# DV Relocate pros and cons



## intott (Apr 7, 2015)

I'm trying to wrap my head around why people decide to relocate the dv. I understand there are a lot of threads about this so sorry for starting another one.

I see it as follows but I might be way off

Pros

Tidies up the back of the engine bay 
Dv operating in cooler location
Cooler air recirced to the tip

Cons

Slower pressure drop at compressor wheel so more chance of surge?
Throtle plate closes so isn't it better to keep cool compressed air post intercoolers and expel hot gasses pre ic?

I can't see what major benifit this mod has on a healthy running engine or am I missing a fundamental?

Also what would be wrong with having pressure dumper from both pre and post intercoolers?


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Hi, some highly debated and unusual questions you have there. Here is my take on it after dealing with various turbo platforms over the years, and also having a manufacturer insider view from being an employee at Mitsubishi and being as involved as I could with their motorsport program.

A compressor bypass valve is a nice thing to have. In every day use, both pre and post cooler locations will do a very good job a relieving charge system pressure when needed. Since plumbing the bypass valve on either side of cooler works, what is the ideal location? Well this is where it gets a bit more complicated -- due to packaging constraints, both approaches have been used by car manufacturers which can confuse the inquirer even more. From what I've gathered, cold side plumbing is better for several reasons. Instead of writing something I've touched many times before, I'll copy/paste a few of my recent posts on the topic from a different forum.

When I was asked about the advantages of cold side plumbing (in your cons of the approach, you seem have hot-side plumbing as more responsive, but it's the opposite in real life):



Madmax199 said:


> Cold-side charge bypass has the benefit of saving the DV/BOV of having to deal with the air inferno coming out of a turbo (especially one that's being pushed hard). In the long run, bypassing hot air takes a toll on diaphragms, O-rings, and dries up lubricant on piston walls, therefore it is of interest to want to place the DV/BOV post-IC where the conditions are less harsh. Another thing with cold side bypass is that the air sent back to the compressor is colder, this improves your theory of bypassed air helping with compressor momentum during shifts and off-throttle. So there is definitely some merit to wanting to have your compressor bypass device on the cold side closer to the throttle plate. :beer:


Expanding more on what makes it "ideal":


Madmax199 said:


> ... in real life it really doesn't matter much in terms of pressure relief difference between the two locations. Both locations will get the job of bleeding pressure done very efficiently. Remember compressor bypass is not necessarily needed in a turbo system, many race turbocharged cars don't use them. Even early OEM commuter applications didn't include pressure relief and turbos lasted hundred of thousands of miles. Corky Bell (author of Maximum Boost) wrote that these valves are not a necessity, but rather convenience add-ons because he has not seen concrete evidence in his vast experience of direct turbo failures due to pressure reversal. Obviously, having the valve is a huge advantage and probably prolongs the life of the turbo a good bit, but it's a misconception to think that not having a bypass valve means instant death for a turbo.
> 
> Now, if we are to look for ideal plumbing location, things like i*mproving longevity*, and better *re-spool characteristics* should be the main factors in selecting a location. Let's put my previous model (which was static for simplicity) aside and look at it in a dynamic fashion. Most builders try to have the valve closest to the throttle body as that is where the pressure wave reversal would start to happen. Think about it, once the throttle plate closes, in a dynamic model, the reversing pressure waves need to find the first available outlet while headed back towards the turbo. This is why you'll find in genuine performance Garret kit some instructions saying to ideally mount the valve 12" downstream of the butterfly valve. OEM manufacturers usually have to deal with many packaging constraints, so they don't always go for what is best for performance, but what fits the budget -- VAG is the perfect example of this in regards to many sub-systems with the 1.8t. You'll find OEM turbo cars with valves mounted on both cold or hot side of the charge system, therefore that's not a good indication of what is best.
> 
> ...


Then answering here as to why VAG would plumb their valve on the hot-side of the charge piping if the col-side offered an advantage (obviously cost and packaging is what drove the design):



Madmax199 said:


> Vag never had performance in mind when designing the 1.8t. It was built to be a mass produced compact engine to be used in various entry level cars within the brand. Vag also does not have the best track record when it comes to all out performance design making it into production cars (never asked yourself why our cars came with peanut turbos, horrible manifolds on both sides, no real oil cooler on a turbocharged platform, weak/clustered vacuum and charge system).
> 
> Now let's look at real turbocharged platforms that defined that segment in the automobile industry. CT9a Mitsubishi EVO (an homologated production platform that also saw and won the World Rally Championship in stock form multiple years) -- Toyota Supra -- Nissan Skyline. What were they doing? Cold-side compressor bypass! If I had to mimic what manufacturers were doing for performance, I think anyone would agree to pick these legenday platforms over the 1.8t. Agree?
> 
> ...


Finally, you asked a very unusual question, why wouldn't someone place bypass valves on both sides of the cooler. Well, that is exactly what I run in my TT. One valve pre-cooler and a second one ideally placed 12" from the TB (as most performance oriented manufacturers do, and as Garret recommends on their installation instructions if you purchase one of their full kits). Is it necessary? Not at all, but I wanted to bypass twice the volume of a single valve, so I went with one valve on each side to de-clutter the piping... it works like a charm. In conclusion, it really will work on either side, but the cold side (aproximately 12" away from the TB) is the best possible location.

PS: Can someone ask me about ideal valve orientation and spring tension? Lots of misconceptions piled up on this side of the pond, and this thread can be a great venue to address them.


----------



## IPG3.6 (Sep 5, 2015)

Wow

That's a very comprehensive answer with some excellent reasons to relocate. So I'm guessing that having double DV's would most benefit higher pressure applications/BT applications?


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

ianpgonzaga said:


> Wow
> 
> That's a very comprehensive answer with some excellent reasons to relocate. So I'm guessing that having double DV's would most benefit higher pressure applications/BT applications?


That's correct, I tend to push my turbos pretty hard (about 30 psi in sprint mode), therefore I like to have the ability to bypass a lot of volume very quickly. Another reason to double the bypassed flow rate is that the valves can be sprung heavier and still bypass enough pressure at low vaccum and partial throttle situations.


----------



## MrQaud (Jun 5, 2013)

Great answer madmax and very informative too.

Anyone got any info about ideal valve orientation and spring tension?


