74Weld Bronco Portals now available!

[Merc4x4]

I just went out and took a few pics... and its pretty tight. I'll need to go get a tape measure; but basically the limiting factor will be staying above the lower swing arm bracing, and below the third brake light bracket (if you use this or a similar option). It can extend to the inside quite a bit.

I think something like this would work better than a full size tailgate table: GP Factor Table

I can see the angles better with these pics, thanks!
It looks like there's room to get a work surface in there, even extend it a bit past the frame on the bottom center without covering the camera. I'd still keep my tailgate table, I use it all the time.

Sponsored

 

[Merc4x4]

@ Merc4x4 Sure would seem easy to have a table surface that had some fold out hooks that you could keep float inside the truck and when you open this swing arm you just hook it to the top (appears to be some holes) and it just hangs on the arm. Not sure I am explaining myself well but I see it in my head really well.

You could even just use cable and a couple of s hooks.

I already keep too much stuff floating around the inside of my Bronco, I'd rather not have more! Lol.
I like the tire mount tables, but same issue of packing it inside the Bronco.

 

[Snacktime]

Fyi I would plate the rear of the frame. It's 1/8" steel and I tweaked mine just a little.

 

[Tor148]

Fyi I would plate the rear of the frame. It's 1/8" steel and I tweaked mine just a little.

How? Just curious!

 

[Snacktime]

How? Just curious!

From wheeling? No clue when but my passenger side is 1/4" higher clearance.

 

[Tor148]

From wheeling? No clue when but my passenger side is 1/4" higher clearance.

Wow!!

 

[5GENIDN]

This may be the same reason that guys are having to reinforce the frame at the front when installing a winch.....

 

[Merc4x4]

tl/dr: I compiled measurements (track width, wheel travel, hp, tq) from the internet comparing my future build to the Raptor. They are at the end.


After reading Snacktime's thread that got into comparison of Portals to Raptor, I decided to collect the info that's been guiding my build for a long time now.
I was hoping Ford would put portals on the top trim of the Bronco, like the 4600's, but wasn't surprised they followed the existing Raptor formula.

There was a lot of "articulation" thrown around in Snaktime's thread, and I feel it wasn't properly distinguished from wheel travel. Max articulation, of course, depends on wheel travel, but in the real world you rarely hit max articulation with IFS.
IFS only has (gross estimate) 2 feet of leverage to compress the spring. A solid axle gets 6 feet of leverage. The longer track width of the Raptor will give it more leverage and more effective articulation. Also, moving the tire further from the pivot will create more wheel travel, even keeping the stock geometry.
I chose Icon because they say they have the most shock travel, which would mean the most wheel travel, assuming the tires aren't hitting the fenders.

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying I've been chasing Raptor specs with off the shelf bolt on parts, with a focus on rock crawling vs desert racing; like most of you here.

Below are the numbers I pulled from the internet. The extra width of the portals will give me more wheel travel than the Icon numbers below. I'm not focused enough to do the math to say how much.

*Ford labels the Raptor with suspension travel, not wheel travel. I don't know where they are taking the measurements from; wheel? shock mount? I'm assuming it's not shock travel, as that would be in clear race/buggy territory.



74Weld Badlands Sasquatch Icon FP vs Raptor

BadSquatch
Wheel: 17x8.5 ET30
F Track width: 66.9
R Track width: 66.9
Track width with portals (+3.5 x 2): 73.9
Track width w/ portals and ET25: ~74.3
Track width w/ portals and ET35: ~73.5
Track width w/ portals and ET55: ~71.9

Wheel travel w/ Icon 2.5 (according to Icon) on stock Sasquatch track width.
F: 11.5”
R: 14”

2.7 power with FP Tune
HP: 355 HP at 5,500 RPM
TQ: 433 lb.-ft. at 3,500 RPM


Raptor
Wheel: 17x8.5 ET34
F Track width: 73.2
F Track width: 73.6

Suspension Travel
F: 13”
R: 14”

3.0 power
HP: 418
TQ: 440

 

[5GENIDN]

tl/dr: I compiled measurements (track width, wheel travel, hp, tq) from the internet comparing my future build to the Raptor. They are at the end.


After reading Snacktime's thread that got into comparison of Portals to Raptor, I decided to collect the info that's been guiding my build for a long time now.
I was hoping Ford would put portals on the top trim of the Bronco, like the 4600's, but wasn't surprised they followed the existing Raptor formula.

There was a lot of "articulation" thrown around in Snaktime's thread, and I feel it wasn't properly distinguished from wheel travel. Max articulation, of course, depends on wheel travel, but in the real world you rarely hit max articulation with IFS.
IFS only has (gross estimate) 2 feet of leverage to compress the spring. A solid axle gets 6 feet of leverage. The longer track width of the Raptor will give it more leverage and more effective articulation. Also, moving the tire further from the pivot will create more wheel travel, even keeping the stock geometry.
I chose Icon because they say they have the most shock travel, which would mean the most wheel travel, assuming the tires aren't hitting the fenders.

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying I've been chasing Raptor specs with off the shelf bolt on parts, with a focus on rock crawling vs desert racing; like most of you here.

Below are the numbers I pulled from the internet. The extra width of the portals will give me more wheel travel than the Icon numbers below. I'm not focused enough to do the math to say how much.

*Ford labels the Raptor with suspension travel, not wheel travel. I don't know where they are taking the measurements from; wheel? shock mount? I'm assuming it's not shock travel, as that would be in clear race/buggy territory.



