Bilstein 5100 Tundra shocks on a Tacoma

I got them because I found a set for $100 locally brand new. I've ran the Tacoma 5100's as well, but with Eibach's and they were fine as well. The 5 settings are nice with a coil that doesn't provide 3" lift by itself. The Tundra TRD springs needed the extra adjustments to reach the full 3", so the Tundra's were better for that.

 

1st gen Tundra shocks, springs and "Tundra valved" aftermarket shocks on 1st gen Tacos were not uncommon long long ago.

Measuring travel from top of tire to wheel well is deceptive. Measuring from center of hub to the wheel well is more realistic. A stock length shock will yield around 7" of travel depending on how hard you mash the bump stop.
Pics below are with shock removed, on the bumps and a stock length (19.5") shock installed (top plate to center of lower eye) at full droop. For approximate travel with a longer shock, multiply the additional length by 2 and add to 7".
Keep in mind that things start to bind at or around 1" additional droop, sometimes less (including OEM CVs). So around 8" is all you can realistically get.

Method, with pretty assistant hand.


On the bumps.


Full droop.

 

thank you for breaking this down and pointing out the fact that parts bind. So from your formula a 20in length shock measured from top plate to center of the lower eye is basically most a person can run realistically? difference in shock length compared to stock is .5in x2 = 1in + 7in = 8in of useable travel? Does this matter if using after market UCAs or is the CVs still going to be the limiting factor on this?

 

Yep, that's pretty much it. The "formula" is just based on the lower shock mount being half way out the lower arm hence the ratio. It's approximate because the angle of the shock to the lower arm gets increasingly acute as extension increases tweaking the ratio as it goes.
The 1st gen "extended length" shocks or "mid travel" simply have a shorter internal bump stop allowing a bit more extension or "length". They were originally developed for the 2wd prerunner folks.
IMO that last bit of extra droop with 4wd provides little gain at the expense of a little margin of safety. It's also very hard on OEM type control arm bushings.

Aftermarket upper arms have absolutely nothing to do with travel. The stock UBJ in a stock arm tends to bind just before the CV so they help with that respect in addition to allowing more caster.

 

Thanks for the detailed info bro'.. I've had a lot of 4x's in the past, all solid axle, this was my first IFS & had to get used to the oddities of it...

 

Thank you. I currently have eibach/5100 combo. I was planning to upgrade my suspension in the next year to extended travel coilovers. But guess I'll reconsider for now.

 

Don't reconsider just because of travel numbers. Just the difference in ride between the 5100/eibach and a true coilovers is worth it. I've had a buch of different lifts and went from the 5100/eibach to a Fox 2.5 extended coilover. The difference is very noticeable. Totally worth the upgrade IMO.

 

Yes. I would just be reconsidering on whether or not to get the extended travel.

 

Gotcha, might as well if you have aftermarket UCA's or plan on them. UCA's are something I wish I had done sooner as they really helped the ride quality and smoothness off-road.

 

I currently am running LR UCAs. I'll need to do more research. I read somewhere that extended travel is really just about 1 extra inch of travel at about 9in total.

 

The Tundra shocks actually have a bit more travel than the Tacoma but its all in the up travel and I don't think the bump stops will let you take advantage. If you mod the bump stops a bit, you might be able to get another 1" of up travel.

For comparison ( ):

96-04 Tacoma (hard to find info on this shock as its not officially sold by Bilstein but by RCD - still made by Bilstein though)
Bilstein P/N: F4-BE5-D558-T0

Rebound Valving: 228
Compression Valving: 73

Extended: 473mm (18.62in)
Collapsed: 352mm (13.86in)
Total Travel: 4.76"

00-06 Tundra
Bilstein Part Number: 24-188265

Rebound Valving: 303
Compression Valving: 96

Extended Length: 474.5mm (18.68in)
Collapsed Length: 336 mm (13.23in)
Total Travel: 5.47"

The total travel is increased for the Tundra but you would have to modify the bump stops on the Tacoma to realize the extra up travel. Modifying the bump stop can lead to other issues including wheel clearance and possibly UCA clearance. For down travel, the Tundra shocks have a meager .06in advantage (about 1.5mm).

I don't know exactly what the Bilstein valving numbers mean but I do know they are comparable so you can see a slight increase in Compression valving and a major increase in rebound valving for the Tundra vice the Tacoma. The Tundra shocks would probably be the better option for controlling heavy springs if you are running a heavy front end (bumper, winch, etc...).

Conclusion: I didn't like how the Tacoma Bilstein shocks handled the Eibach 620 springs. If you are going to run a spring over 600lbs I would recommend considering the Tundra shocks. For a lesser shock, Tacoma Bilsteins do the job well enough.

