5100 vs 90000/60004

[hearno]

Been doing a lot of searching and can't find much in the way of comparisons. Not looking for a ride quality comparison but price/value. The 5100s can be found for around $330 for all 4. The 60004s go for $220 and the 90000s go for $330 or so. Is there any explanation for the huge discrepancy? Are the OME shocks that much better? The majority of owners here, from what I've found, run 5100s. It's rare that the cheaper option is the better one but is that the case?

 

[ebg18t]

They both have pro:cons.

Having run both here are my 2 cents based on using them with OME 885 & 895 springs.

Front 5100 vs OME w/885. Around town both felt good, on the trail the OME felt more controlled.

Rear 5100 vs OME w/895. Around town: the 5100 was more comfortable, the OME was over damped. Loaded with gear: OME was more controlled, once the truck was loaded with gear for trip the OME controlled body movement better and rode better on the street. The 5100 felt too soft, ie under damped. On the trail: OME felt more planted once the suspension was flexed. 5100 felt less controlled.

My opinion: OME rear shocks are better for trucks carrying more gear (consistently) with stiffer springs like the 895's. I feel the 895 springs are too much for the 5100. Unless you are carrying gear all the time something like the the superflex's are better all around rear springs. These match well with 5100's.

These are my observations while running them. Needless to say I wasn't satisfied with either so I am running custom valved Fox's now.

 

[hearno]

[MENTION=86678]ebg18t[/MENTION] Thanks for responding. I had seen that you have run both and was going to pm you specifically, esp since our trucks are similar. but your post answered a lot of my concerns.

 

[eddiebx]

Been doing a lot of searching and can't find much in the way of comparisons. Not looking for a ride quality comparison but price/value. The 5100s can be found for around $330 for all 4. The 60004s go for $220 and the 90000s go for $330 or so. Is there any explanation for the huge discrepancy? Are the OME shocks that much better? The majority of owners here, from what I've found, run 5100s. It's rare that the cheaper option is the better one but is that the case?

Granted I am running them on a slightly different platform, but the idea is the same...so I'll give you my feedback. I have 5100s all around paired with OME 883s up front and SAW rear coils. They seem to mate pretty well with each other but I attribute that to my replacement springs being pretty close to stock spring rates (+10% stiffer max). Once you start throwing on much stiffer springs, the 5100s probably start becoming less and less optimal (since they were most likely designed with a stock like spring in mind).

ebg18t's experience is a perfect example. Notice how he said his rear 5100 shocks felt mismatched with his rear 895s? If I recall correctly the 895 coils are substantially stiffer than the factory rear springs, and probably a bit too much for the 5100s to handle. Meanwhile, OME's own rear shocks are specifically valved for their springs, and seems to work together much better!

So my point is, I think at the end of the day it really all depends on what springs you plan to run. Don't for a second think that 5100s shocks are sub par due to their price. Bilstein is a high quality manufacturer that stands behind their products, just like OME. Go with whichever one you think would work out for your application the best

 

[ebg18t]

OME 895's are approx 40% stiffer rate than stock. Superflex's are offered in 2 varieties now. 10-15% stiffer (2") and 25% stiffer HD (2.5"). SAW & Icon are also in the 15% stiffer range.

IMHO the OME 895 is too much for the 5100.

 

[eddiebx]

OME 895's are approx 40% stiffer rate than stock. Superflex's are offered in 2 varieties now. 10-15% stiffer (2") and 25% stiffer HD (2.5"). SAW & Icon are also in the 15% stiffer range.

IMHO the OME 895 is too much for the 5100.

Since you've had both in your hands physically, could you comment on the shock lengths between the 5100s vs the OME? I've read the 5100s are a wee bit longer than stock to accommodate for the lift; but I've never found any data on how much increased travel the OME shocks provide. I've always been curious

 

[ebg18t]

Since you've had both in your hands physically, could you comment on the shock lengths between the 5100s vs the OME? I've read the 5100s are a wee bit longer than stock to accommodate for the lift; but I've never found any data on how much increased travel the OME shocks provide. I've always been curious

Great question that I never thought about measuring the length when I had them. I can't recall them being a noticeably different in length. The OME were heavier though.

 

[Snacksquatch]

They both have pro:cons.

Having run both here are my 2 cents based on using them with OME 885 & 895 springs.

Front 5100 vs OME w/885. Around town both felt good, on the trail the OME felt more controlled.

Rear 5100 vs OME w/895. Around town: the 5100 was more comfortable, the OME was over damped. Loaded with gear: OME was more controlled, once the truck was loaded with gear for trip the OME controlled body movement better and rode better on the street. The 5100 felt too soft, ie under damped. On the trail: OME felt more planted once the suspension was flexed. 5100 felt less controlled.

My opinion: OME rear shocks are better for trucks carrying more gear (consistently) with stiffer springs like the 895's. I feel the 895 springs are too much for the 5100. Unless you are carrying gear all the time something like the the superflex's are better all around rear springs. These match well with 5100's.

These are my observations while running them. Needless to say I wasn't satisfied with either so I am running custom valved Fox's now.

Thanks very much for this quick break down, this helped answer a lot of my questions as well!