Ford Performance Debuts Bronco 4600 Race Trucks

[OX1]

Here is the tech post from them about the portals.




I know how you like that technical stuff

So that is the knuckle(s), portal box, unit bearing, brake rotor?
What other parts are mandatory (obviously calipers) if any, and what do they cost.

Sponsored

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

So that is the knuckle(s), portal box, unit bearing, brake rotor?
What other parts are mandatory (obviously calipers) if any, and what do they cost.

When I recently talked to 74 weld on the phone they confirmed that they would be using as many of the factory parts as possible like rotors and calipers to keep costs down obviously. They also confirmed the 4 gear design and the 1.2:1 ratio as I described above.

 

[OX1]

When I recently talked to 74 weld on the phone they confirmed that they would be using as many of the factory parts as possible like rotors and calipers to keep costs down obviously. They also confirmed the 4 gear design and the 1.2:1 ratio as I described above.

So it's going to a much different design than what is shown? Like can you use stock control arms, CV shaft, tie rods?? Also assume "8 lug" is a typo........

 

[BAUS67]

So it's going to a much different design than what is shown? Like can you use stock control arms, CV shaft, tie rods?? Also assume "8 lug" is a typo........

Correct. They will look a bit different for the Bronco setup. That post I made was about their race portals but the "stockers" are very similar. Plus I think the portals for a "stock" Bronco will look different than the portals for the 4600 Bronco which look different than the "race" portal. But they will all use that 4 gear, 1.2/1 ratio setup as bigmeats posted.


4600 bronco........





Healy's 4400 "race" setup.......

 

[BAUS67]

Here is a short clip of the 4600 doing some pre running at the Hammers.

 

[BAUS67]

Close up off suspension working the Hammers.

 

[Blksn955.o]

doing the math...if I am correct it would be easier to gear down the front diff than re gear the rear from an available gear range.

3.90 gear in front x 1.2 for the portals is 4.68. That should work ok with a 4.7 rear.

 

[Werkedperformance]

doing the math...if I am correct it would be easier to gear down the front diff than re gear the rear from an available gear range.

3.90 gear in front x 1.2 for the portals is 4.68. That should work ok with a 4.7 rear.

Yes. It’s technically better to overdrive the front for steering if you had to pick one.

 

[OX1]

doing the math...if I am correct it would be easier to gear down the front diff than re gear the rear from an available gear range.

3.90 gear in front x 1.2 for the portals is 4.68. That should work ok with a 4.7 rear.

If you guys are really doing this only on the front, just for CV joint/susp geometry, wouldn't it be a bunch cheaper to lower front diff/lower control arm mount points?.

 

[TeocaliMG]

If you guys are really doing this only on the front, just for CV joint/susp geometry, wouldn't it be a bunch cheaper to lower front diff/lower control arm mount points?.

Its obviously got a handful of awesome benefits over just the CV angle, but I think that is one of the most useful things about portals. First and foremost its about ground clearance, but the way you get clearance with portals is just plain better. As for a diff drop, there is a frame crossmember just behind and below the axle, I think it would have been much wiser for the engineers responsible to design that member to go over the axle. Diff drops are going to be really difficult IMO, unless you go so far down that you might as well be building all new hardpoints and frame members anyway. I am a long way out from doing anything crazy to my bronco, but when I get there I'll be considering re-routing that crossmember.

But like I said before, anyone seriously considering this upgrade should be looking at a rear axle upgrade anyway.

 

[OX1]

Its obviously got a handful of awesome benefits over just the CV angle, but I think that is one of the most useful things about portals. First and foremost its about ground clearance, but the way you get clearance with portals is just plain better. As for a diff drop, there is a frame crossmember just behind and below the axle, I think it would have been much wiser for the engineers responsible to design that member to go over the axle. Diff drops are going to be really difficult IMO, unless you go so far down that you might as well be building all new hardpoints and frame members anyway. I am a long way out from doing anything crazy to my bronco, but when I get there I'll be considering re-routing that crossmember.

But like I said before, anyone seriously considering this upgrade should be looking at a rear axle upgrade anyway.

As I said, if you are doing only the front, it's not really for clearance. The IFS diff starts higher after a lift than a solid axle (many times), and you can usually place the front axle exactly where you want (wheeling), then rear follows (maybe where you want, maybe not). If anything , you would want more clearance in the back than the front (if only doing one end).

 

[BAUS67]

More of Healy pre running the 4600

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

As I said, if you are doing only the front, it's not really for clearance. The IFS diff starts higher after a lift than a solid axle (many times), and you can usually place the front axle exactly where you want (wheeling), then rear follows (maybe where you want, maybe not). If anything , you would want more clearance in the back than the front (if only doing one end).

If you guys are really doing this only on the front, just for CV joint/susp geometry, wouldn't it be a bunch cheaper to lower front diff/lower control arm mount points?

It starts out with decent GC, but then if you drop the crossmember and relocate the lower A-arm attachment points, as many lift kits do, the n you loose whatever ground clearance you gained except from additional tire height.

So for me portals is the perfect answer to the ground clearance issues...I want alot more GC. I'm planning on cutting the transmission mounts/crossmember flush as well, and rebuilding a new high clearance crossmember and eventually a fuel tank that sits 3” higher or flush with the frame rails.

Additionally, the 1.2/1 ratio actually adds up to 20% more strength to your axles by reducing stress on axles, and multiplying the torque to the tires. Essentially makes the D44 into a D60 (well almost) ...

