When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Let's also keep in mind that x622 is using a T4 open manifold flange, then a quick spool valve in to a T4 twin scroll turbine housing......
I don't get how you though this was going to be the most responsive thing out there with this setup x622. I'll dig up some logs to post later tonight but my 9174 with the 1.45 EWG housing reaches 40+ psi around the same rpm yours reaches 24psi while making a hell of a lot more power.
I would love to this as this is precisely the setup I'm thinking of getting.
I am not surprised at the disappointing results. The BW quick spool valve is nicely designed and a whole different ball of wax. the sound performance valve is a bad idea at best.
So I talked to my other tuner and he thinks that the reason I got such ****ty results is because of the tuner that I used. I actually think I agree with him and I'll have more results next week once he takes a look at my setup. He was able to make a K20 with 9:1 spool a 9180 to 32psi by 5200rpm, and a S366 on a S2000 with a stock block have the same boost threshold as I did. He seems to think that the current tuner didn't tune vtec very well nor the boost control.
Next, Hondas have even more VE than Evos, and would benefit from the 80mm turbine. I actually have access to one and will be doing testing on that as well.
As for the QSV thing and it being a T4 open vs a twinscroll, if I still don't get what I want once my other tuner modifies it, I've made sure that my current manifold design can easily be converted to twinscroll. Also, keep in mind this is a bone stock bottom end with some studs and springs.
the QSV you used is complete junk. in order for it to operate the manifold has to be open scroll. when the QSV is closed two runnesr pulses are directed at a wall. huge restrcition to power with so much turbulance created in quick spool mode. then when flapper opens the flapper is still in the way and disturbs pulses. and the manifold and turbo setup never has twin scroll benefits. the whole design is stupid at best. like it was designed by second grader. THE BW quick spool housing operates in true twin scroll and offers no restrictions open or closed. it allows the use of very large TS housing AND has the benefit of cutting that A/R in half to maintain quick spool. it is ingenious compared to the part you have on you car. two completely different QSV technologies that should not be put in same sentance.
If I could get my hands on a BW QSV housing I would of, but they're not released. If you could point me to where I could source one (Don't say full race) I'd try it out immediately.
I would just forget the QSV and do a proper twin scroll manifold, hopefully short runner if response/spool is what your going for.
Also, the 67mm compressor wheel is not all that at that low pressure ratio. If you make 700 at only 25 psi it would be a monster at 35. You can easily see this if you plot a Matchbot with the 9180 compressor map since as you know the 9174 uses the same compressor.
So I talked to my other tuner and he thinks that the reason I got such ****ty results is because of the tuner that I used. I actually think I agree with him and I'll have more results next week once he takes a look at my setup. He was able to make a K20 with 9:1 spool a 9180 to 32psi by 5200rpm, and a S366 on a S2000 with a stock block have the same boost threshold as I did. He seems to think that the current tuner didn't tune vtec very well nor the boost control.
Next, Hondas have even more VE than Evos, and would benefit from the 80mm turbine. I actually have access to one and will be doing testing on that as well.
As for the QSV thing and it being a T4 open vs a twinscroll, if I still don't get what I want once my other tuner modifies it, I've made sure that my current manifold design can easily be converted to twinscroll. Also, keep in mind this is a bone stock bottom end with some studs and springs.
With dual cam phasing on the K-series you need to pump in a TON of overlap during spool... so if your tuner didn't touch the cam timing, you're missing a TON of spool. More so than coming from a turbocharged engine with dual variable cam timing to just a bigger turbo... you're coming from an NA setup to FI. Give your second tuner a shot and a good amount of time to dial in the cam timing. if the tuner is familiar with the K series software... you tune your fuel and ignition for every 15 degrees of cam angle and then it allows you to sweep the intake cam and the ECU interpolates between the breakpoints. Which is great, but you also have to expand your DOE to including sweeping the exhaust cam. Which unless someone has some experience tuning those, they probably don't know how critical that is. I've seen as much as 800rpm of spool improvement from dialing the cams in.
So I talked to my other tuner and he thinks that the reason I got such ****ty results is because of the tuner that I used. I actually think I agree with him and I'll have more results next week once he takes a look at my setup. He was able to make a K20 with 9:1 spool a 9180 to 32psi by 5200rpm, and a S366 on a S2000 with a stock block have the same boost threshold as I did. He seems to think that the current tuner didn't tune vtec very well nor the boost control.
Next, Hondas have even more VE than Evos, and would benefit from the 80mm turbine. I actually have access to one and will be doing testing on that as well.
As for the QSV thing and it being a T4 open vs a twinscroll, if I still don't get what I want once my other tuner modifies it, I've made sure that my current manifold design can easily be converted to twinscroll. Also, keep in mind this is a bone stock bottom end with some studs and springs.
Contact vitviper for tuning your k. He tuned andrews efr k20 mr2.
I did some dyno runs comparisons from 8374,9174 and 9180. Not the same exact setup due to the 1.45AR EWG configuration on the 9174 but still good data I belive: https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...hp-602wtq.html
I did some dyno runs comparisons from 8374,9174 and 9180. Not the same exact setup due to the 1.45AR EWG configuration on the 9174 but still good data I belive: https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...hp-602wtq.html