----------



## intott (Apr 7, 2015)

Thanks Madmax

Theory and in practice are two very different things so it's good to see how a number of different applications run and how your tt is set up. 
I'm going to look into a duel dv setup as it's prety simple and I'm running 25psi. Only real thing I can see an issue with is re spool time once all the pressure has been dumped.


----------



## Wiggles01 (Jun 27, 2014)

I like this thread lots..
W


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

MrQaud said:


> Anyone got any info about ideal valve orientation


Did you even read his post?? He mentions it twice ...


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> MrQaud said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone got any info about ideal valve orientation
> ...


Maybe it's amnesia but I don't recall touching on orientation... and if anything I basically baited the audience to ask about valve orientation because I feel it's something that should be discussed. I hope nobody is confusing cold/hot side plumbing location with actual valve orientation.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

MrQaud said:


> Anyone got any info about ideal valve orientation and spring tension?


I'm glad someone asked! There are two possible way to mount the conventional bypass valves that are used on our cars. *Push* or *Pull* orientations. Push orientation has the charge system pressure pushing directly at the bottom of the diaphragm or piston plate -- while Pull orientation get the valve mounted so that pressure enters the side port and forces the diaphragm or piston plate to stay shut unless there is some vacuum actuation on the upper chamber nipple.

So, what's the ideal or best orientation? To thoroughly answer this question, I feel that we need to take a trip down to the history of their use in production engines. As mentioned before, early production turbocharged motors did not use these at all. Then, the first generation compressor bypass valves introduced were simply called "pop-off valves" as they didn't incorporate the use of vacuum actuation (they remained popular in some turbo diesels since diesel motors don't generate vacuum). With the early pop-off valves, internal spring tension was what kept the valve sealed. Once boost pressure exceeded the internal spring rate in the valve (when shifting or lifting off the throttle from WOT), they naturally popped open (hence the name pop-off valve) relieving the system from excessive pressure. Later on, manufacturers realized that their reaction and effectiveness can be improved by adding vacuum activation instead of simply relying on pressure acting on a spring. The conventional bypass valves like the ones used in our cars then became the norm on turbocharged engines. Nowadays, that technology is being phased away in favor of electronically actuated bypass valves, and the trend is towards having the valves compactly integrated into the turbo.

Now that we've established how they were introduced and evolved, it's easier to talk about how they were designed to be mounted and properly function. The number one thing to know about this generation of bypass valves, is that although having vacuum aiding actuation, they were designed to be mounted in push-orientation and retain their pop-off ability. The vacuum actuation was not meant to replace, but rather aid the original pop-off function. Therefore, to retain that pop-off function, they have to be installed in push orientation (in pull orientation only vacuum can actuate the valve, and pop-off is eliminated).

So why is pop-off important when vacuum alone can actuate the bypass valve? Simply because that pop-off function serves as a failsafe for when things are not optimally operating. For example, if a car is plagued with severe vacuum leaks or the vacuum line is disconnected -- or as another scenario the diaphragm has failed, the car is virtually without compressor bypass protection since the vacuum function is not backed up by the pop-off function. Once this is understood, it becomes clear what is the proper orientation and how these valves were designed to operate.

Now, what evidence do we have to back up the claims that the valves are supposed to operate in push orientation, and that pull style plumbing is wrong (or a band-aid). Just look at what every other turbocharge car outside of VAG did during that era. Nissan, Subaru, Toyota etc. all have their valve mounted in push style -- many don't even use a tube type inlet and are mounted on a flat flange so there is no confusion as to how they should be oriented (refer to the pics I posted earlier in the thread that shows how other manufacturers all do it). Mitsubishi for example (they use identical tube inlet/outlet valves as the Bosch on our cars) even went as far etching arrows on the inlet and outlet of their valves to make sure that the user follows the proper flow path.

This should be enough evidence as to what is the proper orientation, but I am sure some VAG purist will swear that if they have it this way, it must be the proper way. Well, that cannot be further from the truth, when the Bosch 710 generation valves were introduced they were properly mounted in push orientation. However, properly mounted, they quickly became a high failure items and unusable when aftermarket performance was added -- so much so that a TSB was originally issued to reverse the original wave of valves until "revision" units were produced (really a cheap way for a manufacturer to avoid costly recalls). After that TSB was executed, it became a common practice even with the "revisions" to be reversed ... even when rolling out of the factory. Nowadays, most people new to VAG have adopted the notion that the pull orientation (which was really a desperate attempt at fixing poorly designed valve problem) is the proper or designed way for these valves to be mounted. Any early longitudinal 1.8t owners (if there are any on this board) will remember the honking Bosch 710 valve ordeal. The only thing good to come out of reversing and mounting these valves in pull orientation is that it will mask a weak valve under WOT. Since positive pressure in this orientation enters the valve on top of the plunger/plate, it naturally forces it to stay sealed regardless of the condition of the diaphragm.

Personally, I do not recommend doing this pull syle mounting. I have had several accidents at the track were I lost the vacuum reference on top of the valve, and if it wasn't for pop-off function acting as failsafe, I would have had zero pressure bypass function. These valves were simply not designed nor meant to operate this way, if a valve is too weakly sprung to operate without bleeding in Push orientation, it simply needs to be upgraded. I hear people in the UK community saying all the time that the anemic Bosch units are more than adequate, or that there is no real reason to upgrade to a better valve. All I can think when I see that kind of collective thinking is ignorance is bliss ....

Valve operation with the normal Push orientation vs the reversed Pull orientation









Wrong way to have a bypass valve mounted (Pull orientation). I know some may disagree and some feelings will get hurt, but if yours is mounted this way, it's wrong


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

You gents sure know your stuff [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Glad my dv is fitted correctly


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> Gonzalo1495 said:
> 
> 
> > MrQaud said:
> ...


I mistook what he wrote for him asking what the ideal location was... lol :lol:


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

:roll:


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

MrQaud said:


> Great answer madmax and very informative too.
> 
> Anyone got any info about ideal valve orientation *and spring tension*?


Time for the second half of your question, how stiffly sprung should a properly mounted valve be?

Well the answer is it varies depending on the setup. Two main factors need to be taken into consideration when selecting spring tension in a bypass valve (assuming that it is properly mounted in push orientation).

