaranteed fitment with Tundra 6118 fronts. If the tundra front with no height adjustment gives 2inch lift like discussed, im stoked. I guess you can perch it all the way up and have 4.75 inch total lift per say. I wouldnt go that route but probably the 2nd notch. Haha.