The third reason portals are 100% for me is that the lift provided at the spindle or knuckle (4-5”) allows the suspension to compress ALOT further. This means with a simple 1.5” diff drop, (just finished w/o chopping or moving crossmember) the CV axles have a far greater range of motion, especially in the compression range. (At full compression the outer CV will be at a higher angle) ...
So this alone allows for a 3-4” increase the available travel from the CVs, which is usually THE limiting factor. In factory formation, at full compression, the CV axles are NOT at a steep angle, so there's room there for more travel upwards, but then you would need teeny tires, (like 29s) to get full compression range of CV angle before tire rubbed.
Portals solve this problem.

So there's a bit more going on here, and obviously the tie rods, A-arms and struts all need to be addressed as well to get 3 to 4” more compression travel the CV are capable of

Obviously it makes sense to either upgrade the rear axle, or run portals back there too.

I want a very low ratio for 40” tires, so the 4.7 I already have in the front w/portal 1.19:1 will be 5.59 and match the 5.57 available in the D60 rear, near perfect!

 

[OX1]

It starts out with decent GC, but then if you drop the crossmember and relocate the lower A-arm attachment points, as many lift kits do, the n you loose whatever ground clearance you gained except from additional tire height.

So for me portals is the perfect answer to the ground clearance issues...I want alot more GC. I'm planning on cutting the transmission mounts/crossmember flush as well, and rebuilding a new high clearance crossmember and eventually a fuel tank that sits 3” higher or flush with the frame rails.

Additionally, the 1.2/1 ratio actually adds up to 20% more strength to your axles by reducing stress on axles, and multiplying the torque to the tires. Essentially makes the D44 into a D60 (well almost) ...

The third reason portals are 100% for me is that the lift provided at the spindle or knuckle (4-5”) allows the suspension to compress ALOT further. This means with a simple 1.5” diff drop, (just finished w/o chopping or moving crossmember) the CV axles have a far greater range of motion, especially in the compression range. (At full compression the outer CV will be at a higher angle) ...
So this alone allows for a 3-4” increase the available travel from the CVs, which is usually THE limiting factor. In factory formation, at full compression, the CV axles are NOT at a steep angle, so there's room there for more travel upwards, but then you would need teeny tires, (like 29s) to get full compression range of CV angle before tire rubbed.
Portals solve this problem.

So there's a bit more going on here, and obviously the tie rods, A-arms and struts all need to be addressed as well to get 3 to 4” more compression travel the CV are capable of

Obviously it makes sense to either upgrade the rear axle, or run portals back there too.

I want a very low ratio for 40” tires, so the 4.7 I already have in the front w/portal 1.19:1 will be 5.59 and match the 5.57 available in the D60 rear, near perfect!

Don't have to sell me on portals, been running them for 20 years. Just don't see the point of just one end.

On a normal IFS lift, you have more "compression travel" than an IFS portal lift due to a pre-drooped CV starting angle. I'm sure it's actually better to start with them straight at rest if possible, but portals CV angle is going to reduce compression suspension travel, if anything.
(of course it increases droop overall, which is cool)

Same amount of torque going to pinion and CV shafts as there was before, unless you plan on never using first gear again (maybe some minor benefit to not having to swap gears in diff). I also don't see the need for this massive amount of gear. I'm at 36.3:1 with C6/205/404 mogs on 43's and don't wish for craploads more gear. But I guess maybe you guys need all help you can get just off idle, on a small nanny controlled motor, off boost??

 

[TeocaliMG]

Don't have to sell me on portals, been running them for 20 years. Just don't see the point of just one end.

On a normal IFS lift, you have more "compression travel" than an IFS portal lift due to a pre-drooped CV starting angle. I'm sure it's actually better to start with them straight at rest if possible, but portals CV angle is going to reduce compression suspension travel, if anything.
(of course it increases droop overall, which is cool)

Same amount of torque going to pinion and CV shafts as there was before, unless you plan on never using first gear again (maybe some minor benefit to not having to swap gears in diff). I also don't see the need for this massive amount of gear. I'm at 36.3:1 with C6/205/404 mogs on 43's and don't wish for craploads more gear. But I guess maybe you guys need all help you can get just off idle, on a small nanny controlled motor, off boost??

I'm still arguing for proper upgrades front and rear. But i'll point something out, a normal IFS lift generally doesn't increase your wheel travel, you are right that it can increase compression/jounce travel (though often doesnt because of crappy shocks), but you have usually lost almost all of your rebound travel. That's why I hate typical cheap lifts or "fancy" air systems that just jack up the IFS (looking at you Land Rover, and Rivian till proven otherwise). The performance sucks, there's no flex, then everyone points and laughs and says look IFS sucks!

A typical stock rig reaches max CV angles at rebound only, not jounce, meaning if there was no bodywork in the way, the wheel travel could be increased by perhaps 50% on stock components (other than coilovers) just by letting the wheels go further up. A diff drop or a portal set up can raise the CV angle at ride height such that you can achieve more total wheel travel because you can potentially reach your CV limit at both jounce and rebound, not just rebound.

As for gearing, uggg I want a small diesel so bad, but I really cant complain much about the 2.3 performance off-road. Better gearing is utterly unnecessary just to get things moving, even with major tire upgrades and off the boost. The gearing is all about control, in that sense the more options I have at a very low speed the better, I cringe when people spend all their time on the clutch.

Sponsored