Chevy and GMC Duramax Diesel Forum banner

Rancho RS 900 XL / Bilstein 5100 compared

16K views 15 replies 8 participants last post by  freebird_78  
#1 ·
Here is a comparison photo of 2 excellent shock choices for Duramax owners.

Top - Rancho 9000 XL w/ External bypass

Bottom - Bilstein 5100 Zinc plated

Image
 
#3 ·
They look about the same.... Whats the price difference?



 
#4 ·
The body and piston size are noticeably larger on the Rancho and they run about $10 more per shock. The Rancho has some advantages with the external CD adjustment. The Bilsteins are a great all around shock and have a nicer finish with theZinc plating, untill you cover them in mud.:)
 
#5 · (Edited)
I'm in the process of switching from Bils 0-3" to Rancho. I like the rears a lot better, but the fronts are pissing me off. The Bils are longer and when I went to put the Rancho's up front, I found that with my torsion bars cranked the Rancho's won't reach! They are actually very slightly shorter then stock shocks!

Now I'm waiting on some front shock extensions so I can put the Rancho shocks in... ridiculous.
 
#6 ·
Sorry to hear that but if your truck is cranked up that much you should be running Ranchos 4" lifted shock. The shock extension will get the job done though.
 
#8 ·
Which one has the best road ride?

Also does the boot come standard on the Bilstein and not on the rancho?

I had Bilstein on all 4's of my Tacoma and loved them, but that was a much lighter truck.
 
#10 ·
rs999288. The pisser is that when I called Rancho they told me it would fit with a slight torsion bar crank; guess not.

As far as the other question - the Rancho on the street lets me set the rear softer for the bumps then the Bils, yet handling seems just fine.
 
#11 ·
The 999288 has a colapsed length of 12.7" compared to stock @ aprox 10". The Extended length is 15.25" compared to stock @ aprox 14.7". They should be used with shock extensions to be right for your application, that is somewhat inconvenient but I think you will find the flexability the shocks offer are well worth it. The next step up for length and adjustablity are the HAL QA-1 pictured in this image, they are quite a bit more money and extremly nice.
The Bilstein offers more options as far as length but not in adjustability.

Image
 
#12 ·
I haven't measured, but compared the Rancho's with my stockers, and the rancho are a fraction of an inch shorter in overall extended length than stock; not longer.

it's surprising and disappointing that a company like Rancho would be so short sighted as to not make something in between, or at least offer extensions.

I can't wait for my extensions to arrive so I can mount them!
 
#15 ·
I know this is an old thread. A question for Rancho owners.
I have 9000s in various jeeps and I have come to hate them!
Seems they are either too soft on compression - so I turn them stiffer, and then they are to hard on rebound.

On a particular road (BW parkway, North of Washington DC), when I hit the expansion joints, the truck barely moves (that's good), except when I fall off the back side of the joint, the suspension doesn't follow the road and the nose dips.

End result, it feels like I'm driving down a set of stairs (well, small stairs, spaced about 1-2 seconds apart). Just a bad match. Its like little bump then dip, gap, little bump dip. Annoying at least in the 55-65mph range.

I switched my Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee to Bilstein and love it - at least on-road. While I admit the R9000s look beefier. The Bilsteins seem to have better road feel, tuning etc. A bit on the soft side (could be a bit stiffer to aid in handling) but overall a nice street shock.

Now the $100 question. Does the same apply to 3500 trucks? I still have factory shocks and quit frankly the car feels underdamped or very bouncy at least when not loaded. Are Bilsteins enough?