Bilstein B8 and spacers

[TonyBoss]

I want to get an additional 1.75 lift on the truck- Would you suggest the Bilsteins at stock height and the 1.75 Readylift spacers or do the highest setting (1.1”) on the struts plus the bottom spacer with the kit (net 3/4”)and the new UCAs?

 

[HammerBoss]

The RL 1.75” kit will get you about 1.5” of additional lift. The 2.0 kit is about 1.75” of lift. The blistens are not recommended to add more than .5” with the RL kits. I believe there is info on blistens and/or RL site regarding this. The best scenario is coilovers set at desired height. I will switch from to RL 2.0 to coilovers when I switch tires again.

 

[Gearhead6873]

I have the Bilstein 6112s up front at max height and my Trailboss is perfectly level with no additional spacers. The 6112 claim 1.2" at max height, the 5100 you have claim 1.1". I'd say that's negligible, so I'd personally recommend you get the Readylift 1.75 kit, install only the arms and the 5100 at max height and see where you end up. If you need more you could go back and install the small bottom spacer if needed. See my post below for a little more info.

https://www.trailboss.org/threads/what-did-you-do-to-your-trailboss-today.26/post-11603

 

[TonyBoss]

The RL 1.75” kit will get you about 1.5” of additional lift. The 2.0 kit is about 1.75” of lift. The blistens are not recommended to add more than .5” with the RL kits. I believe there is info on blistens and/or RL site regarding this. The best scenario is coilovers set at desired height. I will switch from to RL 2.0 to coilovers when I switch tires again.

You think the 5100 set to .5 with the Readylift 1.75 kit would work?
Was going to do 3” rear blocks if that combination works. Thanks.

 

[TonyBoss]

Just confused as to why you can add spacers to the Ranchos top and bottom but not the Bilsteins? I would assume that Billies at stock height plus the kit would ride better and still function properly? But I’m no engineer…

 

[Gearhead6873]

I’m sure you could, as long as the Bilsteins are at stock height, but setting them at max height accomplishes the same thing as the top spacer. This also allows you to use the factory nuts on top of the coilovers, which are beefier and will then have more thread engagement as intended. The plastic pieces that sit on top can then still attach as intended to the excess threads. Another benefit is that you won’t have excessive droop when the front wheels are off the ground which puts more strain on the universal joints. Probably not really a concern unless you off-road really hard, but still. You can certainly then still use the bottom spacer if you need it, or are raising the back as well, but mine’s level without.

 

[Gearhead6873]

If you’re trying to use the RL spacers AND the added lift on the coilovers, I would not recommend that. Even with the RL upper arms you’d be putting the geometry too far off and are asking for trouble, particularly with the front axles and CV joints. Personally I’d be uncomfortable going any higher than just leveling the front with this method. If you want to go any higher a legit full lift kit would be best in my opinion.

 

[desertrat]

So is it better to go with the 5100’s maxed out at 1.1” plus RL UCAs (no spacers) than it is to go with the RL 1.75 kit with the 5100’s set to 0”?
Which config would provide a better/smoother ride?

 

[Stormin08]

generally the lowest setting, with a spacer would create the better ride. the more pre-load on the spring (high setting) would cause the ride to stiffen.

i would say, ANY ADDITIONAL lift to the TB SHOULD have an upper arm added to the equation. Angles and DROOP are necessary for a good ride. the TB platform takes about 2" of the droop away, from about a 3"-4" factory droop.

below is a ready lift 1.75 F only, same truck 2 different wheel set ups... then the new suspension going in. I failed to measure the height before the level, but is maybe a 1/4" high in rear, but appears dead flat at the rockers...NO REAR LIFT .