Hmm... this doesn't sound good...

If at any time after purchase or installation, the shock malfunctions and Bilstein determines it to be defective, we will either replace it or repair it.

There are only a few specific exceptions to this warranty. They include:

1. original equipment shock absorbers - which are warrantied by the vehicle manufacturer,
2. improper installation,
3. racing, driving competition or off-road use
4. use on modified or other than Bilstein-recommended vehicles.

We'll have to see what SLR says.

Thats a kick in the balls to the off-roaders who wanted the stiffer shocks but passed because they wouldn't be warranteed by Bilstein since they weren't Xterra-specific.

Yeah, damn those small companies in small garages who say the warranty is voided the minute you use the product. I'll stick to the multi million dollar companies from now on

bilstein told me the same thing. they weren't xterra specific. they would not warranty them.

now granted, it's obviously a flaw, but I can see some scuffs on the shock, how do you know you hadn't damaged it and that's why it broke?

it sucks, yes, but I doubt it'd have happened if it were driven on the road.

If that's the only thing that broke this weekend, you did well.

Everytime I wheel the Rover something a lot more expensive to fix breaks.

The scuffs are from the shock rubbing against the lower shock mount for 5 miles on the street after it broke.

I then shoved a 1/2" bolt under the shock eye, and pounded it into place to possible support the shock for the next 4 miles off road. I then removed the shock entirely.

The lower shock mount is also in a very protected place, so I can guarantee it did not get damaged.

I'm really good at 4 wheeling and not breaking things, so every weekend is a good weekend for me.

I'm not gonna touch this one... Though I should.

Hey, I'll trade you all five (3 front, two rear) of my Ranchos and three Nissan shocks for your three remaining Bilstiens!

I wouldn't even think to warranty a shock if I broke one on a trail, but it still sucks that it broke. I think that's just your bill for harrassing me!

Actually, if I could break all nine of my shocks then I would have to buy new ones!

It broke after only 6 months of moderate use.
I've never broken a Rancho or Trailmaster shock.
The front shocks are mounted where they can't contact anything and get damaged.
It looks like there was very little bead at the weld point.

Either it's too short for the lift, or it was defective (the other 3 shocks are fine).

An interesting side note is that this shock, B46-1099-H2 , is listed by Bilstein for a stock height Xterra, not lifted.

I expect shocks on this vehicle, from a manufacturer (Bilstein) that prides itself in tough off-road shock design, to last several years.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: xoc ]

I agree it shouldn't break like that unless you eally nailed something. I just wouldn't expect that any shock company would cover trail use and since it's a relatively inexpensive part it would be less hassle for me to just buy a new one. Now, as far as the Ranchos go, I wish mine would break so I could buy the Bilsteins!

Hopefully they will take care of it anyway and SLR will help you out.

Why not ?

Nissan warranties the entire vehicle for on or off-road use.

Hitting a huge pothole on the street can do a lot more damage than a day of slow rock crawling.

Once last note.

Had I blown the internals of the shock, I would have no concerns about warranty, and would simply pay to replace it.

The shock broke where a shock should not break.

1) Because companies will always try and find a way to get out of paying for something and it's easier to get it out of the way up front than to try and come up with a reason for not paying later.

2) Hmmm, what they say and what they do....well, you get the point!

3) You're right about that!

Oh, and I do agree that it should not have broken there, but I'm still not surprised that Bilstein excludes offroad use from their warranty. Regardless, I would imagine you will deal through SLR for a replacement and I hope that they go to bat for you.

Rancho warranties their shocks for off-road use, why shouldn't Bilstein ? Hell, they have off-road race teams.

I got the replacement today from SLR. I paid for shipping overnight, otherwise they would have covered it.

I'm sending the broken one back, and they'll figure out what the warranty issue is.

Well, IMHO I would say that you have received great service from SLR. I would have expected you to pay shipping regardless if it was sent overnite or not, so I think they have done the right thing regardless of bilsteins position.

I didn't know Rancho covered offroad use. I wonder if they'll cover my fillings that are falling out from driving on the freeway?

:rolleyes:

That's good SLR sent you a new one. BTW, don't you have a spare shock of some sort that you can put in on the trail? Could you even put in a factory shock for emergency use or would it be too short?

Chuck which Rancho shocks are you running? I have RS9000's all around and they provide a pretty smooth ride with the add aleafs and stiffe torsion bars, typically I run them on 2 or 3 on the road.

I tried the RS9000 and the stock shock, and they came up 2 inches too short with the SLR lift.

Ian what part number RS 9000? Mine are fine up front and if you need a 2" longer shock you are getting maybe 3"+ more travel than I am which I highly doubt.

That's the same shock that a handful of us are running ... 2 of them bought from www.eshocks.com for $128 shipped. Hopefully the breakage you encountered won't become commonplace.

The SLR kit offers 11" of front wheel travel, way more than other kits.

With the front end off the ground completely, the Rancho 9188 comes up almost 2 inches too short at full extension.

I'll post a photo tonight.

Please do that, I'm having trouble putting this together--I run those very same shocks with my AC kit, and don't have any unused travel on them (i.e. when I jack up the truck with and without shocks, the upper bumpstops don't reach absolute compression with these shocks.) I measured my front wheel travel to be a tad over 9" btw.

Also you might want to update your review of the SLR lift kit, since you appear to have made a mistake. It says there (http://www.xterraownersclub.com/reviews/slr_lift01.html) that

"Suspension travel is increased at both ends with the SLR lift. Up front, there is just over 9" of travel... "

Which figure is correct?

