MonteCarloSS.com
MonteCarloSS.com

CELEBRATING 20 YEARS!

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#917932 - 02/12/12 12:13 AM Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte?  
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 900
cwest01 Offline
Member
cwest01  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 900
Livonia, Mi
I am contemplating installing some Bilsteins on my Monte but it is dropped 2" all the way around via Belltech lowering springs. As I know it, Bilstein does not make shocks "officially" for lowered cars with a reduced travel. That is why when I did the height adjustment I used Nitro 2 drop shocks. Any opnions on this??

#917938 - 02/12/12 12:29 AM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: cwest01]  
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 570
Performance Offline
Member
Performance  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 570
East Tennessee
I have always used the Belltech shocks on lowered cars or trucks. Best shocks, hands down, that I ever used with something lowered. I don't think much of anything else will give you the amount of travel you need in a shock with it lowered 2" or more.


1986 Monte Carlo SS
#917943 - 02/12/12 12:39 AM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: Performance]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 12,366
PB86SS/87LS Online beer
Administrator
20+ Year
PB86SS/87LS  Online Beer
Administrator
20+ Year

Member

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 12,366
New Berlin, WI
I've used Bilsteins with my Montes, both lowered, and have been very happy as well as many other owners. But neither car is drastically lowered, the LS only about 1" all around due to Eibach springs and the SS about 1.5" in front, 1" in back with Eibachs and the old "1LE" brake swap using b-body spindles in front.

I believe there is a Bilstein application for S10's that works well for lowered g-bodies, not sure at what point one is preferred over the other (1", 2", etc.) but if you do a search I'm sure it will come up.


-86'SS 383 CCC QJet- BRF 2004r-8.5" 3.42
-87'LS 350 MAF/SD TPI- CRF 2004r-7.5" 3.42
-81'Grand LeMans Safari Wagon 350 CCC Q-Jet/CZF 2004-r/8.5" 3.73
-07'TBSS Stockish daily driver
[Linked Image]
#917964 - 02/12/12 03:19 AM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: PB86SS/87LS]  
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 576
Do_M_Drty Offline
10+ Year
Do_M_Drty  Offline
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 576
Georgia
I used them with drop spindles with no issues.


79Monte Carlo, 34,XXX original miles
09Silverado Ext Cab, 5.3 with 3.73 gears, 4/7 drop with assist bags, and tucking 24s

"Outside a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx
#917965 - 02/12/12 03:21 AM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: Do_M_Drty]  
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,201
1 Slow SS Offline
10+ Year
1 Slow SS  Offline
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,201
Small town KY
Originally Posted By: Do_M_Drty
I used them with drop spindles with no issues.


lmao


Enjoy life, family first!
#917969 - 02/12/12 03:36 AM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 900
cwest01 Offline
Member
cwest01  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 900
Livonia, Mi
I understand using them with drop spindles as the geometry stays the same. But with lowering springs only, the effective range of the shocks will be much less than the original design intended. I am concerned that this will put the working range of the Bilsteins in a less than optimal position yielding them less effective than the Nitro 2's I have now.

#917972 - 02/12/12 03:42 AM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: cwest01]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,858
ss4ever Offline
Moderator
15+ Year
ss4ever  Offline
Moderator
15+ Year

Member

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 12,858
Shelbina, Missouri
I don't know about the Bilsteins compared to the Nitro IIs but I did install the Bisteins on my SS after I had lowered it(yes drop spindles on the front but I also cut the front coils a half coil lowering the car another inch, Hotchkiss 1" drop springs on the rear) I had been running Monroe Sensa-Tracs before the Bilsteins and the car did MUCH better after the Bilsteins, I had a lot less tie rub issues after the shock swap. I won't anything else on my toys from now on.


1983 Monte Carlo SS Turnkey ZZ4/700R4, Dakota Digital Instrument Cluster, 77k mile car. Many more mods to come soon.
#917989 - 02/12/12 10:05 AM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: ss4ever]  
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 81
MADMIKE Offline
Member
MADMIKE  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 81
C.V. CA
They will work with lowered cars, but if the springs up front are shorter they also tend to be a higher spring rate. For that I would use the S-10 2wd front shock from Bilstein. It is actually an inch shorter with a larger piston to better dampen the stiffer spring.