74Weld Badlands Sasquatch Icon FP vs Raptor

BadSquatch
Wheel: 17x8.5 ET30
F Track width: 66.9
R Track width: 66.9
Track width with portals (+3.5 x 2): 73.9
Track width w/ portals and ET25: ~74.3
Track width w/ portals and ET35: ~73.5
Track width w/ portals and ET55: ~71.9

Wheel travel w/ Icon 2.5 (according to Icon) on stock Sasquatch track width.
F: 11.5”
R: 14”

2.7 power with FP Tune
HP: 355 HP at 5,500 RPM
TQ: 433 lb.-ft. at 3,500 RPM


Raptor
Wheel: 17x8.5 ET34
F Track width: 73.2
F Track width: 73.6

Suspension Travel
F: 13”
R: 14”

3.0 power
HP: 418
TQ: 440

Other things to consider:

Clearance

unsprung weight

Leverage that the portals place on the axle housing.

the 4600 is running the racing portals. While these are based on the racing portals they are designed to attach to lighter weight mechanicals ie... axle housings and A arms.

 

[userdude]

tl/dr: I compiled measurements (track width, wheel travel, hp, tq) from the internet comparing my future build to the Raptor. They are at the end.


After reading Snacktime's thread that got into comparison of Portals to Raptor, I decided to collect the info that's been guiding my build for a long time now.
I was hoping Ford would put portals on the top trim of the Bronco, like the 4600's, but wasn't surprised they followed the existing Raptor formula.

There was a lot of "articulation" thrown around in Snaktime's thread, and I feel it wasn't properly distinguished from wheel travel. Max articulation, of course, depends on wheel travel, but in the real world you rarely hit max articulation with IFS.
IFS only has (gross estimate) 2 feet of leverage to compress the spring. A solid axle gets 6 feet of leverage. The longer track width of the Raptor will give it more leverage and more effective articulation. Also, moving the tire further from the pivot will create more wheel travel, even keeping the stock geometry.
I chose Icon because they say they have the most shock travel, which would mean the most wheel travel, assuming the tires aren't hitting the fenders.

Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying I've been chasing Raptor specs with off the shelf bolt on parts, with a focus on rock crawling vs desert racing; like most of you here.

Below are the numbers I pulled from the internet. The extra width of the portals will give me more wheel travel than the Icon numbers below. I'm not focused enough to do the math to say how much.

*Ford labels the Raptor with suspension travel, not wheel travel. I don't know where they are taking the measurements from; wheel? shock mount? I'm assuming it's not shock travel, as that would be in clear race/buggy territory.



74Weld Badlands Sasquatch Icon FP vs Raptor

BadSquatch
Wheel: 17x8.5 ET30
F Track width: 66.9
R Track width: 66.9
Track width with portals (+3.5 x 2): 73.9
Track width w/ portals and ET25: ~74.3
Track width w/ portals and ET35: ~73.5
Track width w/ portals and ET55: ~71.9

Wheel travel w/ Icon 2.5 (according to Icon) on stock Sasquatch track width.
F: 11.5”
R: 14”

2.7 power with FP Tune
HP: 355 HP at 5,500 RPM
TQ: 433 lb.-ft. at 3,500 RPM


Raptor
Wheel: 17x8.5 ET34
F Track width: 73.2
F Track width: 73.6

Suspension Travel
F: 13”
R: 14”

3.0 power
HP: 418
TQ: 440

Looks good in comparison! And I guess the big caveat is that you'll never get a 2dr Braptor.

 

[Merc4x4]

Looks good in comparison! And I guess the big caveat is that you'll never get a 2dr Braptor.

My unpopular opinion is the 2dr Bronco wheelbase is too short.
After seeing more in person, I'm starting to come around and think they might look better.

 

[userdude]

My unpopular opinion is the 2dr Bronco wheelbase is too short.
After seeing more in person, I'm starting to come around and think they might look better.

"No honey, don't worry, he wasn't talking about you..."

Still, it ain't like you can get a Too $hort Braptor regardless. Details!

 

[Merc4x4]

Other things to consider:

Clearance

unsprung weight

Leverage that the portals place on the axle housing.

the 4600 is running the racing portals. While these are based on the racing portals they are designed to attach to lighter weight mechanicals ie... axle housings and A arms.

Yes. I don't really want a race car, I just had a slimmer of hope Ford would put portals on a production Bronco like Mercedes does on the gwagen.
I was seriously considering spending the $70k on portals and CTIS for the gwagen, but the 10yr old Mercedes starting giving me issues. Thankfully Ford brought out the Bronco and I finally had an alternative. I never cared much for wranglers.

https://billradermotorsports.com/g-wagen-parts-+-services

 

[userdude]

Yes. I don't really want a race car, I just had a slimmer of hope Ford would put portals on a production Bronco like Mercedes does on the gwagen.
I was seriously considering spending the $70k on portals and CTIS for the gwagen, but the 10yr old Mercedes starting giving me issues. Thankfully Ford brought out the Bronco and I finally had an alternative. I never cared much for wranglers.

https://billradermotorsports.com/g-wagen-parts-+-services

Quinn's talked about them getting supported by Jeep (I think starting in September?), so it's in the realm of the possible. Ford is so sclerotic in a lot of ways... Does seem like something Ford Performance should sell eventually, though. A version is on their dang racing Broncos after all!

 

[5GENIDN]

My unpopular opinion is the 2dr Bronco wheelbase is too short.
After seeing more in person, I'm starting to come around and think they might look better.

It may be a slow process but you will get there!

Sponsored