Portal Axles (74Weld)

[doc5339]

Anyone other than Dissent running or considering running the 74Weld Portal Axles on their LC 250?

I realize $20k is a ton of money, however, it seems to make sense when considering: Suspension Lift, Diff Drop, Re-Gearing Diffs, etc.

Have always been amazed by HUMMVEE's, Unimogs, and G-Wagon 4x4 Squared capabilities. Seems like you kill quite a few birds with one stone by using portals. Granted one has 4 gear oil changes to mess with along with the usual engine oil change, but seems superior for stability, overall clearance, driveline alignment including CV axles.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

 

[turbo8]

Check out this thread in the 200 series forum

Besides the oil change interval the other thing I don't like is the increased track width.

 

[Rednexus]

IMO...at the cost of portals along with other considerations like voiding the warranty etc., I'd instead consider a high-performance SXS, which should be well within the capability of a LC250 to tow to the trails. Not that portals aren't cool (they are), but the price point of the portals + wheels/tires + a front locker opens up a lot of other possibilities.

EDIT: Looks like portals weigh around 50+ pounds each....if you pair them with say a set of 37s that could be 100 pound in added un-sprung weight per wheel. Plus, a whole lot of leverage added to the front and rear suspension (links, brackets, bearings, drivetrain components, steering components, bushings) - in multiple axes - which the rig was never designed to see (and Toyota spent a lot of time making those components smaller on the LC250 to save weight). So there would certainly be some concerns withe the drivability and reliability of the rig after bolting on some portals.

My tractor has portals on the front axle, but it's a solid cast iron axle tube that has a separate cast iron portal/steering knuckle bolted to it, and it only has a 27" front tire with 24 horsepower .

 

[doc5339]

IMO...at the cost of portals along with other considerations like voiding the warranty etc., I'd instead consider a high-performance SXS, which should be well within the capability of a LC250 to tow to the trails. Not that portals aren't cool (they are), but the price point of the portals + wheels/tires + a front locker opens up a lot of other possibilities.

EDIT: Looks like portals weigh around 50+ pounds each....if you pair them with say a set of 37s that could be 100 pound in added un-sprung weight per wheel. Plus, a whole lot of leverage added to the front and rear suspension (links, brackets, bearings, drivetrain components, steering components, bushings) - in multiple axes - which the rig was never designed to see (and Toyota spent a lot of time making those components smaller on the LC250 to save weight). So there would certainly be some concerns withe the drivability and reliability of the rig after bolting on some portals.

My tractor has portals on the front axle, but it's a solid cast iron axle tube that has a separate cast iron portal/steering knuckle bolted to it, and it only has a 27" front tire with 24 horsepower .

Excellent points, and while unsprung weight is always the enemy, on the trail having weight underside is not the worst thing.

I have nowhere to store a Side X Side or the trailer, though it really makes a ton of sense in generally. Those guys on SXS's at Uwharrie make it look easy.

Dissent actually broke on of their rear 74Weld Portals at the very end of Fordyce. Your points about reliability are well founded. I think you and the Dissent video may have talked me off the ledge. I must say I do have some LC 250 regrets now. I was cross-shopping 2013-2015 G550's and I really think the solid front axle is a game changer for the off roading piece.

We tend to drive long distances to go wheeling, not overlanding, or as I refer to it "camping." Thought the LC 250 would be the best of both worlds well aware of the inherent ground clearance issues. Kinda wishing I had gone with the G now and just added 35's.

 

[doc5339]

Check out this thread in the 200 series forum

Besides the oil change interval the other thing I don't like is the increased track width.

Yeah, though it adds stability it takes away from the ability to get through narrow spots (trees). I choose not to Titan-swap my old Xterra for this reason, however, I made it extra tippy keeping the stock track width.

 

[Rednexus]

Excellent points, and while unsprung weight is always the enemy, on the trail having weight underside is not the worst thing.

I have nowhere to store a Side X Side or the trailer, though it really makes a ton of sense in generally. Those guys on SXS's at Uwharrie make it look easy.

Dissent actually broke on of their rear 74Weld Portals at the very end of Fordyce. Your points about reliability are well founded. I think you and the Dissent video may have talked me off the ledge. I must say I do have some LC 250 regrets now. I was cross-shopping 2013-2015 G550's and I really think the solid front axle is a game changer for the off roading piece.

We tend to drive long distances to go wheeling, not overlanding, or as I refer to it "camping." Thought the LC 250 would be the best of both worlds well aware of the inherent ground clearance issues. Kinda wishing I had gone with the G now and just added 35's.

