74Weld Portal Review

[Dannebrog53]

I dont know why I didn’t think of it until yesterday but what about safety wiring the mounting bolts once installed? Granted it won’t ensure they maintain the torque they’re installed to but it’ll certainly keep the bolts from unthreading. Aviation and racers have been safetying for decades and I had to do it to my 79 Bronco front driveshaft U-joint saddle strap nuts because of the high pinion reverse rotational forces causing them to loosen and fall off once on the Rubicon. Being cap screws it wouldn’t be that difficult to drill a pair small holes for the safety wire. They’re accessible

Sponsored

 

[Dannebrog53]

I obviously haven’t done it yet, the photo is just to show that the bolt heads are accessible and can be safetied

 

[userdude]

Seeing these problems, definitely putting all my chips on Duct Tape Inc., penny play baby!!

 

[zuke]

I dont know why I didn’t think of it until yesterday but what about safety wiring the mounting bolts once installed?

I don't have a lot of experience with safety wire, but that looks like it would be a really tricky spot to use it, you need to anchor the wire somewhere off the bolt, don't you?

You'd have to be real careful with pigtails too, once you put the rotor, caliper and bracket in place, you'll have a really tight space with stuff both rotating and sliding in that area.

 

[vrtical]

I don't have a lot of experience with safety wire, but that looks like it would be a really tricky spot to use it, you need to anchor the wire somewhere off the bolt, don't you?

You'd have to be real careful with pigtails too, once you put the rotor, caliper and bracket in place, you'll have a really tight space with stuff both rotating and sliding in that area.

not really, the safety wire runs a path to keep all the bolts from turning, you most likely have one pigtail and I dont see an issue. I would rather get the Turn Offroad versions anyways less bolt on parts the better.

 

[SierraBronco]

I dont know why I didn’t think of it until yesterday but what about safety wiring the mounting bolts once installed? Granted it won’t ensure they maintain the torque they’re installed to but it’ll certainly keep the bolts from unthreading. Aviation and racers have been safetying for decades and I had to do it to my 79 Bronco front driveshaft U-joint saddle strap nuts because of the high pinion reverse rotational forces causing them to loosen and fall off once on the Rubicon. Being cap screws it wouldn’t be that difficult to drill a pair small holes for the safety wire. They’re accessible

The problem isn’t that the bolts were loosening due to vibration or “counterfeit loctite” it’s that they were being fatigued every time you apply the brakes due to the dowel that protects the bolts from load being removed.

In one of their first communications about the bolts loosening, this diagram was included. But none of us with the first batch of portals with F-350 bearings had that dowel. To accommodate the bigger bearings the portals needed to be .255” wider and they didn’t account for that on the brakes or the bolts holding the brake brackets onto the portal box, making the bolts short on minimum thread engagement. Instead of making new brackets that would allow the dowel to engage properly, they made .255” shims and removed the dowel.

The next issue was that they fucked up on the driver side brackets. I have two sets like this delivered to me a couple months apart that are exactly the same. The driver side is literally 1/8 smaller than the passenger side where it engages into the portal box. 74 said they need these tolerances to be loose for manufacturing purposes. Not even joking

This is why the driver side would loosen in 200 miles whereas the passenger side was “fine.” Except that is wasn’t as the bolts were still being fatigued. Hence why the rear brackets, despite 74 saying they were safe to continue using, would randomly break off the portal and into the wheels as happened to a few of us.

74 did eventually determine that the missing dowel was the issue despite their claims trying to blame counterfeit loctite. The following instructions were sent out before the new brackets were done. When you brought up that it was impossible to use the dowel with the current brackets, they would ignore the inquiry and simply respond with something along the lines of “the pins must be used when installing the brackets” without any further explanation. I still have the emails. @5GENIDN can confirm.

With that said, it looks like you have the updated brackets that use the dowel so I’d venture to say your brakes are gonna be okay.

 

[Dannebrog53]

The problem isn’t that the bolts were loosening due to vibration or “counterfeit loctite” it’s that they were being fatigued every time you apply the brakes due to the dowel that protects the bolts from load being removed.

In one of their first communications about the bolts loosening, this diagram was included. But none of us with the first batch of portals with F-350 bearings had that dowel. To accommodate the bigger bearings the portals needed to be .255” wider and they didn’t account for that on the brakes or the bolts holding the brake brackets onto the portal box, making the bolts short on minimum thread engagement. Instead of making new brackets that would allow the dowel to engage properly, they made .255” shims and removed the dowel.

The next issue was that they fucked up on the driver side brackets. I have two sets like this delivered to me a couple months apart that are exactly the same. The driver side is literally 1/8 smaller than the passenger side where it engages into the portal box. 74 said they need these tolerances to be loose for manufacturing purposes. Not even joking

This is why the driver side would loosen in 200 miles whereas the passenger side was “fine.” Except that is wasn’t as the bolts were still being fatigued. Hence why the rear brackets, despite 74 saying they were safe to continue using, would randomly break off the portal and into the wheels as happened to a few of us.

