Hey peeps.

I have a 1997 SR5 that is 2WD and was wondering if the Bilstein 5100's for Front and Rear would fit?

The only reason I am asking is that I am currently shopping around and I do not see an option for 2WD. When I look up the 2WD I only receive the 4600's and Tire Rack says for 4WD models.

Linked below is what I am currently looking at. (Couldn't find a good link so I just linked a random site.)

Bilstein 5100

I'm pretty new to this stuff, but I don't see why not. You can ask/email bilsteinlifts and they can confirm.

I have a 4WD '97 SR5 and I just put in the 5100's, using the #3 snap ring location in the front and replacing the rear shocks with Old Man Emu 2906 coils to achieve a 2" lift. So far I like them.

@Werolin

Sounds good. I will shoot them an email and see what's up. I recently had a right front shock go bad so I might as well replace them all. I was considering a lift kit but I'm not there yet haha, so I'll just keep it stock height for now. If in the future I would like to lift it, I would have the adjustable 5100's.

Doing a little 2" lift was a breeze, and pretty inexpensive. I bought the 5100's, re-used the stock front coils, and bought Old Man Emu 2906 coils for the back to get the 2" lift, and that was it. 2" or under you don't need spacers, a differential drop, or need to extend your brake lines, so it's pretty easy.

Bilstein will tell you it isn't a supported application.

They will fit 100% fine.

The only extra cost of doing a lift at this point is rear springs, as you re-use your front springs with the 5100s.

-Charlie

@phattyduck

Sounds awesome. I also received a reply from Bilstein and they linked the appropriate fit. Now the thing is that I want to avoid doing a lift, stock height is preferred. When I was linked the 5100's for the 2WD there is a 0.8" to 2" Lift for the front. The rear does not have a lift at all so it would be at stock height if installed.

As much as I do not want the sight of sag in the rear, how can I level out my car for an even lift?

Also what springs would be recommended for the rear? If I have to do a lift due to 0.8" being the minimum then I guess I will have to settle with a 1" lift if possible.

I might just say screw it and go with the 4600's since they are meant for stock height. But they are not adjustable for the future. ):

I am going to go with the 4600's since I cannot adjust the 5100's to stock height.

Source: Emails from Bilstein.

The lowest setting should be stock height. The lowest "lift" setting is 0.8" and goes up to 2.3" in ~0.75" increments. I assume this is the part number they gave you?

https://productdesk.cart.bilsteinus....-Y485A00_1.pdf

I can't imagine a reason not to use the lowest setting, even though they say not to... The front geometry is the same between 2WD and 4WD on the 4Runner. The 4WD's do get stiffer front springs, but that's only to hold up the extra weight of the 4WD system. I lost about 0.75" when I did my 4WD swap before lifting it back up with 5100's...

Well, almost. Here is 4600's with stock 2WD springs and a front 1/4" top plate spacers, but with a heavy front bumper, heavy skids and a 4WD swap. The rear is a bit lower due to some camping gear and a trailer:



And here is a comparison of near stock height to a ~1.5" front and 2" rear lift:



If you want cheap rear springs, go with stock 5th gen 4Runner rear springs and 10mm trim packers. Same height as OME2906 rear springs for nearly free, and they are decently stiff to match the 5100's.

-Charlie