SLR claims 11", the best I could measure was just over 9". It's very hard to get an accurate measurement without completely removing the torsion bars and fully compressing the front end.

The AC kit is not the same as the SLR kit, so don't expect the same wheel travel, or try to compare them. SLR's offers more travel, front and rear, and doesn't bind the CV joints.

Here's a picture of the 9188 installed...
Not 2 inches, but rather 1 inch. Still way too short, since a shock should never bottom out in either direction of travel.



[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: xoc ]

I don't follow your reasoning here. The AC kit (as I have it installed) uses the same shocks, the same shock mounts (lower a-arm & frame), and the same bumpstops as the SLR kit. Where is the extra travel actually coming from? I guess I just have problems picturing it--obviously in your picture the shock is a limiting factor, but yet IIRC the extended length of a B46-1099-H2 shock is 11.8", compared to a 9188's 11.625".

???

The travel comes from the arm design, the AC and SLR arms are different. You're also limited because your CV joints are limiting suspension travel.

You confused me because Todd and I were talking about the Rancho shock not fitting, not the Bilstein.

Okay. I'm just going to peacefully agree to disagree with you, as I simply see no conceivable way that you can be getting more wheel travel using the same shocks, shock mounts, and bumpstops, especially when the amount of travel you personally measured matches what I measured.

Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that the CV shafts are limiting the suspension travel and binding...I have had no such problems.

I have the RSX shocks. They're not adjustable and have strange behavior. Actually, the rears seem OK, but the fronts are definately not valved right. I get a pretty rough ride on little bumps and expansion joints, etc, but the front end wallows around and floats pretty bad when I'm going through lumpy areas. I also get quite a bit of squat and dive and the front end bottoms out easily on the trail. I could certainly benefit from the stronger torsion bars and different shocks.

Turn a front axle by hand.
Jack the vehicle up until the front wheels are off the ground.
Try and turn an axle by hand again.
Post your results here.

Well this isn't meant as a flame but this has got to be the biggest load of horse crap I have ever read on this board.

Regardless of what each of the companies claim about gained suspension travell....well it is false advertising, Period.

Follow this link here--> http://www.downeyoff-road.com/ Go to the "mag article" section and then take a good look at the 89-95 lift for the yotas. It is axle replacements, cv replacements etc. etc. Why...To gain more suspension travel. Look they have roughly the same amount of suspension travell as we do..7". With this lift they(Downey)gain 3" to give a TOTAL of 10"

Now do either of these lifts(slr & AC) do this. NO, they don't. Obviously you guys are missing something very simple here. The upper a-arm replacement does nothing more than allow factory spec alignment when the wheel has been adjusted downward of a couple inches and allows the upper balljoint to rest in a neutral postition. That's it.

Also have you replaced the lower a-arm?? No, and you would need to do so for the arc of the suspension travell. For example look at a 2wd lift kit from Fabtech. They replace the a-arms and give them longer length and new angles for up to 12" of suspension travell. These kits are highly modified and you guys think that with a simple uca replacement you are gaining gobs of travell??????

Like I told Goth on the other board, remove your bumpstops if you want gained travell. Stupid choice IMO but that's about your only choice.

Sorry but people will be reading this thread thinking they will gain all sorts of magical travell and they won't.

Later
Brian

I clicked on the Mag Articles section and only get "Coming soon" at the top. Also, they spelled "axles" wrong on their ad (they spelled it "axels"). :p

sorry: current add :p

Sorry Brian, but you are dead wrong.

If you want to come over and measure it, you're welcome to, we live in the same area.

The aftermarket upper control arms are straight, not flared like the stock arms.
They are also thinner in cross section than stock. They are also longer.

This changes the angle of the arm by a large amount before it contacts the upper bumpstop. This allows greater downward travel than stock.

By increasing the downward travel, the suspension can lift the vehicle, and still be sitting in the middle of the travel arc.

Can you explain why my stock shocks, and the Rancho 9188's are too short when my suspension is at full droop ? It's off by an inch at the shock mount, which means almost 2 inches at the centerline of the wheel.

I guess I'll have to post some pictures to prove it to you.

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: xoc ]

Look at Downey's ad again... what do you see ?
Rancho upper arms. That's it.

The birfield to u-joint replacement does nothing to alter the suspension, it simply stops the birfields from exploding at extreme angles.

SLR solves the extreme angle problem by lowering the differential, which is a much better solution, since Downey's kit can't be used at highway speeds, because they have only one u-joint.

U-joints speed up and slow down when they rotate, which is why the double cardan and CV joint were invented.

Ian give me a day or two and I should be able to shoot some shots of the AC kit with the Rancho's(same shocks as yours) disconnected and see if they are in fact too short as well. The shocks were already installed so I never checked if they were too short. Honestly everyone talks about the CV angles being a limiting factor on the X which is definetly true but I think our main problem is the steering system.

From what I can tell looking at the control arms offered by each kit (SLR & AC, the Calmini arms are different), they are the same piece. Same size, exact same design ...?

Close, but not the same, some subtle differences. For starters, the SLR tubing is curved.




[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: xoc ]

I'm talking about the AC arms vs. the SLR arms. You posted a pic of the stock arms and the SLR arms ... ?

Again, the AC arms and the SLR arms look the same to me.

I know that. I posted a picture of the SLR arm (ignore the stock one next to it).

Your job was to go find this picture...



...and notice the differences, without me posting it.

FYI - Here is Mosi's picture of the AC A-arm... This should help show the differences with SLR / AC designs.



[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: stormy ]

the SLR one be prettier.

This coming from someone with a "Big Dumb Rack" on his X...

Fine see if I let you help me install any more mods!