My rig is of course older and of different architecture - but with a 2.5" lift and 33s I have almost 13" of ground clearance under the front skids. Similar to a Bronco Raptor. I wheeled with it out in CO quite a bit last September and did drag some, but the skids did a fine job of protecting things. On rutted roads, my IFS rig is significantly faster than a SFA Jeep (I had to stop and wait for my wheeling buddy in his JK all the time - he just couldn't keep up on anything other than the most technical trails, where he did excel).

I think you would be very happy in the capability of your rig with a mild lift (say $3K), some skids and sliders (say $2K), and better wheels and tires (say $2K), especially if you have the rear locker already. And none of that should result in anything more than minor adverse affects to the reliability or drivability of the rig.

 

[doc5339]

My rig is of course older and of different architecture - but with a 2.5" lift and 33s I have almost 13" of ground clearance under the front skids. Similar to a Bronco Raptor. I wheeled with it out in CO quite a bit last September and did drag some, but the skids did a fine job of protecting things. On rutted roads, my IFS rig is significantly faster than a SFA Jeep (I had to stop and wait for my wheeling buddy in his JK all the time - he just couldn't keep up on anything other than the most technical trails, where he did excel).

I think you would be very happy in the capability of your rig with a mild lift (say $3K), some skids and sliders (say $2K), and better wheels and tires (say $2K), especially if you have the rear locker already. And none of that should result in anything more than minor adverse affects to the reliability or drivability of the rig.
View attachment 3867700

You are probably right and I had a similar setup on my 2nd Gen Xterra (Fox 3" lift, WKO Sliders, 33" Pizza Cutters, no re-gear, OEM skids) which worked amazingly well, until I rolled it (my fault of course). Actually still worked very well after rolling it but really showed me the downsides of being narrow, tall, and short wheelbase.

A big point lingering in the back of my mind is weight. I really believe in trying to minimize weight even over capability at times. Wheeling a lighter rig is just better. You slide less downhill, uphill, and off camber. I do miss some of my old Rubicons when wheeling as I would often have all 4 wheels with traction versus the L663 Defender 110, Xterra, and we shall see on the LC 250; which is heavy before adding sliders, skids, 33's. I do not miss those Rubicons when driving to Uwharrie or across the country.

I guess I was just wishing the portals would solve most problems associated with a suspension lift and large wheels, though definitely adds more weight (yes unsprung weight).

 

[doc5339]

My rig is of course older and of different architecture - but with a 2.5" lift and 33s I have almost 13" of ground clearance under the front skids. Similar to a Bronco Raptor. I wheeled with it out in CO quite a bit last September and did drag some, but the skids did a fine job of protecting things. On rutted roads, my IFS rig is significantly faster than a SFA Jeep (I had to stop and wait for my wheeling buddy in his JK all the time - he just couldn't keep up on anything other than the most technical trails, where he did excel).

I think you would be very happy in the capability of your rig with a mild lift (say $3K), some skids and sliders (say $2K), and better wheels and tires (say $2K), especially if you have the rear locker already. And none of that should result in anything more than minor adverse affects to the reliability or drivability of the rig.
View attachment 3867700

Guessing your rear diff is closer to 10" from the ground?

 

[1MOA]

That engine and trans combination in the 250 would struggle mightily with portals.

 

[doc5339]

That engine and trans combination in the 250 would struggle mightily with portals.

The 2.4-liter turbo hybrid always sounds like it is struggling mightily to me It seemed to do alright for the Dissent guys though; granted they are selling products and want their 1958 LC 250 to look good.

Land Cruiser 250 on 40s & Portals - Fordyce Trail Part 1

Land Cruiser 250 on 40s & Portals - Fordyce Trail Part 2

***Spoiler Alert*** from "Part 2": Both the highly mod'd LC 250 (74Weld Portals, lift, 40's) and 4Runner (V8, SAS, 40's) broke while the Jeep (JT) Gladiator was fine other than some light-moderate trail body damage.

 

[Rednexus]

Guessing your rear diff is closer to 10" from the ground?

Probably, but clearance there is rarely a problem as it's just a small point that's low.

 

[GatorBait1551]

I would recommend looking closely at their warranty which they seemed to have updated recently regarding tire size.

Warranty & Return Policy | 74Weld Motorsports

motorsports.74weld.com

 

[Rednexus]

Just 35s? No thanks. For big clearance I'd go with a RCLT on an pre-TNGA-F rig instead, or wait until there is a TNGA-F RCLT. At least with the RCLT the entire front suspension has been actually re-engineered strengthened to handle the additional stress of bigger tires.