The vacuum generated by the car is the first factor. Let's take a stockish and healthy 1.8t as our example, such a motor should generate 18-21 hg of vacuum depending on variables (altitude, tightness of the internal tolerances in the motor, presence of leaks etc.). Therefore, the valve selected should have spring rate that can keep the valve closed at idle (i.e. an internal spring strong enough that 18-21 hg of vacuum is not pulling the diaphragm/piston open at idle). The second and main factor is the pressure that the charge system will see while operating. If the car's charge piping system will see 10 psi at WOT, it needs to be able to hold 10 psi without bleeding - and if the setup will see 30 psi for example, then a stiffer valve capable of holding 30 psi is needed. If a valve, any valve, is plumbed and mounted properly in push orientation, these are the requirements for ideal performance and there is no way around it.

So what does this all mean? Well for starters, a Bosch 710 has no business being used in a remapped TT. They start bleeding open in proper push orientation at around 10 psi. Then why is it that some respected members of the UK community have preached that stiffly sprung valves that are praised and widely used on 1.8t motors in the US are "not suitable" for use in the TT? Maybe it's ignorance on the topic, or maybe it was an agenda driven by them benefitting on pushing products that they make a profit on. I am also aware that some "tests" were performed to validate the UK-based claims, but it is clear as day that the testing was based on the wrong valve orientation and that's what the conclusions reached were derived from.

Let's take a look at what's involved. A valve mounted in proper push orientation uses two things in combination to actuate bypass . One is vacuum, but pressure in the system is also acting on the plunger/diaphragm plate (remember the pop-off function explained in the previous post). If one is trying to replicate a properly mounted valve operation via bench testing, the inlet port needs to also be pressurized (because it will be in real life). Simply applying vacuum as a test is the most ridiculous way of testing operation on a performance valve designed to operate in proper push orientation, but I'll leave it at that. Every single other turbo performance engine of that generation uses the same technology, and abide by the same laws of physics, but somehow the UK status quo have come up with its parallel universe.

When adding performance to a turbocharged platform, bypass valve is a sort of a balancing act. You have to find the spring rate that suits the set up, but the factors in this selection remains the same. You need to select a valve that is not soft enough to crack open at the vacuum generated at idle, but also strong enough to hold the charge system pressure under load. That is also why the aftermaket have come up with various designs where the spring tension can be tuned to match the specifics of the setup. If these bypass valves were meant to be used and operated in pull orientation, there would be no need to have stiffer and adjustable spring selection. Mounted and used in reverse like it's has become common practice in VAG world, the amount of boost seen is irrelevant (pressure acting to keep the plunger sealed under positive pressure). In real life WOT actuation when the throttle is slammed shut (if the valve is mounted properly) will be handled by the pop-off function which is also backed up by vacuum actuation. It works this way for every other platform, and some of them generating less vacuum than a 1.8t.

I am sure that these posts may rattle the cage, and they are meant to. If I am going to be part of this community I can't help but address misconceptions where I see them. You've been misguided UK forum (anti-establishment suit on)!


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

:mrgreen: [smiley=mexicanwave.gif]


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)




----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Also wanna point out, I just flipped my DV from stock orientation (pull), to push orientation, and man does the car feel like shit with the 710N. It seems to not hold boost in between shifts. I've got a 007p clone sitting around, gonna try that in push orientation and see what the difference is with the hardest spring installed. I remember I chose the 710N when I tried both because the 007 clone performed badly when in Pull orientation. Interesting info.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

All I know is that my OEM DV doesn't leak and has performed on my GT2860 TT without fault something that cannot be said for the previous DVs on the car(Forge, Mad Max) so I speak as many of us on here do from experience.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

jamman said:


> All I know is that my OEM DV doesn't leak and has performed on my GT2860 TT without fault something that cannot be said for the previous DVs on the car(Forge, Mad Max) so I speak as many of us on here do from experience.


Well, I was hoping you would bring forth you valuable experience. When you say your OEM DV "doesn't leak" can you enlighten us on how it is mounted? If it's in fact in pull orientation, as I'm assuming it is, it cannot leak even if it wanted to... and that is even with a torn diaphragm. I don't know if you've realized but a reversed valve (from how they were designed to function) can never leak because pressure in the charge piping is forcing the plunger plate closed. That is exactly why, it was such a good bandaid solution for VAG to reverse the weak and failing Bosch valves instead of recalling them.

I have used and tested more factory Bosch valves than I will ever admit. They are just not build for more than 12 psi (unless mounted improperly), and unless you have landed on some kind of unicorn 710 valve, or run 12 psi on your GT2860, it is just hard to process how it could be leak free. To prove what I am saying, I can make a video showing a valve with a completely torn diaphragm not leaking a drop of pressure when mounted in pull orientation -- it would be a pointless test, but maybe help some folks realize how this all works when pressure is improperly routed to enter the side/outlet instead of the bottom/inlet of a valve.

And to help the audience visualize how these valve are designed to be mounted (proper push orientation), here is an OEM valve from another manufacturer. Arrows are clearly casted around the inlet and outlet to show proper flow direction. Pressure side entering at the bottom (inlet), and bypassed air diverting out through the side (outlet).


















Jamman, you claim that your stock valve is better performing than the "Madmax dv" and Forge units that you've tried. How is it achieving this against superior valves with better diaphragm, more spring tension, and better plunger plate to housing tolerances (which is what makes the seal)? I have personally used and tested Forge valves and they are solid valves (much better than the Bosch crap at least) -- I also run the Madmax valves in my car and it is awesome. I wonder where the difference in outcome is coming from, my guess is that you have mounted all these valves in pull orientation ... which is wrong.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Max it's called an opinion I spent a lot of money on your valve when Damien organised the group but it didn't work as it should when tested (by your bogeyman) so I took it off.

"Maybe" it was a bad apple in a big barrel but I know others had the same problem which prompted Damien to contact you.

Your reaction to this you know and doesn't need going into on here.

You have an opinion and I have an opinion, I'm not always right and Im guessing neither are you :wink:

Are you aware that Forge updated the design on their DV after communication with the testers (bogeymen) maybe they weren't so blinkered ?


