Bilstein 5100s-2.8 vs 2.1-a bit of a new perspective for me

[buddy guy]

i've read many user debates and discussions here about the need for UCAs or not if leveling to 2.8 using the 5100s, but have a slightly different bit of info here. i read with interest on a post the other day, that, if i read it correctly, 4 wheel parts won't install 5100's without you installing aftermarket UCAs. today I booked my truck into a local independent accessories shop with a good rep on lifts to install 5100s at 2.1 to level. I stopped by after work as i've never seen the shop, to meet the folks there and brought this debate on 2.8's up with a service advisor and mechanic there. I barely had time to bring it up and the mechanic said, we won't do more than 2.1 on the 5100's without aftermarket UCAs due to too many popped upper ball joints.

not new info persay, but from the mouth of a mechanic with good level of experience. sealed the deal for me.

 

[SportyJames]

I have been at 2.8 for a year and no issue on stock UCA's. My truck never leaves the pavement though.

Which UCA's are you thinking about putting on there?

 

[Ohio5pt7]

I put rough country ucas on mine 3" up front.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[Puba08]

My bils are at 2.8 with no issues. However I did purchase Zone UCA’s for piece of mind (and I got a great deal).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[buddy guy]

I have been at 2.8 for a year and no issue on stock UCA's. My truck never leaves the pavement though.

Which UCA's are you thinking about putting on there?

i'm not. mine's a pavement queen too. i did price various models out for the heck of it but too much coin for what i'm after. just a safe level is good by me.

 

[JHayez1911]

2.5 Maxtrac Lift in front. No UCA’s. But mine strictly pavement pounding.

 

[JB1]

I think 2.1 is plenty for the size tires you want

 

[buddy guy]

i think you have a good memory i looked at some 305 55 something or others at the truck shop today. i think they were 12.5 wide. fricking huge tires! but not for me.

 

[buddy guy]

duplicate

 

[TonyG-]

I've had mine on for about 50k miles at 2.8 w/stock UCAs both on and off-road.. no issues whatsoever

 

[JB1]

I tack welded my ball joints for peace of mind, so far so good

 

[MidTennMtneer]

I’ve been to two different local shops. Both do lifts regularly. One said the same about 2.8 and UCAs.

Other said the usually don’t change them out at 2.1 unless the customer is putting much heavier tires on. I’ve been thinking of going 275/65 or 285 which is about 20-25 pounds more per corner. He said that wasn’t enough extra weight to even be noticed buy the suspension. Said if I was doing the 35x12.5 it would be different which add another 12-15lbs per corner over the 20-25 I’m looking at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Puba08]

IMO, For the amount of money we spend on our trucks, it pays to do it right. If your concerned about safety and possible damage/failure, why not save a little longer, and get UCA’s. Then install the bils at 2.8 and UCA’s at the same time. Then buy tires/rims etc. or whatever else you may want.
Every truck is different and may have no issues with certain setups. And some may have major issues with certain setups. There is no way to guess what will happen.
From the tone of the thread it seems you are still contemplating 2.8 for the bils. Get what you really want the first time you install them. It’s a PITA and costly to raise them up after install.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[buddy guy]

good too know Mtneer. When it comes time to change tires from stock my thinking at this point is only 275/65..but my thoughts could change. so do you know..or did they say what the max recommended weight per corner is?

 

[buddy guy]

IMO, For the amount of money we spend on our trucks, it pays to do it right. If your concerned about safety and possible damage/failure, why not save a little longer, and get UCA’s. Then install the bils at 2.8 and UCA’s at the same time. Then buy tires/rims etc. or whatever else you may want.
Every truck is different and may have no issues with certain setups. And some may have major issues with certain setups. There is no way to guess what will happen.
From the tone of the thread it seems you are still contemplating 2.8 for the bils. Get what you really want the first time you install them. It’s a PITA and costly to raise them up after install.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

i hear you. I don't think my thoughts in the thread say that. lol. but clearly a lot of people are posting hey I'm at 2.8 with no issue without changing UCAs or I did 2.8 and changed UCAs. I posted it only to say that was the first indication direct from a mechanic to me at a respected shop saying 2.1 no UCA or 2.8 UCA. i've read lots of user threads here saying 2.8 with no UCA change is fine and hey, I believe them. But I hadn't seen one that said I'm a licensed mechanic and you can do that

i wasn't sure when I walked in the shop yesterday if I was going 2.8 or 2.1. If I had been set on 2.8 I would have waited until I put in new UCA's as well. I just got done looking at the Bilstein post thread and honestly, I think my interest in "look" is based first by far on level. That being said, Wild man had pm'd me wondering I had considered just dropping the read end 2 inches to get level. cheaper option and i thought about it for a day. then i looked at pics. I don't like that look. it looks like car/truck to me. not a TRUCK. lol. but 2.8 or 2.1? makes little to no difference to me in looks.

 

[Puba08]

I agree, I wouldn’t go lower in the rear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[buddy guy]

don't get me wrong. looks good on a truck like Ricks. its a total look there and being a track truck i see the point. and with his fat low tires its a good look. but i'm an Alberta boy where the taller the truck the better for many. but i'm not trying to sit like a mine truck above everyone else. lol. here i've seen trucks often that are somehow 18 inches, 24 inches above me.