I took a quick look at the 74Weld website and saw nothing regarding any engineering analysis they or a 3rd party did to verify that the factory suspension components can handle the stress or portals. Hitting a pothole or other hard obstacle at speed with those is going to exert a pretty big moment on the front suspension components that Toyota probably didn't design them for, since the portal is basically a 5" lever arm placed on the wheel hub. There certainly could be a risk of bending/breaking control arms or ripping a link mount off the frame. This might not be a big deal but it's hard to know without either an analysis or several years of data on these systems running in the field.

 

[Jstawgn]

The broken axle shaft are not OEM and supplied by 74weld. I remember seeing that it destroy the locker too when it broke.

I think the new 8.2 comes with 32 spline axle not 30 spline like previous generation. Still warranty is only for 37. Discent is running 38 or 39" tires.

 

[GatorBait1551]

The 250 is a 30 spline axle

 

[Jstawgn]

The 250 is a 30 spline axle

One more thing to be disappointed with this not getting the 9.5" rear axle like GX.

 

[Jetboy]

I love portal axles, but I have a hard time seeing the use case for them on something like an LC250. At least not for anything I've ever done.

I just have a hard time thinking of an application where the portals would be better all-around than an LC250 on about 37s or a dedicated crawler/SxS. The portals have all the downsides of high maintenance and ongoing repair/rebuild costs. So they end up being a vehicle that is essentially a trailer toy. I'm cool with trailer toys - I have an FJ40 that's basically a trailer toy and my SxS is also obviously a trailer toy. But I wouldn't do it with a 5500lb $60k SUV as my starting point. Building something purely for local roads and trail duty - I'd choose something more optimized for local roads and trail work. Namely something a LOT lighter and a lot cheaper. Almost any earlier Toyota BOF SUV would be a better choice to start with for me because you're not getting any meaningful benefit of the new vehicle for the high cost.

The other issue I have is that I've been around long enough to see half a dozen portal products come and go. In 10 or 20 years - where are you going to find parts to fix them? Even Mopar couldn't keep them on the market long term. For folks new to the offroad world, Mopar used to sell complete portal axle sets that were a Dana 60 front and IIRC a 14 bolt rear complete with lockers, gears, mounting tabs to match the application (jeep or Ram truck) for $23k. Even the older OEM mercedes and volvo stuff is hard to get parts for. The only products I've seen that have staying power so far are the SxS portals. And I think it's because they're $2,500, not $25,000 so they sell a lot more of them.

I will say a set of portals on my FJ40 sounds amazing. The JHF portals are something I've looked at pretty hard. But I can go buy an actual Humvee for around $6k, so it's kinda hard to justify not just buying a Humvee or a complete Unimog instead.

 

[doc5339]

Thanks to everyone for the well thought out and supported responses. Y'all have offically talked me off of the $20k+ portal axle ledge!

 

[Rednexus]

74Weld may also be taking on quite a bit of liability with their portals. To my previous concern - if the portal results in the link bracket ripping off the frame - or shears a lower ball joint and it results in a serious single- or multi-vehicle crash on the street - it's hard too see how they'd evade responsibility for that (regardless of the fine print). Since some of these portals are already failing, it's totally possible that something could be damaged on the trail and then come apart catastrophically on the road. Some of that liability could also fall on the driver of the vehicle or the shop that made the modification. The liability concerns alone point to it being a "trailer queen" kind of mod, IMO.

Then again, I'm just an engineer and not a lawyer, and presumably actual lawyers have already considered these things. But I have a lot of experience looking at the effects of loading structures well outside of what the original designers considered. And, I had to replace the UBJs in my Ironman upper control arms as they went through a NHTSA recall over torn boots.

 

[baltistyle]

74Weld may also be taking on quite a bit of liability with their portals. To my previous concern - if the portal results in the link bracket ripping off the frame - or shears a lower ball joint and it results in a serious single- or multi-vehicle crash on the street - it's hard too see how they'd evade responsibility for that (regardless of the fine print). Since some of these portals are already failing, it's totally possible that something could be damaged on the trail and then come apart catastrophically on the road. Some of that liability could also fall on the driver of the vehicle or the shop that made the modification. The liability concerns alone point to it being a "trailer queen" kind of mod, IMO.

Then again, I'm just an engineer and not a lawyer, and presumably actual lawyers have already considered these things. But I have a lot of experience looking at the effects of loading structures well outside of what the original designers considered. And, I had to replace the UBJs in my Ironman upper control arms as they went through a NHTSA recall over torn boots.

As an also “not a lawyer”, do they have legalese for “off road use only”?