----------



## intott (Apr 7, 2015)

I agree with the orientation of the valve but Imo the 710 dv is fine. I have tested the valve with 30 psi on the vac port and charge side and get no leaks wse. 
Again Imo, the spring helps keep the dv closed with the pressure losses across the intercoolers and pipework as straight from the turbo (charge feed to the dv) the pressure will be higher than at the manifold (charge pressure to vac port).
At shut throttle it doesnt matter in this instance if the dv is open or closed as air is being pulled in post maf sensor anyway. This is why you also want a diaphragm valve as pressure equilibrium and correct spring rate is key in proper control, if you have too much tension the n249 valve cant do its thing when it needs to. any leak in the dump valve system and this control is lost.

Jet engines use diaphragm type dump valves and there's a reason why.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

jamman said:


> Max it's called an opinion I spent a lot of money on your valve when Damien organised the group but it didn't work as it should when tested (by your bogeyman) so I took it off.
> 
> "Maybe" it was a bad apple in a big barrel but I know others had the same problem which prompted Damien to contact you.
> 
> ...


Well, as much as I tried to make the discussion about proper mounting orientation, testing practices, and understanding of these devices, I was anticipating that it would not matter to some as they obviously don't care. As long as the "boogeyman" feeds something to them it's automatically gospel and that saves them from requiring any brain function. You realize until you posted it was not about brand, opinions, feel, etc. but rather a discussion about how to properly select and mount a compressor bypass valve. Everybody has an opinion, and they're entitled to it, the goal is to generally discuss the reason this specific segment of the VAG community seem to do it (and think it) differently than the rest of the world.

You still haven't answered the basic questions presented to you: what were the Bosch, Forge, and "Madmax" install orientation; and how were the bench tests conducted? I could care less about brand loyalty, or who people choose to worship, my real interest is to discuss what is proper function of these valves and how they should be used/mounted to do so.


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

jamman said:


> Max it's called an opinion I spent a lot of money on your valve when Damien organised the group but it didn't work as it should when tested (by your bogeyman) so I took it off.


How did it not work as it should?


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

CollecTTor said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Max it's called an opinion I spent a lot of money on your valve when Damien organised the group but it didn't work as it should when tested (by your bogeyman) so I took it off.
> ...


Great question Adam, especially if mounted like a DV should be mounted in push orientation. Mitsubishi casted arrows on the valve to make it error-proof so nobody attempt to reverse the proper flow path. I bet the valve was mounted improperly -- and since a test was performed, tested improperly.


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> CollecTTor said:
> 
> 
> > jamman said:
> ...


That is very offensive! The correct term is "error proof." :lol:


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

so basically mount the dv back to front and it will perform better...


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

CollecTTor said:


> Madmax199 said:
> 
> 
> > How did it not work as it should?
> ...


That is very blunt! The correct term is "error proof." :lol:[/quote]

Fixed for you and the audience, my inner yankee surfaces from time to time. I know that you, out of all people, know what I'm talking about. Lol


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> Fixed for you and the audience, my inner yankee surfaces from time to time. I know that you, out of all people, know what I'm talking about. Lol


Lol @ blunt. The story goes that Toyota managers were demonstrating a poka yoke (Japanese lean manufacturing term that means a design feature that only allows installation of two parts in the correct orientation) to executives while standing near the installation point on the assembly line. The claimed the modifications to the part made it idiot proof. The assembly worker at that station was a young girl, who began to cry because she was offended at being called an idiot. Toyota quit using the term as a sign of respect to it's workers. Hence the joke, "I am not an idiot and I find that offensive!" :lol:


----------



## sco (Mar 2, 2013)

This is my summary;

For whatever reason Audi decided to fit the DV in 'pull' orientation - boost holds the valve closed and only the vacuum can open the valve.

Most other manufacturers go with the 'push' orientation - boost tries to open the valve and you need a spring to keep it closed. This seems a safer method as you can tailor the spring force to the expected boost and the vacuum is then used to overcome the spring to open the valve.

With the standard DV don't think you can just swap the orientation but if switching to a aftermarket one it would make sense to change to a 'push' orientation.

Simon.


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

sco said:


> With the standard DV don't think you can just swap the orientation but if switching to a aftermarket one it would make sense to change to a 'push' orientation.
> 
> Simon.


You are correct, I switched my 710N DV (upgrade to OEM) to push orientation and it ran like utter garbage. I put in my china clone 007 forge unit and it runs beautifully now. I expect even better results when my MadMax DV arrives (It better be autographed Max! :lol: :lol: :lol: )


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

sco said:


> This is my summary;
> 
> For whatever reason Audi decided to fit the DV in 'pull' orientation - boost holds the valve closed and only the vacuum can open the valve.
> 
> ...


Let's not forget that Audi first mounted the Bosch 710(x) valve porperly in push orientation. It's only after many complaints that the valve were operating poorly, making honking noise, and failing that they took action. They decided to flip the valves to force them to stay shut under boost even when they weren't designed to function that way (avoiding a costly recall). A TSB was issued so existing valves were reversed at service, and cars rolling out of the assembly line started having the flipped orientation (that's also when they came up with the 710n revision with slightly stiffer spring, but still a joke for performance applications). So it's not really a factory vs aftermarket thing, but rather a weak vs adequate valve use.


----------



## Misifit138 (Mar 29, 2014)

I put a forge 007 relocation kit on my 02 audi tt. Turbo loved it I switch back to the original stock location to see if there was a difference . Definitely was turbo wasnt as reponsive in the stock location. No cons to this mod i say its a must!!!


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> sco said:
> 
> 
> > With the standard DV don't think you can just swap the orientation but if switching to a aftermarket one it would make sense to change to a 'push' orientation.
> ...


Don't hold your breath...... :wink:

Been there done that, moved on very quickly.


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

CollecTTor said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Max it's called an opinion I spent a lot of money on your valve when Damien organised the group but it didn't work as it should when tested (by your bogeyman) so I took it off.
> ...





jamman said:


> Don't hold your breath...... :wink:
> 
> Been there done that, moved on very quickly.


So since you missed it the first time, how was the Madmax DV not working as you thought it should?


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Max is well aware of the defect as I know Damien contacted him several times about it


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

So ermmmm.... Running without a DV then? Pros & cons?


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

jamman said:


> Max is well aware of the defect as I know Damien contacted him several times about it


To be fair, Max isn't asking you, the people here are. And since you seem to like making it a public affair, you may as well provide all the information on your experience so we can gauge what happened.


