Quick spool valve

[bkfo]

Have anyone tryed it? What do you think about it?

 

What is the best of quick spool valve setup or dual wategate setup?

 

 

 

Bjørn

[Nic]

What's the specification of your car; (turbo, manifold, etc.)?

[bkfo]

My setup is:

 

Ported head

1mm over size valves

GSC stage 1 cams

 

I am going to use a hypertune inlet manifold and precision 6766 dbb turbo

[hodge]

I'd have thought you wouldn't need 1 with such a small turbo.

[bkfo]

I know, it was already done when i bought it. The old setup was with a PT76 and 272 cams. But drive most on the street, so wanted a faster spool up.

 

Have anyone tryed the quick spool valve or the dual wastegate manifold on 6766 and 99 V-power?

[jevansio]

There are lots of threads on SupraForums on this subject. There is a camp that says the QSV does give an improvement when compared against *I think* an open manifold with open hosuing, and there are graphs to prove. But there is also a camp that says a true divided setup will be just as good, but nobody has yet done a back to back comparison as it would involve a manifold swap (and most of the tests kept the same manifold and just swapped turbine housings and added the QSV - basically as it was SP running the tests on customers cars when they came in to get the QSV fitted)

 

I'm assuming you understand that the exhaust manifold needs to be open, or have enough of the divide machined away to work with a QSV?

 

Pretty sure a handfull of people stateside have used a QSV on turbos of 67mm size with positive results (ie the QSV is not purely intended for large turbos)

 

Both ways have added complexity, QSV obviously has the valve itself, the dual wastegate has obviously the plumbing and usage of 2 wastegates. I think at the end of the day you'll find it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

Which exhaust manifold do you have (or are intending to buy), or is the answer to that question the reason for the thread?

 

If you want my sceptical view on this subject I think the decision of QSV vs dual WG is so insignificant in the overall final performance of the car you go with the option for which your current manifold dictates. I personally would take dual WG over QSV (mainly due to it being a more well trodden path), but I would take a single WG divided manifold over a dual purely for ease of fitting/less equipment/less weight on manifold

Edited January 15, 2012 by jevansio (see edit history)

[Nic]

I know, it was already done when i bought it. The old setup was with a PT76 and 272 cams. But drive most on the street, so wanted a faster spool up.

 

Have anyone tryed the quick spool valve or the dual wastegate manifold on 6766 and 99 V-power?

 

Do you have a boost controller fitted? A good electronic boost controller with 'gain' feature and one that allows you to map the boost settings against speed, rpm, throttle position, etc. will make a significant difference to how quickly the turbo spools up and help maximise the boost and response through all gears.

 

Personally I agree with J about keeping things simple. If you consider a DBB 6766 turbos too laggy for you, then perhaps fit a smaller turbo, a Garrett GTX35R would give you similar top end performance with minimal lag.

[bkfo]

I have a blitz iD boost controller. I dont think the 6766 is to laggy for me, but I feelt that the PT76 journal bearing was to laggy.

[dandan]

If you're not looking for 650hp+ (and have access to someone who can do a bit of fab work and works to a high standard) then I'd go for a cast manifold setup - you'll get faster spool and than from any divided tubular manifold setup for the same turbo.

 

You'll save the cost of a QSV or an additional wategate...not to mention the cost of the manifold itself.

Edited January 15, 2012 by dandan (see edit history)