5160's better than 5100's in Rear? Why?

A lot of folks are switching to the 6112 5160 combination.
I completely get the front 6112 justification. I recently ordered a set, and I'm looking forward to putting them on.
I was leaning toward 5100's, and possibly an AAL for the rears. I would like to hear if anyone has some real world comparison experience from running 5100's and 5160's with the same springs. From the Bilstein website, the only different appears to be the remote reservoir, which should only come into play after a long enthusiastic run on rough terrain, enough to heat up the oil. I know I can run my Tacoma for an hour on rough terrain without the OEM shocks (4600's?) feeling more than warm. Usually an hour on rough terrain is as far as I travel off the beaten path.

 

That’s a legit question! Eagerly awaiting knowledgeable replies.

 

so i just swapped from 5100s to 5160 in the rear of mine. 6112 up front. i also have a 3 leaf mini pack.

what i noticed- with 6112- the 5100s feel unbalanced, stiff, rear bounces some.
with 5160s- well balanced with the front, vastly smoother, also slightly longer too so you get a touch more droop.

i was told 5160 have less compression that the 5100, and i definitely believe that.