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

jamman said:


> Max is well aware of the defect as I know Damien contacted him several times about it


That's great and all, but if you don't want to explain your claims, why do you keep repeating it? I'm not Max or Damien, but I'd be interested in hearing your experience.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Max is well aware of the defect as I know Damien contacted him several times about it
> ...


The people here aren't asking, old hands are well aware of the faults I'm being asked by a couple a disciples but Ok no problem since you asked.....

Mine and all the others tested didn't open when they should and they leaked like a sieve

BUT

it did make a good no great noise

There you go that's my opinion on the MAD MAX DV not a slight on his experience which seems vast but on the DV he modded

End of transmission


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

jamman said:


> The people here aren't asking, old hands are well aware of the faults I'm being asked by a couple a disciples but Ok no problem since you asked.....
> 
> Mine and all the others tested didn't open when they should and they leaked like a sieve
> 
> ...


Did you mount it in oem position? Just saying, when you mount a good diverter valve in oem position it runs like utter shit (I tried both).


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> Did you mount it in oem position?


Dude, I think you're wasting your precious key strokes. :mrgreen: The question was asked many times in this thread, so I think it's safe to assume with the chronic no-answer that it was mounted improperly.


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> Gonzalo1495 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you mount it in oem position?
> ...


Jamman is my baby though, he'll listen to me :wink:


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> Madmax199 said:
> 
> 
> > Gonzalo1495 said:
> ...


Who knows, maybe you're right ... I always felt there was something special between you two. Lol


----------



## 3TT3 (Aug 30, 2014)

The relocate is

Instead of "hot just after turbo air" you go for cooled/thru intercooler turbo compressed air back into intake pre turbo yes?

I dont know how things work out.over the full rev range or whether its just a temporary low rev traffic lights grand prix effect,but there is no "perpetual motion machine"


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> Madmax199 said:
> 
> 
> > Gonzalo1495 said:
> ...


Always Gonz you know that 

Max is right we all mounted the DV the wrong way round,(NOT)

I'm surprised he didn't mention this to Damien instead of getting arsey/uncooperative with him when he dared to question him :roll:


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

jamman said:


> Always Gonz you know that
> 
> Max is right we all mounted the DV the wrong way round,(NOT)
> 
> I'm surprised he didn't mention this to Damien instead of getting arsey/uncooperative with him when he dared to question him :roll:


Luckily all my exchanges with Damien were through emails. If someone was really interested I could dig them up (through PM obviously) to show what you (which is really the one doing the thinking for you, and you) are labeling as uncooperative and arsey. It's easy to spin words, but when the person who dedided there was an issue, and did the "testing" had an incentive making a profit by pushing a competing product to his customers, it's hard for me to read much into it. All hypothetical, but that's like me "testing" a set of Cookbots links and the verdict is they're no good, I think Paul would see my results stained with conflict of interest.

When I asked someone in the UK that deals with product distribution in the community (which I will keep in anonymity), his answer was quite surprising. He explained that these lads will never let a product come into their turfs unless they're pushing it... that my friend sealed it for me. Keep and control your territory, I keep and control mine!

PS: I am here as an enthusiast that own and love the TT platform. I never once looked to promote or sell anything here. So I hope administration and moderators don't see this convo as anything else but me discussing a pointless point. The overwhelming amount of people that have used and tested the product in question know how well it works. As far getting into the technical aspect of how and why it works, it's a one sided debate, because James or "we" have not made a single attempt at elaborating their point. Cheers!


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

NickG said:


> So ermmmm.... Running without a DV then? Pros & cons?


----------



## Beunhaas (May 14, 2014)

NickG said:


> NickG said:
> 
> 
> > So ermmmm.... Running without a DV then? Pros & cons?


Stalling your tubo verry fast killing the bearings. After each shift turbo has to spool up again inducing lag.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Beunhaas said:


> NickG said:
> 
> 
> > NickG said:
> ...


I agree, running with some sort of compressor bypass is recommended for longevity. However, don't think that a lack of one will kill a modern turbo in any short order. People tend to forget, or simply do not know that old school turbocharged cars did not come with such a device and the turbos survived 100k + miles without any problems. And all of this happened in an era where bearing technology and oil technology was nowhere near what it is now.

The compressor bypass idea (just like the pressure activated wategate actuator and many other things came much later. For example, there is guy in the UK (from FB TT forum) that bought a car and was running it for a long time without knkwing that the DV was deleted by the previous owner. It wasn't until he went to "upgrade" to a Forge unit that he realized that he had nothing there. Will it hurt to have one, not at all and on a street car IMO there is no point to not have one. Race cars however tend to run without (not talking about street cars prepped to do track days). So there is small advantage in performance to have all this pressure built up in the intake track for when you re-open the throttle. It's like overcharging and if there is enough fuel to make use of that charge, the car will shoot out when you go WOT again. Just watch any group B rally monster or the legendary IMSA racing Audis of the 70's and 80's. They almost seem to have zero lag, not because there was antilag technology back then, but because they used the overboost from not running a bypass valve to mitigate the re-spool issue.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

That's what i was getting at, on a car solely used for the track, my thoughts were it may reduce the lag when coming back on the throttle after the apex?


----------



## Beunhaas (May 14, 2014)

I do think however turboed streetcars were not pushed that hard as nowadays. Running less boost.

The pressure build up only works with rapid gear changes were the air can almost instant flow further into the engine. Any longer lift off and you stalling the compressor


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Madmax199 said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Always Gonz you know that
> ...


Max I'm not sure what you are going on about, conspiracy theory paranoia whatever but I've always advocated the use of an OEM DV as has Wak who tested the DVs


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Beunhaas said:


> I do think however turboed streetcars were not pushed that hard as nowadays. Running less boost.
> 
> The pressure build up only works with rapid gear changes were the air can almost instant flow further into the engine. Any longer lift off and you stalling the compressor


One car comes to mind when people who haven't been around long enough talk about compressor bypass valves and their absolute necessity on turbo platforms. The infamous Buick Grand Nationals! I'm not sure if they ever made it to european shores but these late 80's dinosaurs came with V6 turbos pushing 15 psi stock and making some serious power for a lame american commuter car of that era. They run hard and there is a collosal following that pushes these thing to levels that this TT community would not understand.