-Michael
Where the hell is JMD?!
#917996 - 02/12/12 01:35 PM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: MADMIKE]  
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 900
cwest01 Offline
Member
cwest01  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 900
Livonia, Mi
Anyone have part numbers for the two options? Also, anyone out there with the S10 springs mentioned above running?

#918299 - 02/14/12 11:54 AM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: cwest01]  
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 81
MADMIKE Offline
Member
MADMIKE  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 81
C.V. CA
B39-0949 (G-body) 13.48" 8.60"
B46-1307 (S-10) 11.93" 7.95"

The shock body of the 1307 is about an inch shorter, but the diameter is about 30%, with a larger upper bushings and it requires use of the double D tool to hold the shaft. The 0949 unit requires a 6mm allen to hold the shaft as you tighten the shaft nut.
Last time I checked Bilstein changed the part numbering. Don't know why but they did. Keep in mind to order the correct shock it must be a 2wd. 4WD and AWD use a different shock.

I run the 5660(s series) front spring with the 1307 shock. Ride is firm but not harsh. Still allows for a supple ride and eliminates the boat feel.

5600 347 lb/in 1600lbs @ 11" ('78-'88 A/G)
5608 424 lb/in 1640lbs @ 11" ('78-'88 A/G)
5658 530 lb/in 1405lbs @ 10.75" ('82-'95 S-10 PU)
5660 598 lb/in 1538lbs @ 10.75" ('82-'95 S Blazer)
5664 707 lb/in 1863lbs @ 10.75" ('86-'88 'IROC')
5662 748 lb/in 1690lbs @ 10.75" ('92 GTA)


-Michael
Where the hell is JMD?!
#923219 - 03/15/12 04:30 AM Re: Bilsteins on a Lowered Monte? [Re: MADMIKE]  
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 93
79T-Tops Offline
Member
79T-Tops  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 93
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Originally Posted By: MADMIKE
B39-0949 (G-body) 13.48" 8.60"
B46-1307 (S-10) 11.93" 7.95"

The shock body of the 1307 is about an inch shorter, but the diameter is about 30%, with a larger upper bushings and it requires use of the double D tool to hold the shaft. The 0949 unit requires a 6mm allen to hold the shaft as you tighten the shaft nut.
Last time I checked Bilstein changed the part numbering. Don't know why but they did. Keep in mind to order the correct shock it must be a 2wd. 4WD and AWD use a different shock.

I run the 5660(s series) front spring with the 1307 shock. Ride is firm but not harsh. Still allows for a supple ride and eliminates the boat feel.

5600 347 lb/in 1600lbs @ 11" ('78-'88 A/G)
5608 424 lb/in 1640lbs @ 11" ('78-'88 A/G)
5658 530 lb/in 1405lbs @ 10.75" ('82-'95 S-10 PU)
5660 598 lb/in 1538lbs @ 10.75" ('82-'95 S Blazer)
5664 707 lb/in 1863lbs @ 10.75" ('86-'88 'IROC')
5662 748 lb/in 1690lbs @ 10.75" ('92 GTA)


It appears the 2WD S10 Part number for the front shocks are 24-187428

Would these be the proper ones?
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/BSN-24-187428


Random Images
500/thumbs/dual_a1.jpg
by Tony K.
933/thumbs/On_the_Trailer4.JPG
by Sherdep
835/thumbs/DSCF00251.JPG
by timw
500/thumbs/sig2.jpg
by 1984Monte
651/thumbs/C6.JPG
by 84supersport
Help MonteCarloSS.com


Recent Contributors
86BlackSuperSport
dns87ss
Authorized Vendors
Tell them you saw it
on MonteCarloSS.com!


CustomMonteSSParts.com
Dixie Monte Carlo Depot
GSI Interiors
HRpartsNstuff
Mikes Montes
Savitske Classic & Custom
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0