hoser
SILVER Star
You would be way over-geared with that combination. Stick with the stock 3.3 gearing or at most, 3.9:1 with 37's. 74Weld portals add 22% reduction alone.
200 Series Portal Axles (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter ATwoZ
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I agree - if you’re sticking with 37’s and you know for sure you’re getting portals, I would definitely not regear beforehand. The 22% reduction is perfect for 37’s.
I think 74 Weld and Werewolf’s are both good options (once 74 Weld makes them available). I went with Werewolf for several reasons: the 35% reduction in gears (perfect for 40’s), the extra inch in clearance (will also help me run 40’s), a little extra width, steel construction, and not having to go to a 6 lug wheel.
Weight wasn’t much of a factor for me. Our 200’s are overbuilt enough to take it IMO. The one thing 74 Weld will have that Werewolf doesn’t is a port to get to your CV should you break one. With Werewolf you have to split the box. So, a little extra time to change out a CV if necessary. I’ve seen 74 Weld having some issues lately (Dissents new 250 broke the rear axle shaft I think). Werewolf has been running these on 200’s a couple years with no issues. But like I said, I think both are solid choices.
Doesn’t the werewolf have provisions for CTIS?
Maybe it’s only me that thinks about this but in our recent trip up into deep snow, it would have been wonderful to be able to change pressures quickly as we went from drift, to Rocky wind blown slope, back to deep drift.
Maybe it’s only me that thinks about this but in our recent trip up into deep snow, it would have been wonderful to be able to change pressures quickly as we went from drift, to Rocky wind blown slope, back to deep drift.
And THIS!.... is the toyota MEGA CruiserNah.... you can't suggest an H1 on a Cruiser board. But this, yes! LHD too!
1996 Toyota Mega Cruiser - ~49,900 Miles, Rare Left-Hand Drive Civilian Model, Portal Axles, U.S. Title
This 1996 Toyota Mega Cruiser is for sale on Cars & Bids! Auction ends December 9 2024.carsandbids.com
Yes they do and I would LOVE this option, but it’s expensive and I think you have to use their wheels, which are like $1300/each! But not 100% sure on that.
I haven’t heard of a single CTIS system that doesn’t leak. A cool feature, but in my opinion not worth constantly chasing leaks
What happened to Dissent's 250? A buddy told me 74Welds on Broncos were having issues, leaking and brake calipers are falling off. Some guys are pissed apparently
I saw that about the CV access, can't remember where, I'll have to dig it up. But some guy in a Tacoma with werewolfs broke an axle on the trail and just cut it in half and let if flop around to get back to the trailhead.
Ah yes, didn't consider the loss of the stock knuckle. What's everyone doing in conjunction with portal installation? Guess you don't need a spindle gusset anymore. Cam tab gussets? Body mount chop? What's the next weak link after the portals?
And agreed, that's not too too wide. But I will say if I'm doing a technical trail and I have to choose between my 80 and Tundra I'm picking the 80 every time and width is a factor. The Tundra is a boat on the trail and I only take it out to wide open desert trails, especially after installing King 3.0s, it's so fun bombing around
Thank you for thinking that I wheel hard. Not really. I may have been the first person on 40’s but it wasn’t necessary for my local trails. The heart wants what the heart wants though. And I see 37’s under an LX as the sweet spot personally. Maybe 35’s for the LC if you’re not willing to ditch the KDSS. Speaking of, Lee Sumner wheels hard
You mentioned Morrison Jeep Trail up here near me, and yeah, that would be much sketchier with a wider track! I slipped a tire on it a few years back as the edge of the trail gave way and my heart was beating pretty good as we hooked up my friends winch and very carefully got me safely back on the trail
Downside to the 74Weld is the requirement to change to six lug, and I’d rather run my existing beadlocks instead of buying another expensive set of wheels. This makes their solution significantly more expensive when you add the cost of new wheels, especially their own wheels they’re promoting.
I would love portals for the snow wheeling we do, not the summer mountain trails. For summer trails and my dream of eventually getting onto the Rubicon, I’d rather have a solid front axle, but neither are really in the cards for now.
I personally think Jason will have fun on his Werewolf portals, with minimal significant reduction in reliability, but there are always some unknowns. I love that people are still pushing this platform with Portals.
Yeah I think I'm in the same boat. Doesn't make sense for the trails I do in Utah. I don't think I can remember a single trail where I've thought "I wish I was wider." hahaha but plenty of trails where I've had to pull in the mirror and wince as I dragged myself through
On Morrison we were in Tacomas on 37s with lockers and we had a good time. Did have a grizzly in camp that night though and I think I got a little altitude sickness
I like to see innovation on 200s, they're usually a forgotten platform, and I would be more likely to try it out if it cost less but between the portals, new wheels and tires you're looking at $25K at least (not sure how much Werewolfs are, at least you could run 5x150.) I could see myself doing portals on a stock 200 with 35s if I could keep the offset high. Maybe get some Icelandic flares. That would be a nice low COG OEM+ build.