Guess what, they had no compressor bypass valves, and you can find examples in every dump in the states with high mileage still rocking the factory turbo. If you think that these things weren't driven hard, ask anyone in the US that ever went to the drag strip if there wasn't a GN there running less than 10 sec 1/4 miles times. I have a buddy that is into them (he owns 3), and he tells me that GN community laughs their tails off when anyone mentions the term DV or BOV. To that crowd, these devices that we love to use are as "rice" as a huge rear wing on a stock fwd civic. Are they wrong or are we wrong? I think the answer lies right in between, it's like a condom, you don't have to have one to perform, but having one sure make you feel more safe.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/ro ... buick-gnx/


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

jamman said:


> Madmax199 said:
> 
> 
> > jamman said:
> ...


That's his point. You UK guys can't take your glasses off sometimes and are left stuck in the rut of "we've always done it this way." I go through this all the time in my line of work. Just because it works and has always been the perceived best path doesn't mean there aren't better options. It's been proven by people other than Max that there are faster reacting and higher flowing valves out there. I used the Greddy Type S on my big turbo build because it was the fastest reacting valve at the time. Max's valves respond more quickly than the Type S, and I've experienced this on others cars as well as my own. That's what makes it interesting to hear that it "just didn't open when it was supposed to" for you.


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> Beunhaas said:
> 
> 
> > I do think however turboed streetcars were not pushed that hard as nowadays. Running less boost.
> ...


Funny you mention that. I pulled up nose to nose with one this morning at the gas station. It had a huge FMIC hidden behind the center grill. I told the owner "nice car" as he got back in it after refueling. He replied "same to you too!" to my TT. 8)


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Publish the relevant parts of the emails Max that will state what the problems are (as you very well know) and then while you are at it explain how Damien, myself or Wak are trying to promote another product over yours ?

Damien organised the group buy and myself and Wak have pretty much always stated latest version OEM DV is more than capable.

Talk about trying to muddy the waters.......


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

jamman said:


> Publish the relevant parts of the emails Max that will state what the problems are (as you very well know) and then while you are at it explain how Damien, myself or Wak are trying to promote another product over yours ?
> 
> Damien organised the group buy and myself and Wak have pretty much always stated latest version OEM DV is more than capable.
> 
> Talk about trying to muddy the waters.......


Capable \= best. I still have an OEM 710N in my wife's GTI. It's slooooooowwww in comparison to any upgrade as far as recovery goes.


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

so what way round should a forge 008 / 007 be fitted ?

someone got a pic


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

anthony_839 said:


> so what way round should a forge 008 / 007 be fitted ?
> 
> someone got a pic


Push orientation, with boost hitting the bottom of the piston and exiting the side port.


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

CollecTTor said:


> anthony_839 said:
> 
> 
> > so what way round should a forge 008 / 007 be fitted ?
> ...


so the bottom should point towards the boost pipe, and side should be going to turbo intake pipe


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

CollecTTor said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Publish the relevant parts of the emails Max that will state what the problems are (as you very well know) and then while you are at it explain how Damien, myself or Wak are trying to promote another product over yours ?
> ...


You need to read the thread as you are missing the point..... gives up :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

jamman said:


> CollecTTor said:
> 
> 
> > jamman said:
> ...


The thread is about relocating the DV. It evolved into installed orientation, and then into your vague claims regarding a specific valve. I've read the whole thing. Several "points" have been the focus, and I'm well aware of them all. You seem to not be able to give detailed responses or engage in the discussion, and instead "give up." Enjoy your 710N.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

jamman said:


> Publish the relevant parts of the emails Max that will state what the problems are (as you very well know) and then while you are at it explain how Damien, myself or Wak are trying to promote another product over yours ?
> 
> Damien organised the group buy and myself and Wak have pretty much always stated latest version OEM DV is more than capable.
> 
> Talk about trying to muddy the waters.......


First of all, I never said Damien or you had any incentive to promote a competing product. I said the person who invented the "problem" and did the "testing" had such incentives (confirmed by people close in the UK). I have compiled the emails exchange between Damien and I for transparency. Anyone who care to learn if I'm "muddying any waters" just PM me and I will forward it to you. Heck, I even got a valve back from from Damien, it was a bloke that was concerned and wanted me to test it personally, which I did. Damien himself got scared from the fear mongering and fittted the 710 back until he did a track day with it and realized how poorly it performed in comparison, he then went back in full confidence to the MM valve, until he later switched to a Forge supersize (mostly for bling factor). All of this verifiable in the compilation of emails...

I am not going to keep entertaining this nonsensical banter any longer. Anyone interested will form their own jugements on what works and what doesn't... who's being misguided... and who knows what the hell they're talking about. Cheers!


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

anthony_839 said:


> CollecTTor said:
> 
> 
> > anthony_839 said:
> ...


That is correct!


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

I simply remembered I was dealing with a couple of Americans 

In the words of the Borg "Resistance is futile"

Cheers


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

so the bottom should point towards the boost pipe, and side should be going to turbo intake pipe[/quote]

That is correct![/quote]
tthanks [smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

jamman said:


> I simply remembered I was dealing with a couple of Americans
> 
> In the words of the Borg "Resistance is futile"
> 
> Cheers


Your short responses show me all I need to know:
You're either incapable of explaining your stance or continuing the discussion, OR you're pig headed and hiding something.

Cheers


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Mime was fitted is this orientation :mrgreen:


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Sandy said:


> Mime was fitted is the *wrong* orientation :mrgreen:


Fixed for you! :mrgreen:


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Honestly, when Max first introduced push orientation to me, I was confused as hell. I have texts showing how many times I asked him which way was which and why it was wrong.

Then I took my newly bought 710N (as per recommendation on here), and put it in push orientation. When in pull orientation it ran great... because I never had any good DV in the better orientation to compare it to.

It became evident the spring on the 710N is garbage, and my car ran as such. I had an ebay 007 forge clone, threw it on with the hardest spring and it runs great now. MUCH better than the 710N in pull orientation (OEM orientation).

That's just my experience at least.


----------



## Boruki (Mar 2, 2014)

Interesting topic, I've been reading bits and pieces over the last few days.

I'm currently on a new OEM DV, but I have a Forge DV in my garage I think so maybe I'll see if I notice any difference .


