I would say that if the Bilstein book calls out a certain valving for a part number, that would be what you'd go by. At least initially. Even
they can make a mistake when things get printed!
Or the could have changed them. For example my older book (not sure where my new one is) shows that shock as being a 175/60 valving spec.
I would assume (hate to use that word here!) that the shocks you got from Tom's are likely selected with light valving for use in a multi-shock application? Seems logical at any rate, being recommended with the multi-shock hoops. Or, as we run into sometimes, that valve package was the only one available in a shock that was just the right length for the mount.
A direct comparison to ours is difficult until we confirm the part number is the same. We may not be using the same shock number with our hoop as they do with theirs.
Easy enough to find out on Monday though.
Which WH part number are you comparing to by the way? I can verify the valving for you if you'd like.
And something I did not mention in that thread Steve mentioned, is that I do have at least several customers using the lighter 255/70 on front shock applications to good effect.
This is most often to get the proper shock length when using the long-travel single shock mount (F250 style) that replace the stock shock mounts. Sometimes there just isn't a properly sized 5100 with the heavier valving. Makes paying more for the 7100's a little more appealing.
Sometimes...
So far, only one customer I can remember said they were lighter than he'd like. But was still going to run them because they were still working passably well. The others said they liked them just as they are.
So it's hard to say what is going to make one owner happy and another one, not so much.
And lastly, to your main concern, even though I'd initially say that when used in a single shock application that valving would be lighter than most of us would like, I can't say that for certain.
Reason being the numbers Bilstein uses don't always have a direct correlation to what we might expect. In other words, the 160/57 isn't necessarily going to be close to 40% softer than the 298/94 would be. As the numbers alone might indicate.
Generally speaking though, yes the lower the numbers the softer the dampening. But this is why they have a tech line! In case we can't come up with the precise differences as they equate to the real world.
I would also suspect that if you install them but find they are way too soft for your use, you could get the proper ones swapped out by Tom's without too much drama. You might call first though, and verify they don't expect you to use them as a dual application.
Just in case, right?
And speaking of which... What is your intended use? Street only, or different types of off-roading adventuring?
Thanks. Good luck.
Paul
