2017 sport: bilstein @ 2.1 vs 2.8 ride quality

[Curtis Scott]

Hey guys, been lurking for awhile now and it’s finally time to post my own thread.

bought my 1500 ram sport back in February, and have had the bilsteins, mevotech UCA’s, and a 1” rear spacer sitting in my garage all summer. Finally all set to get them installed in the next couple weeks- so here’s my question: I’m curious what everyone’s input (drawing off of personal experience) on over all ride quality with them set at 2.1 vs 2.8. I plan on running 285/65/20 k02’s on my stock wheels. The plan is to maintain a slight rake so I do not want to be nose high.

I’ve been reading a lot and of different forums with conflicting information regarding ride quality and wear/tear issues with CV/ball joints.

Nothing crazy when it comes to off roading, but I am a regular camper/fisherman with regular mtn trips in CO that does entail minor off roading. Day to day is mostly highway as it is my daily driver still so I don’t want to sacrifice ride quality.

thanks in advance for any input and will obviously be posting before and after pics!

 

[BOWERSFJ]

I’d stick with 2.1” for the ride, the tire size you are thinkin about, and keeping a little rake ... Here’s mine at 2.1 with 285/60R20



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[6.7CumminsDrvr]

Never went 2.8, here’s mine @2.1” with what you’ve listed above:

Bils @ 2.1”, 1” rear spacer and 285/65/20’s and factory 20x9’s

not the greatest pics, there are a few more in my photo gallery.

 

[E-rok]

I went with 2.8s and I added airlift bags in the rear. At 10psi I have about 1/2" of rake.

I also added RC UCAs which correct the balljoint angle, which I believe improved ride quality over running stock geometry ones.

Ride quality is great, better than stock IMO as its not all floaty, but I also think bags help with that.

 

[kurek]

When I first installed Bilstein lift struts as part of the Mopar lift kit I purchased I set them at the 2.1" setting. Reasoning was I do travel off-pavement and didn't want to be at the top of the suspension's range of motion, constantly lifting a tire off the ground when the ground became uneven.

But at 2.1" the nose was still too low and I was beating up the front bumper on what I consider pretty mild dirt roads at cautious/crawling speeds.

So I lifted to the full height and had the truck realigned. Two problems emerged, first with the stock upper control arms it was only possible to align the truck by putting the alignment cams at their extreme farthest out position which meant the alignment was only barely within spec and steering felt busy, from the drivers' seat. Second was the truck seemed to dive into dips and off the far side of speed bumps. It did that a little bit at 2.1" but it got worse at 2.8" .

I have since solved these problems but unfortunately describing how I solved them necessitates some level of nuance. In your case, you already have UCA's and you're only lifting the back one inch - so set your Bilsteins at 2.1 and you probably won't have any problems to need solving.

 

[MidTennMtneer]

If you wanting to keep a rake with just a 1” rear spacer, go with 2.1.

I just did 2.8 with a Daystar 1” coil spacer and I’m a bit nose high. Wish I went 1.5 but that is stretching it with the stock rear shocks.

Ride wise I don’t notice much different than stock honestly. On my Equator I had 5100s at the highest 2” setting and to say it rode rough would be an understatement. This Ram is way better.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[moparpeetie]

I've had my Bils @ 2.8 for a year now.... Stock UCA, NO ISSUES at ALL!!! Ride is no different than stock and I'm running BFG 35's. and a 3/4" rear spacer. Sits 1/2" higher in rear.

 

[Tim Garceau]

You’re preloading the heck out of the OEM spring and the 5100 absorber is twice the force. It will be rough if you enjoy the OEM plush ride, but if you’re rolling 35x12.5 high ply tires your quality is already garbage.

 

[Curtis Scott]

Do you know what your rake was at prior to install? I’m aware that settling will most likely occur post alignment but here are my current measurements:
Front @36”
Rear @39”

assuming there is not settling post install @2.8” I would still maintain approx 1.2” of rake /// vs 1.9” rake @2.1”

curious if anyone can speak to the amount of settling that truly occurs?

If you wanting to keep a rake with just a 1” rear spacer, go with 2.1.

I just did 2.8 with a Daystar 1” coil spacer and I’m a bit nose high. Wish I went 1.5 but that is stretching it with the stock rear shocks.

Ride wise I don’t notice much different than stock honestly. On my Equator I had 5100s at the highest 2” setting and to say it rode rough would be an understatement. This Ram is way better.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kurek]

assuming there is not settling post install @2.8” I would still maintain approx 1.2” of rake /// vs 1.9” rake @2.1”

curious if anyone can speak to the amount of settling that truly occurs?

You're talking about fractions of one inch vertically vs. 140 inches of wheelbase and trucks which vary in base weight by hundreds of pounds depending how they're optioned.. it's difficult for anyone to do much in the way of prediction and even if they have precise measures from their truck if you have a different option than they do (steel vs plastic bumper, rambox vs. not, etc) it's all out the window anyway.