74 did eventually determine that the missing dowel was the issue despite their claims trying to blame counterfeit loctite. The following instructions were sent out before the new brackets were done. When you brought up that it was impossible to use the dowel with the current brackets, they would ignore the inquiry and simply respond with something along the lines of “the pins must be used when installing the brackets” without any further explanation. I still have the emails. @5GENIDN can confirm.

With that said, it looks like you have the updated brackets that use the dowel so I’d venture to say your brakes are gonna be okay.

I do have the dowels and thanks @SierraBronco for the info. I’m always learning. We appreciate the time and detailed information you provide in your posts and responses

 

[Dannebrog53]

I don't have a lot of experience with safety wire, but that looks like it would be a really tricky spot to use it, you need to anchor the wire somewhere off the bolt, don't you?

You'd have to be real careful with pigtails too, once you put the rotor, caliper and bracket in place, you'll have a really tight space with stuff both rotating and sliding in that area.

@zuke you only need to anchor the safety wire if you’re doing a single bolt. With two or more they anchor each other. That being said @SierraBronco brought some key points to my/our attention regarding the problem and that is the bolts being stressed from the loading on the brackets under braking. That causes the bolts to distort and that’s what’s loosening and fatiguing them. So safety wiring will keep them from backing out but there’s still the issue of fatigue

 

[userdude]

The problem isn’t that the bolts were loosening due to vibration or “counterfeit loctite” it’s that they were being fatigued every time you apply the brakes due to the dowel that protects the bolts from load being removed.

In one of their first communications about the bolts loosening, this diagram was included. But none of us with the first batch of portals with F-350 bearings had that dowel. To accommodate the bigger bearings the portals needed to be .255” wider and they didn’t account for that on the brakes or the bolts holding the brake brackets onto the portal box, making the bolts short on minimum thread engagement. Instead of making new brackets that would allow the dowel to engage properly, they made .255” shims and removed the dowel.

The next issue was that they fucked up on the driver side brackets. I have two sets like this delivered to me a couple months apart that are exactly the same. The driver side is literally 1/8 smaller than the passenger side where it engages into the portal box. 74 said they need these tolerances to be loose for manufacturing purposes. Not even joking

This is why the driver side would loosen in 200 miles whereas the passenger side was “fine.” Except that is wasn’t as the bolts were still being fatigued. Hence why the rear brackets, despite 74 saying they were safe to continue using, would randomly break off the portal and into the wheels as happened to a few of us.

74 did eventually determine that the missing dowel was the issue despite their claims trying to blame counterfeit loctite. The following instructions were sent out before the new brackets were done. When you brought up that it was impossible to use the dowel with the current brackets, they would ignore the inquiry and simply respond with something along the lines of “the pins must be used when installing the brackets” without any further explanation. I still have the emails. @5GENIDN can confirm.

With that said, it looks like you have the updated brackets that use the dowel so I’d venture to say your brakes are gonna be okay.

I worked with a Dowl at a college for several years, he was in a different department next door. Good guy. Country AF. Funny as hell. He left for greener pastures eventually. It did not have anything to do with looking up local strippers on a work computer. At least, not that I know of. Dowl man, he was a crazy dude.

 

[5GENIDN]

The problem isn’t that the bolts were loosening due to vibration or “counterfeit loctite” it’s that they were being fatigued every time you apply the brakes due to the dowel that protects the bolts from load being removed.

In one of their first communications about the bolts loosening, this diagram was included. But none of us with the first batch of portals with F-350 bearings had that dowel. To accommodate the bigger bearings the portals needed to be .255” wider and they didn’t account for that on the brakes or the bolts holding the brake brackets onto the portal box, making the bolts short on minimum thread engagement. Instead of making new brackets that would allow the dowel to engage properly, they made .255” shims and removed the dowel.

The next issue was that they fucked up on the driver side brackets. I have two sets like this delivered to me a couple months apart that are exactly the same. The driver side is literally 1/8 smaller than the passenger side where it engages into the portal box. 74 said they need these tolerances to be loose for manufacturing purposes. Not even joking

This is why the driver side would loosen in 200 miles whereas the passenger side was “fine.” Except that is wasn’t as the bolts were still being fatigued. Hence why the rear brackets, despite 74 saying they were safe to continue using, would randomly break off the portal and into the wheels as happened to a few of us.

74 did eventually determine that the missing dowel was the issue despite their claims trying to blame counterfeit loctite. The following instructions were sent out before the new brackets were done. When you brought up that it was impossible to use the dowel with the current brackets, they would ignore the inquiry and simply respond with something along the lines of “the pins must be used when installing the brackets” without any further explanation. I still have the emails. @5GENIDN can confirm.

