MAST4R
New member
I will keep this short. Everyone has different uses and tastes, but here are the main differences between these entry level monotubes:
When used with 1" REAR EIBACH spring. Different heights will result in DIFFERENT conclusions!
Icon 2.0 IFP is normally 160sh but a little discount is possible.
Eibach is normally just north of 100, I paid 75 each on Thanksgiving
Dimensions:
Icon 2.0 is advertised for 1-3", has a total length of almost 24" and total exposed shaft length of just over 9". It offers 5" of downtravel on 1" rear spring (actual lifts will vary depending on spring rates and loads). It hits the IFP, I think, on the uptravel which limits shaft up travel to about 2.5" only. Clearly, this shock's sweet spot is 2" of lift, not 1".
Eibach is advertised for 0-1" lift (or was). It is shorter and its exposed shaft is 8" vs over 9" for Icon. It offers 4" of downtravel vs 5" for the Icon and can fully retract into the shock body. This shock is clearly optimal for 1" of lift.
On pavement:
Icon 2.0 IFP: superb performance, absolutely planted rear on mountain roads (CO 550), canyon roads, abrupt interstate lane changes, etc.
Comfort: no complaints from family. Goes over road bumps and imperfections extremely well at any speed, wheel always feels planted, complete control.
Eibach: good to very good but lacks that extra "punch" (rebound?) that the Icon has. Supposedly has a hole making it softer at slow speeds. While nobody at home found that to make a difference in road comfort--good not great, as with the Icon--the performance over bumps at lower speeds is not nearly as good as the Icon. Going one wheel over bump, the wheel in question loses traction momentarily. Going faster, performance improves.
Road verdict: hands down the Icon, as far as I am concerned. Wife and kids cannot tell a difference. The Eibach is good but the Icon is great.
Desert or embedded rock at some speed:
Icon 2.0 IFP: can do very well with substantial hits and seriously rough terrain in small doses, performance in turns and over kinda rough dirt roads is excellent. However, comfort wise, beats up the rear seat pax at lower speeds over rough terrain such as 10-25 mph after a few miles.
Eibach: because of the Icon experience, I have been more protective of my temporary Eibachs. They perform very well on a variety of smooth dirt roads at some speed, not well on washboard, and they do feel a little softer than the Icons in the desert at 10-20 mph.
Rock/Off-Camber:
The Icon's full extra inch of wheel travel is a big benefit. The Eibach makes me choose my lines more carefully. It would be a concern on trails that have nasty off-camber spots; sometimes big air is unavoidable (Fins and Things) but sometimes it is nice to keep both rears on the ground (Black Bear before rocky switchback).
Durability: The Icon started leaking around 10k and after the second longer and punishing desert day (the first one was early in its life). It does well for shorter periods, but not when pushed on 70-100 mile loops at a good pace. I would not bet on the Eibach lasting any better if used the same.
All in all, both are nice shocks--in fact awesome for the price--for learning or irregular or slow-speed offorad use. Both are very comfy in low range over any terrain, for example. The Icon 2.0 IFP is superb on road when it comes to performance. For offroad, it should probably be used with 2" lift, neither 1, nor 3. The Eibach is a great all-around stock replacement for on and offroad, a whole different league from stock at a low price.
For any speed, and I don't mean racing, but regular desert driving or doing 20 mph over embedded rock for miles, a reservoir would be the minimum requirement and frankly, one should just go 2.5 from the start.
So off to Bilstein 8100s for me. At 1" lift, I get a tad more down travel than the Icon, more up shaft travel than the Eibach, and the rest is not comparable, of course, given the price differential.
When used with 1" REAR EIBACH spring. Different heights will result in DIFFERENT conclusions!
Icon 2.0 IFP is normally 160sh but a little discount is possible.
Eibach is normally just north of 100, I paid 75 each on Thanksgiving
Dimensions:
Icon 2.0 is advertised for 1-3", has a total length of almost 24" and total exposed shaft length of just over 9". It offers 5" of downtravel on 1" rear spring (actual lifts will vary depending on spring rates and loads). It hits the IFP, I think, on the uptravel which limits shaft up travel to about 2.5" only. Clearly, this shock's sweet spot is 2" of lift, not 1".
Eibach is advertised for 0-1" lift (or was). It is shorter and its exposed shaft is 8" vs over 9" for Icon. It offers 4" of downtravel vs 5" for the Icon and can fully retract into the shock body. This shock is clearly optimal for 1" of lift.
On pavement:
Icon 2.0 IFP: superb performance, absolutely planted rear on mountain roads (CO 550), canyon roads, abrupt interstate lane changes, etc.
Comfort: no complaints from family. Goes over road bumps and imperfections extremely well at any speed, wheel always feels planted, complete control.
Eibach: good to very good but lacks that extra "punch" (rebound?) that the Icon has. Supposedly has a hole making it softer at slow speeds. While nobody at home found that to make a difference in road comfort--good not great, as with the Icon--the performance over bumps at lower speeds is not nearly as good as the Icon. Going one wheel over bump, the wheel in question loses traction momentarily. Going faster, performance improves.
Road verdict: hands down the Icon, as far as I am concerned. Wife and kids cannot tell a difference. The Eibach is good but the Icon is great.
Desert or embedded rock at some speed:
Icon 2.0 IFP: can do very well with substantial hits and seriously rough terrain in small doses, performance in turns and over kinda rough dirt roads is excellent. However, comfort wise, beats up the rear seat pax at lower speeds over rough terrain such as 10-25 mph after a few miles.
Eibach: because of the Icon experience, I have been more protective of my temporary Eibachs. They perform very well on a variety of smooth dirt roads at some speed, not well on washboard, and they do feel a little softer than the Icons in the desert at 10-20 mph.
Rock/Off-Camber:
The Icon's full extra inch of wheel travel is a big benefit. The Eibach makes me choose my lines more carefully. It would be a concern on trails that have nasty off-camber spots; sometimes big air is unavoidable (Fins and Things) but sometimes it is nice to keep both rears on the ground (Black Bear before rocky switchback).
Durability: The Icon started leaking around 10k and after the second longer and punishing desert day (the first one was early in its life). It does well for shorter periods, but not when pushed on 70-100 mile loops at a good pace. I would not bet on the Eibach lasting any better if used the same.
All in all, both are nice shocks--in fact awesome for the price--for learning or irregular or slow-speed offorad use. Both are very comfy in low range over any terrain, for example. The Icon 2.0 IFP is superb on road when it comes to performance. For offroad, it should probably be used with 2" lift, neither 1, nor 3. The Eibach is a great all-around stock replacement for on and offroad, a whole different league from stock at a low price.
For any speed, and I don't mean racing, but regular desert driving or doing 20 mph over embedded rock for miles, a reservoir would be the minimum requirement and frankly, one should just go 2.5 from the start.
So off to Bilstein 8100s for me. At 1" lift, I get a tad more down travel than the Icon, more up shaft travel than the Eibach, and the rest is not comparable, of course, given the price differential.