For the rear if you're lifting with spacers they don't settle because they're spacers. For the front if you're using Bilstein 5100s (not 6112s) you're reusing your existing springs just preloading them harder so they're presumably either done settling, or would settle the same amount in the future whether you lifted or not.

So probably you'll just get the lift values you're expecting, straight up. Won't know for absolute sure till it's done unfortunately. Nice thing is most problems can be solved if one shows up

 

[Gary2]

That was always my theory with the Bilsteins , Whats left to settle you are using the same springs ya been using its not like they are new. In my book shouldnt be anything to settle at this point . I bet if Rancho sold their quick lifts with out the springs they would have a larger following. Then you would be using OE springs for each particular truck specifically rather than one size fits all which don't work well for all

 

[E-rok]

You’re preloading the heck out of the OEM spring and the 5100 absorber is twice the force. It will be rough if you enjoy the OEM plush ride, but if you’re rolling 35x12.5 high ply tires your quality is already garbage.

Im at 2.8 with 35s and the ride is great, not sure what you are talking about honestly.

 

[kurek]

I think ride quality comes down to some subjective attitudes so nobody's truly going to be right or wrong about how they experience it.

Preload doesn't change spring rate (pounds per inch is linear on a single rate spring) so if the alignment is assumed good in any case, whether stock, 2.1", 2.8" etc your ride should feel about the same on minor road texture and most bumps and pot-holes.

The parts where I noticed a difference going from 2.1" to 2.8" and then going to what I have now is influenced a bit by how I drive and that's going to be different for everyone. I don't always slow down for speed bumps so when I come off the far side of one either the tire's going to follow the slope and let the truck chassis settle down at whatever rate the spring's got after the speed bump or if I've topped out the suspension the nose of the truck is going to dive a little. With the springs at 2.8 I could feel the dive more, could feel a little transition when they topped out.

Not a deal breaker by any means, and only even noticeable under certain circumstances. How much that matters to any particular owner is going to be up to them entirely and I bet if I just slowed down more often I would never have noticed.

 

[Curtis Scott]

Well said. I think with me already replacing the UCA’s and original springs I will plan on 2.8”, worst case scenario I take em back off at set them to 2.1”.

Plan to post pics in the next couple weeks after 2nd rifle season is complete.

You're talking about fractions of one inch vertically vs. 140 inches of wheelbase and trucks which vary in base weight by hundreds of pounds depending how they're optioned.. it's difficult for anyone to do much in the way of prediction and even if they have precise measures from their truck if you have a different option than they do (steel vs plastic bumper, rambox vs. not, etc) it's all out the window anyway.

For the rear if you're lifting with spacers they don't settle because they're spacers. For the front if you're using Bilstein 5100s (not 6112s) you're reusing your existing springs just preloading them harder so they're presumably either done settling, or would settle the same amount in the future whether you lifted or not.

So probably you'll just get the lift values you're expecting, straight up. Won't know for absolute sure till it's done unfortunately. Nice thing is most problems can be solved if one shows up

 

[incupunk]

So if I can summarize what I interpret the consensus is: The ride quality at 2.8 isn't bad, but you have the Mevo UCAs already so you will be compensating for the stress you are introducing with the level at 2.1 or 2.8. Good job on that. People are obviously already scooting by with just the level and stock UCAs, but that wasn't your question.

My question - if I could risk sidetracking you all for a bit - is if the 2.1" or 2.8" doesn't make him(a RAM owner) happy, what is considered the next step up in level/lift in terms of practicality? What would you suggest if not the very common Bilstein/Mevo/Rear Spacer combo?

 

[BOWERSFJ]

4”F/3”R Zone lift w/Bils set at 1.4” ...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Puba08]

If you’re not looking to purchase an actual lift, you can add the Zone 1.5 body lift. I have bils at 2.8, Zone UCA’s, Zone 1.5 body lift and Airlift 5000’s in the rear.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[kurek]

My question - if I could risk sidetracking you all for a bit - is if the 2.1" or 2.8" doesn't make him(a RAM owner) happy, what is considered the next step up in level/lift in terms of practicality? What would you suggest if not the very common Bilstein/Mevo/Rear Spacer combo?

On the front suspension of 4th gen, 4wd Ram 1500's the total suspension travel is limited by the strut itself - so longer strut assemblies equal longer extension. The strut's mounting position on the lower control arm is approximately 2/3 the distance from the chassis to the ball joint so wheel travel is approximately 150% of strut travel.

Here are the actual lengths of common struts:



The part I'd like to draw your attention to is that the Bilstein lift struts we're talking about here are actually shorter at full extension than Monroe OE replacement struts and generally their difference in length is inconsequential when compared with other stock replacement shocks.