With that said, it looks like you have the updated brackets that use the dowel so I’d venture to say your brakes are gonna be okay.

I can confirm. I remember talking with SierraBronco through that whole ordeal. I remember exploring all kinds of potential issues. I was focused on the shim. I received one of the first ten sets manufactured. They were different than what SierraBronco received. The most obvious issue to me was the shim that I did not have. I even talked to Quinn about it. That and my brackets nested well against the housings where SierraBronco's brackets did not nest especially on the driver's side as shown in the pics above. Then the dowel issue was discovered (or brought to my attention) Quinn said it's only purpose was for alignment. Maybe that is true but it obviously served another function beyond "alignment" whether intended or not.

The whole redesign was undertaken to standardize parts across multiple platforms.

It seems to me that is where all the problems seem to have originated. Mine still have not shown ANY issues. But boy I sure am checking them constantly. None of my bolts have loosened, ever. Nor have they shown any signs of significant fatigue. And yes I have the dowels and a one piece brake bracket that nests tightly against the housing.

 

[SierraBronco]

@zuke So safety wiring will keep them from backing out but there’s still the issue of fatigue

To be clear, if you have the pins in place I believe the fatigue on the bolts is no longer an issue, assuming they (pins) don’t eventually break. I mean, they’re being subjected to bending every time you break so there is fatigue there which is why dowels are considered to be wear items, but I have no clue how long they’ll last.

Looking at your brackets that is indeed the updated design that accommodates the dowel. If you look closely you should be able to feel it with some heavier-weight paper that has some stiffness to it.

 

[SierraBronco]

I can confirm. I remember talking with SierraBronco through that whole ordeal. I remember exploring all kinds of potential issues. I was focused on the shim. I received one of the first ten sets manufactured. They were different than what SierraBronco received. The most obvious issue to me was the shim that I did not have. I even talked to Quinn about it. That and my brackets nested well against the housings where SierraBronco's brackets did not nest especially on the driver's side as shown in the pics above. Then the dowel issue was discovered (or brought to my attention) Quinn said it's only purpose was for alignment. Maybe that is true but it obviously served another function beyond "alignment" whether intended or not.

The whole redesign was undertaken to standardize parts across multiple platforms.

It seems to me that is where all the problems seem to have originated. Mine still have not shown ANY issues. But boy I sure am checking them constantly. None of my bolts have loosened, ever. Nor have they shown any signs of significant fatigue. And yes I have the dowels and a one piece brake bracket that nests tightly against the housing.

My experience with quin is that he has zero qualms blatantly lying to save face.

 

[87-Z28]

A very poorly designed bolted joint. An understanding of the shear loads at the joint is required. Sufficient clamping force to deal with the expected loads (number, size and location of bolts). And/Or adequate bearing surfaces to resist loads so bolts won’t bend, shear, fatigue (so proper tight “aerospace” tolerances). And/Or sufficient shear pins with good tolerances so bolts won’t bend, shear, fatigue.

A very poorly designed joint. Incompetence or oversight?? Likely just oversight. A proper and adequate bolted joint can be designed and implemented here. The response from 55weld on the subject is disappointing and not confidence inspiring.

This is purely on 55weld and can be rectified. This is not a good reason to avoid portals in general. There is a good thread describing what you are getting into with portals.

@SierraBronco has the link.

 

[5GENIDN]

My experience with quin is that he has zero qualms blatantly lying to save face.

Lock tight???? LOL. the frictional coefficient is sufficient! we did the math... LOL

I know what you are saying.

Just because he said so does not mean I believe him... Now for the rediesign I actually do believe the rationale behind it. Does not make the issue any better or worse. Just is.

Everything else I stated was really you and me just taking it through... I know you had a lot of others helping you and you shared those observations/theories with me. I appreciate that. You have dug into this WAY WAY further than anyone else I know.

 

[userdude]

A very poorly designed bolted joint. An understanding of the shear loads at the joint is required. Sufficient clamping force to deal with the expected loads (number, size and location of bolts). And/Or adequate bearing surfaces to resist loads so bolts won’t bend, shear, fatigue (so proper tight “aerospace” tolerances). And/Or sufficient shear pins with good tolerances so bolts won’t bend, shear, fatigue.

A very poorly designed joint. Incompetence or oversight?? Likely just oversight. A proper and adequate bolted joint can be designed and implemented here. The response from 55weld on the subject is disappointing and not confidence inspiring.

This is purely on 55weld and can be rectified. This is not a good reason to avoid portals in general. There is a good thread describing what you are getting into with portals.

@SierraBronco has the link.

74 == Tungsten
55 == Cesium??

I guess there isn't a 100 Falloffium.

Sponsored