5150s vs 7100s

[Goatman]

The digressive valving is horrible. Can work on a slow speed rock crawler, but not on anything that wants to see some speed getting to the trails. It's purpose is to be stable for slow speed then soften for hits. We need almost the opposite since we run at speed. We need stronger valving for speed to absorb the big hits without bottoming. There used to be the perception that real soft springs were best for rock crawling to allow good flex, and the digressive valving could add some stability. But now stability is usually valued over flex, so stiffer springs work well, and we go faster also requiring stiffer springs, so shock valving for slow speed is pretty insignificant. If the shocks are stiff enough for decent high speed stuff, they still work fine for slow speed.

 

[Deadman 94 xj]

I'm guessing Digressive valving would be similar to Edelbrocks IAS system?

 

[Ronbo]

Damn, that isn't sounding to good for me then. Honestly though, I can only go so fast with my D30. Hopefully I can reach a happy middle ground. I tried mentioning my concerns to their tech-line, and they really can only respond with 'well, we did test this, you know.' :dunno: I was told that the 5100's can be revalved by Bilstein, so if it doesn't work out, I'll kindly ask that engineer for a little help.

 

[Ronbo]

I'm guessing Digressive valving would be similar to Edelbrocks IAS system?

Bilstein mentions that feature in their 9100 line, but it sounds like the benefits apply mostly to rock crawlers.

 

[Deadman 94 xj]

I went with the 255/70 5125's up front and that deal on the Edelbrock remotes for the rear. I haven't put it together yet though. I don't do fast stuff right now so it should work out fine. I'm curious to see if the stiff Edelbrocks will help out at all with the body roll in the rear.

I'm not sure how to figure out their valving but from what I can tell by hand, their a lot stiffer than the 5125's.