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> Sandy said:
> 
> 
> > Mime was fitted is the *wrong* orientation :mrgreen:
> ...


 :lol: cars sold now and wasn't what I was told when fitted it that way round [smiley=bigcry.gif]

Thanks Max, I'll remember that for thr next TT :mrgreen:


----------



## JayReed (Jul 9, 2015)

Sorry to jump into the thread, Once my cars sorted with whatever's up with it :lol: I'll be looking to get a uprated dv and looking to cold side it.

From what I understand of this thread this diagrams correct?










Do you still use the same spring (green) for standard map or do you uprate it (Only bit im unsure on :lol


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

I used to have it fitted this way round but was told by tt forum members it was incorrect :?

I'd stick to the oem one Jay


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Stick to OEM if you don't want to believe the dark magic of numbers coming from the US.

If you want to run push orientation, your oem valve will run like shit, because it is shit. So you will need a performance diverter valve.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> Stick to OEM if you don't want to believe the dark magic of numbers coming from the US.
> 
> If you want to run push orientation, your oem valve will run like shit, because it is shit. So you will need a performance diverter valve.


I had a 007p and it was shite both sexual orientations so dropped in the oem amd full boost was gained. Just saying Gonz


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Sandy said:


> Gonzalo1495 said:
> 
> 
> > Stick to OEM if you don't want to believe the dark magic of numbers coming from the US.
> ...


If it was not performing in either position I would assume you got a bad valve or it had not been kept up with maintenance Sandy


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> Sandy said:
> 
> 
> > Gonzalo1495 said:
> ...


It was cleaned oiled and checked every month Gonz so I just got fed up and fitted the oem one back on.

Maybe the yellow spring was too weak for the boost?


----------



## JayReed (Jul 9, 2015)

Oh god didn't mean to open can of worms haha!, 
I want to eventually re new my dv anyway as when I'm holding the vacuum line and pushing the spring up it drops a bit but holds, Dont think its holding properley. (When I let go it does go back down but I dont think it should drop at all when holding vacuum line and pushing spring up?)

You reckon just renew it with OEM and leave it where it is then? :?

Didn't mean to cause an uproar again :lol:


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

JayReed said:


> Oh god didn't mean to open can of worms haha!,
> I want to eventually re new my dv anyway as when I'm holding the vacuum line and pushing the spring up it drops a bit but holds, Dont think its holding properley. (When I let go it does go back down but I dont think it should drop at all when holding vacuum line and pushing spring up?)
> 
> You reckon just renew it with OEM and leave it where it is then? :?
> ...


Usually means it's leaking :wink:

Don't worry about Gonzalo :mrgreen:


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Sandy said:


> Maybe the yellow spring was too weak for the boost?


That was your problem. Will the 710N work? Sure. Does it hold high boost, recover quickly, and flow enough for upgraded setups? Not for some people who want more abilities than what the 1.8T was originally designed for. When you are a kid, a McDonald's hamburger is awesome......until you've grown up and had a real steak.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

CollecTTor said:


> Sandy said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the yellow spring was too weak for the boost?
> ...


 :lol: I'll have a regular thanks :mrgreen:

I guess on my next tt I'll make it better hahaha


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

JayReed said:


> Sorry to jump into the thread, Once my cars sorted with whatever's up with it :lol: I'll be looking to get a uprated dv and looking to cold side it.
> 
> From what I understand of this thread this diagrams correct?
> 
> ...


The cold side relocation diagram you posted illustrates the correct orientation for these valves. The bottom port is the inlet where pressure should enter, the side port is the outlet where bypassed air should exit. That's how they are designed to work. Some manufacturers even put arrows on the ports (as illustrated in page 2 of the thread) so there is no confusion as to how air should flow through the valves. It's a very simple valve design... air goes in through the inlet... air comes out through the outlet. Cheers!


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

It is simple isn't it so wonder why I was told this wasn't the correct way as this is how it was fitted :?


----------



## intott (Apr 7, 2015)

The latest stock oem dv valve holds boost fine. 23 psi and iv had no problems whichever way I mount the valve. If all the vac lines are good and the dv valve is good than it should cause no drivability issues.

Iv also ran with 2 dump valves, one from the oem side and the relocate side. Noticed no real difference from running with just the relocate.

Tonight iv blanked off the dv and tip so a steady drive tomorrow morning and ill let you know how it feels.

Imo running with no dump valve will put more wear on the turbo but for the sake of just reading about the performance effects it may or may not have I'm just going to try.

There's so may variables involved with taking a fundamental part off the engine my guess it its going to run like poo.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Sandy said:


> It is simple isn't it so wonder why I was told this wasn't the correct way as this is how it was fitted :?


Sandy, it's because forums members tend to be like cult members, they often do and repeat things without ever stopping for a second to think about why they do so. The same guy that blindly followed the trend at the beginning of his journey, will pass it along to the new guy with plenty of passion a few years later because he's now acquired some "experience" (while doing it the wrong way the whole time).

People also think because it's Audi, the engineers had performance in mind when designing parts on their TT -- not thinking for a second that the 1.8t that powers the bloody car is a basic economic motor designed to be a cheap mule that can be crossfitted across many entry level car in the vag lineup. You will hear ridiculous things like "the stock DV (with its light spring and ability to hold pressure) is adequate for performance", or "it's better than performance-oriented valves" with better seal, stronger diaphragm, more canister size and and plunger lift to bypass more volume, and more spring tension to match the elevated operating conditions when a car is modified. The thing was designed by Bosch to hold 12 psi on a grocery getter, so it doesn't take Einstein to see people that say things like that are either drones or misinformed.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Your absolutely right Max. 
It's follow fashion thing when one says oh it's not like that it's like this and the rest of us think shit and change it.

I was silly and listened to certain people when I should have just left the dv how I knew it should have been fitted although having around 250+bhp I didn't notice too much difference in orientation tbh.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

intott said:


> The latest stock oem dv valve holds boost fine. 23 psi and iv had no problems whichever way I mount the valve. If all the vac lines are good and the dv valve is good than it should cause no drivability issues.
> 
> Iv also ran with 2 dump valves, one from the oem side and the relocate side. Noticed no real difference from running with just the relocate.
> 
> ...


I love enthusiasts that are willing to experiment to forge their opinion, my hat off to you mate. Please share your experience and findings.