 

Thank you. That was very informative. I probably wont be spending any money on buying new bilstien shocks. Would just be saving for adjustable coilovers. Wonder what the actual travel is on the icon extended travel and regular travel.

 

From what I remember it is .4" or something like that. Nothing crazy, but every little bit helps and since you have aftermarket UCA's you might as well. Won't hurt anything if you do get the extended travel.

 

That's true.

 

Here is some more to chew on.

For me, the single most important issue for "ride" and ability to fully articulate the front is "ride height" followed by a good balance compromise between front and rear suspension. It will never be perfect in a multipurpose rig. It's all about the amount of spring required to achieve that height. Also, not saying valveing is not important.
I have been running 2" SAWs/650 lb springs for 15 years/200K miles. With a plate bumper/winch and skid my bump strikes are nicely polished from actual use. It sits with around 4.5" up travel and 2.75" down. The top leading edge of the stock upper arm is dead on horizontal and "unslid" boot fins would not touch (just). Sway bar is long gone. Best guess is this is just over 2" higher than stock (new).

Unlike with leaf springs the only way to increase ride height in the front is to add more "spring" through additional preload or increasing actual spring rate. More "spring" equals a stiffer ride and hinders the ability to fully articulate. No way around that. Further, this is not a liner progression due to the increasingly acute angle of shock to LCA I mentioned before. For example, if X amount of "spring" yields 1" change in ride height it will take X+ to get the next inch. Also don't forget that track width has a significant effect. The wider the track the greater the leverage the LCA+wheel has against the spring/shock.

"Extended length" yes or no?
It's going to be your call. While you think about it, try this simple test with a stock length shock.
Without a connected sway bar, jack up one front side (or both) and support the frame on a stand. Remove the wheel and allow the suspension to sit at full droop. Remove the lower shock mount bolt and pry the LCA further down while turning the hub/CV shaft. Play with this at different amounts of "simulated" extended travel. Feel for the inner joint binding and at what point it does. Don't ignore the control arm bushings fighting you all the way unless they are poly. Try different steering angles while your at it, carefully. Some folks have noticed slight binding of OEM shafts even with stock length shocks, every truck is going to be a little different. Mine don't but ShowStop's do.

Shave the bumpstops for more up travel?
Sure I could see some minor gain. Here is the "but". In the early days of aftermarket arms, many folks had contact of the upper joint with the fender well, sometimes punching thru. This might have been remedied in later years. Then there is tire clearance. What ever had to be cut/beaten back with stock bumps will need to be cut/beaten more. Cycle your suspension set up and extrapolate from there. Sometimes this is half the fun.

 

Seems as though I have a lot to learn and testing with my front end before I make a final decision. But good thing I still have time.

 

Bring it back from the dead.


I plan on running tundra 5100s on my 95 tacoma, i have eibach 883 coils. Would the 883 coils work with the 5100 shocks?
Also will i be able to fit rear shocks from tundra looking to run the 5160 bilstein tundra or should i stay with the 5125 bilsten tacoma?
Looking for travel the most

 

thread revival:

so i am looking into fron suspension options and these tundra 5100 shocks seems to be the ticket.

a few questions if anyone can give an answer.

1. did anyone with this setup (tundra 5100 shocks) experience any binding of CV axles at full droop? seems like it will provide more travel than stock so wondering if anyone had any problems with cv's binding.

2. if more up-travel is possible with this shock can i use a 10mm or 1/2" top plate spacer to compensate for up travel instead of trycing to modify the stock bumpstop. ( wouldnt this provide extra lift without preloading the coil as much allowing for more down travel with the same ammount of lift?

these tundra 5100's seems to be the ticket with longer travel abilities wondering why these are not a more popular option than the regular tacoma 5100's. are there any downsides to running this setup vs the regular tacoma setup

 

1. No binding. At drop, geometry should be the same as stock.

2. If you use a top spacer, you may be able to get a bit more up travel but you are offsetting the geometry and may have issues at droop including CV binding/boot tearing, etc... Try to avoid using top spacers.

 

thanks for your input.

i though that the main reason for not stacking lifts/using top plate spacers was that the shock would bottom out before hitting the lower bumpstop (becomming the bumpstop and causing damage to the shock/CO). if there is an extra 1" of uptravel left in the shock after hitting the bumpstop woudnlt a 1/2 spacer just take up 1/2 inch of that at still allow the bumpstop to engauge before bottoming out the shock preventing damage?

why wouldn't using a spacer be suitable in this situation to try to take advantage of the additional travel (assuming that the CV's dont bind with this extra travel)

again thanks for the helpful input on this matter