When you lift your front suspension with any of the multi-position lift/leveling struts you are just trading down travel for static ride height and eventually the loss of down travel begins to affect how the truck handles over bumps.

If you want to solve that problem you have three choices as I see it:

• Settle for less lift. Stock is stock obviously so there's nothing wrong with stock and if you want a little nudge up the 0.7" and 1.4" settings are subtle enough I'm certain you would never notice a change in handling character. The drawback from this is you have less lift than maybe you wish you had.
• Go to a full 4" lift that has new knuckles and relocates your front axle assembly to match the lift. That puts your suspension back at a neutral position while it's lifted 4". The drawback from this is you pretty much have to go with a full 4" lift, there's not really a way that a manufacturer could even build an in-between size if they wanted to.
• Go rogue and combine lift techniques and accept the consequences of your choices. That would mean buying upper control arms and 1.5" strut spacers (top, not preload), then setting your Bilsteins at 0.7" to achieve approximately 2.2" lift with only 0.7" less than stock droop available. The drawback here is at full extension you're taking the CV axle slightly outside its engineered range of motion, and also if you tell anyone on a forum that you did this they'll call you an idiot and feel good about themselves for doing so. You could also go even higher with this approach but then you're running your CV's at huge angles full time and there's no way they would last a long time like that.

 

[Joes1500]

Body lift is always an option. 1.5 and 3 inch are readily available for our trucks. But you can buy the pucks any size you want if you want a special increase.

 

[ram1500rsm]

So if I can summarize what I interpret the consensus is: The ride quality at 2.8 isn't bad, but you have the Mevo UCAs already so you will be compensating for the stress you are introducing with the level at 2.1 or 2.8. Good job on that. People are obviously already scooting by with just the level and stock UCAs, but that wasn't your question.

My question - if I could risk sidetracking you all for a bit - is if the 2.1" or 2.8" doesn't make him(a RAM owner) happy, what is considered the next step up in level/lift in terms of practicality? What would you suggest if not the very common Bilstein/Mevo/Rear Spacer combo?

I'm not exactly sure the reason why people do Mevotech UCA's with the 2.8" lifts. I thought it was because of their price. That's why i did Mevotech rears myself and hopefully i won't regret it. But i wouldn't pick the front ones for my application.

They're geometrically speaking the same thing as the stockers, maybe a better BJ (doens't mean they have a different range of movement) and better build overall more likely, plus you get greasing zerks. But you shouldn't get a better alignment at 2.8" with those compared to stock for example because they should be the same thing as stock.
Here is more info on them
https://www.ramforum.com/threads/how-are-the-mevotech-ucas-holding-up.52756/

You'll see some still manage to mess them up. so how they could compesate for any stress introduced by 2-3" lift ? And i have to ask when you see pics of people welding the BJ for longevity you have to think what were they thinking???. That BJ is not popping out because they're weak, Those BJ's are more likely popping out because they're exceeding their operating angle. That doesn’t happen with a stock height truck, that happens with lifted ones and stock/Mevotech UCA's. Some people never have issues with the stockers after lift some others do, it seems the same with the Mevotechs but somehow the $100 for the Mevotech pair seem to satisfy a need around here. I can tell you they're made in China so that's why i'm not exactly thrilled to have them in the back of my truck. I won't complaint much given their price. I don't have to deal with caster/camber values in the back of the truck so they're more than fine at the moment.

Grab a set of Zone, Readylift,Icon,JBA,or any other aftermarket UCA with a built-in offset and you will gain caster and camber settings after 2-3" lift. Plus the offset will also allow the BJ to move with a better range of motion not only when the truck is sitting level after 2-3" lift, but also at any point in the suspension cycle.

2 or 2.8" shouldn't make a difference in riding/performance but they do. You'll loose most of your strut downtravel with Bilstein 5100 or even 6112's at their max height. Don't know if Eibachs are different. My Rancho QL's struts will have more droop at 2" than those here with 5100's at 2.8 or 6112's at 2.8" for example. Same with my King CO’s now at 2.75” I have more available droop than 5100 or 6112 at 2.8”. This simple thing helps when you drive across something as simple as a speed bump and that's just an example.

Next step in leveling performance: Fox 2.0 CO's/2.0 shocks, Falcon leveling Kit, there are better kits but they cost more, they're good for 2-2.5" lift.
Next step in lift height: Any of the bracket lifts that give you 4-6", don't lift to 4" without those brackets and aftermarket parts. There is a reason BDS 4" lift cost more than the SST 4" lift and is not exactly because marketing. There is a market for stock like UCA's in this segment because some of this kits are made for you to keep your factory uca and in some of them an offset uca won't work so it's better in that case to stick with stock/Mevotech uppers.

We have a vendor that loves to throw discounts at people around here, He goes by Nick@gotexhaust. Ask around and you'll see. he'll have something for you depending on what you want/need and he can put together a package tailored to those specs.

Have fun.