Last edited:
While we are dreaming, I have imagined a bit about taking a 2nd gen Tundra and putting LC arms on the front along with portals and somehow narrowing the rear end up and trying to create a more stock overall width with portals. Likely cutting the fenders up and keeping the rig quite low but still on 40’s. Not sure how wide it would need to be to get the tires to clear the frame but these are the things I dream about
Yeah I didn’t want to say anything because I don’t want to come across like a werewolf fanboy since that’s what I went with, but I’ve been hearing 74 Welds have been having issues on several platforms. I guess werewolf’s had a leaking issue as well, but they’ve since remedied it with a softer washer or something. 74’s need an extra brace for the rear portals that they don’t have evidently. I am not an expert in the least, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong - I’m not throwing shade at anyone - I think they are both amazing pieces of kit.
With werewolf’s I don’t think you need anything else, although to run 40’s I’m going to need a little extra fabrication (body mount relocation etc). No spindle necessary - it’s replaced with the kit, as are the brake lines (with threaded ones).
hoser
SILVER Star
The TNGA vehicles appear to have weak suspension mounts on the axle. The LC200 mounts appear a lot more robust. So that is helpful. Dissent LC250 bent their mounts. Rear portals will add additional stress on those links... perhaps akin to going to a larger diameter tire. Think "axle wrap."
Re: Width.... A lot of folks around here run full width axles. It's not an issue because these are straight front axle trucks with lots of articulation. The wide IFS will certainly have it's own issues because you'll have fewer lines you can choose. On the rear though, width helps because added width increases articulation. At the same time, some added axle width is welcomed for the sake of the 200's big body. Width keeps the body further away from the rocks.
As for cost, I've entertained the idea of running portals on the front IFS.... ONLY. The rear does fine... maybe re-engineer/lengthen the links. That would make it only half the cost.
I went through the options and I can't find a rear gear ratio that would give me perfect 22% reduction.HOWEVER, a front diff of 3.9:1 and portal 1.22:1 gives an overall ratio of 4.758 which is within 3% of 4.88's for the rear. This is certainly acceptable for off-road but not sure the Torsen center diff will like it on-road. If I can adapt a selectable hub on the fronts and run unlocked on the road, this might just work out. Now check this out, if I could figure out a part-time transfer case (like on a 80/100 series), I can go way, way longer between portal oil changes because it wouldn't be spinning only 90% of the time.
hoser
SILVER Star
I went back and actually counted the teeth of each gear and took it to thousandths place for the gear ratio.
Front would 3.909 x 1.222 (22/18 teeth) =4.776
Rear is actually 39/8=4.875
So we are really close at 2.07% front to rear.
@TeCKis300 If you know Quinn personally, run this gearing by him. I didn't come up with the idea to run portals in the front, straight axle in the rear. It was one of his videos.
Front would 3.909 x 1.222 (22/18 teeth) =4.776
Rear is actually 39/8=4.875
So we are really close at 2.07% front to rear.
@TeCKis300 If you know Quinn personally, run this gearing by him. I didn't come up with the idea to run portals in the front, straight axle in the rear. It was one of his videos.
The TNGA vehicles appear to have weak suspension mounts on the axle. The LC200 mounts appear a lot more robust. So that is helpful. Dissent LC250 bent their mounts. Rear portals will add additional stress on those links... perhaps akin to going to a larger diameter tire. Think "axle wrap."
Re: Width.... A lot of folks around here run full width axles. It's not an issue because these are straight front axle trucks with lots of articulation. The wide IFS will certainly have it's own issues because you'll have fewer lines you can choose. On the rear though, width helps because added width increases articulation. At the same time, some added axle width is welcomed for the sake of the 200's big body. Width keeps the body further away from the rocks.
As for cost, I've entertained the idea of running portals on the front IFS.... ONLY. The rear does fine... maybe re-engineer/lengthen the links. That would make it only half the cost.
HOWEVER, a front diff of 3.9:1 and portal 1.22:1 gives an overall ratio of 4.758 which is within 3% of 4.88's for the rear. This is certainly acceptable for off-road but not sure the Torsen center diff will like it on-road. If I can adapt a selectable hub on the fronts and run unlocked on the road, this might just work out. Now check this out, if I could figure out a part-time transfer case (like on a 80/100 series), I can go way, way longer between portal oil changes because it wouldn't be spinning only 90% of the time.
I wonder if a tundra transfer case will work in a 200…
For all intents and purposes, that's good enough for a 4x4 system. Staggered tires do the same thing on my sports car, and within 3% is generally an acceptable factor. I'll likely see Quinn camping again in a couple weeks. Will pick his brain. I know he's been prioritizing the new TNGF cars but will see where things might be at with the 200-series.
hoser
SILVER Star
Ah, yes, I do remember @bjowett doing the AWD conversion on a Tundra... this would be just the opposite.
I think 2% would be okay too. Just need a contingency plan. I would prefer to run it in Full-Time 4wd but Part time with selectable hubs would give it low maintenance and an easy trail fix should anything go wrong. Also, I don't think Part-time kits noticeably improve MPG but in this case, I think it would. That is three gearboxes it would be bypassing.
Last edited:
bjowett
Supporting Vendor
I swapped the LC full time case, another enthusiast named Viktor G swapped the Sequoia Multimode. Should be easy enough to swap the part time Tundra case, the Sequoia will require a look at the ECU and possibly the Tundra front diff with ADD.
We can install manual hubs on the stock bearings and spindles, but the portals will require a redesign.
We can install manual hubs on the stock bearings and spindles, but the portals will require a redesign.
nwfl4runner
GOLD Star
I am super excited to see this happen! Huge changes since Moab 2 years ago! Are you on tundra arms now?