One thing I don't agree with is the notion that because the stock valve can allow the car to run X psi, that means it is fine or can't be improved on. A turbo will run whatever amount of boost is requested with a large boost leak too. the ECU will just force the turbo to work harder to get there (by keeping the actuator closed longer with higher N75 duty cycles). Can a 710n hold double the pressure it was designed to? The answer is it will start leaking boost as soon as the internal spring pressure + whatever pressure help it gets from the vaccum source (at positive pressure) is exceeded. If you drilled a few holes in the sealing plate of a spare 710n and run it with the intentional leaks, the car will still hold 23 psi (turbo working harder to do it).

Anyway, I'm looking forward to your little experiment, and what you draw out of it. Cheers!


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

My hat off to you for sharing your vast knowledge and experience Max  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> The answer is it will start leaking boost as soon as the internal spring pressure + whatever pressure help it gets from the vaccum source (at positive pressure) is exceeded.


Doesn't the pressure to be bled (boost hitting the bottom of the piston face) cancel out the vac source pressure (hitting the top of the piston) minus the difference of pressure drops between turbo outlet and manifold pressure (assuming OEM mounting location) leaving you with nothing but the internal spring pressure (plus the noted difference)?


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Sandy said:


> My hat off to you for sharing your vast knowledge and experience Max  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


Max has more patience than a saint, and is a wealth of knowledge that is a valuable resource to any community he participates in. [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

CollecTTor said:


> Sandy said:
> 
> 
> > My hat off to you for sharing your vast knowledge and experience Max  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
> ...


CollecTTor I've realised this ever since you guys from the states joined the forum. 

Sandy


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Sandy said:


> CollecTTor said:
> 
> 
> > Sandy said:
> ...


 :-*


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Gonzy don't be giving blowing kisses to other folks or we are "OVER" ! ! !


----------



## Garth (Feb 7, 2012)

Very interesting thread this. I guess what I am particularly interested in is, what is the downside of staying with in stock dv in its factory orientation (which apparently is wrong), apart from any lack of pop-off protection?

I have personally owned 2 forge dv007, 1 forge dv008 and a cheap eBay clone (on a car when I bought it). All of these have leaked boost badly. Both of the dv007's I tried in both orientations (back in my youth with an ibiza cupra 1.8T, when some 'crazy' individual suggested reversing it for a better noise!) and they still leaked. That was on a remapped (Revo) car. Forge customer service was excellent and they sent out maintenance kits, springs and shims foc, but the problems remained so I sold on the valves.

So in my experience, the stock valve (in it's 'incorrect' orientation) has performed best. Obviously if I reverse it, I will expect it to be terrible given that it is weak. But is there any real world benefit to replacing it with an after market (not forge again) dv and fitting it the 'correct' way? Apart from any safety advantage of the pop-off functionality. I am now on a totally stock 225 TT.
Cheers

http://gogetfunding.com/aba-for-ben/


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Hi Garth, you are absolutely correct, in the oem position, the oemvalve will perform better than performance valves. I found that they perform like garbage when in properpush prientation.

Audi mounted the valve in pull orientation (oem) in order to "band aid" the problem, rather than dealing with recalls and such, I think Max explained this.

The difference is reaction time of the valve. Typically a larger valve with a stronger spring will provide the best result (when mouned in push). This is why the dv Max makes is so effective.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

jamman said:


> Gonzy don't be giving blowing kisses to other folks or we are "OVER" ! ! !


 :lol:


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> Sandy said:
> 
> 
> > My hat off to you for sharing your vast knowledge and experience Max  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
> ...


 :-*[/quote]


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

CollecTTor said:


> Sandy said:
> 
> 
> > My hat off to you for sharing your vast knowledge and experience Max  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
> ...


Thank you gentlemen, it is my pleasure to be a member of the community!



jamman said:


> Gonzy don't be giving blowing kisses to other folks or we are "OVER" ! ! !


Hey man, you really thought Gonzy was only yours... wake up and smell the coffee!


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Garth said:


> Very interesting thread this. I guess what I am particularly interested in is, what is the downside of staying with in stock dv in its factory orientation (which apparently is wrong), apart from any lack of pop-off protection?
> 
> I have personally owned 2 forge dv007, 1 forge dv008 and a cheap eBay clone (on a car when I bought it). All of these have leaked boost badly. Both of the dv007's I tried in both orientations (back in my youth with an ibiza cupra 1.8T, when some 'crazy' individual suggested reversing it for a better noise!) and they still leaked. That was on a remapped (Revo) car. Forge customer service was excellent and they sent out maintenance kits, springs and shims foc, but the problems remained so I sold on the valves.
> 
> ...


Besides the pop-off safety feature, there is another drawback to mounting it the wrong way. The second problem is that if you have vacuum leaks (very common with these cars since there are so many failure points), the valve will not operate properly since it is only relying on vacuum to function (no help from system pressure). IMO, the reversing of the valve is a bandaid solution by VAG to prevent a costly recall. We don't go around reversing pancake valves, SAI valves etc. to prevent them form inherent design flaws. The logic behind doing this is no different than reversing the way you mount your wheels so you can get more positive offset, a hack at best. If you're going to use a DV, find an appropriate one suited for the condidtions and run it the way it is designed to be... in push orientation.


----------



## Jez xbx (Oct 24, 2014)

I've read through these posts with interest.
I've some sort of Forge BOV (allegedly!) discharging to atmosphere from the previous owner
Big black thing that wobbles around in the engine bay (oooohhh errrrr missus!)

http://i578.photobucket.com/albums/ss22 ... nrepi1.jpg
http://i578.photobucket.com/albums/ss22 ... bpveep.jpg

As part of my restoration (using the term lightly  ) 
I would like to return to a recirculating type valve.

Given that my car is stock (and likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future)
I'd assumed that a stock DV would be fine for me but I'm now unsure.
Also, having just shelled out for quite a lot of expensive essential bits budget is an issue!

So what would be the best solution for me please?


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

CollecTTor said:


> Madmax199 said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is it will start leaking boost as soon as the internal spring pressure + whatever pressure help it gets from the vaccum source (at positive pressure) is exceeded.
> ...


That's correct Adam, they almost cancel each other (minus the pressure differential between the two sources, and the size difference between the ports/lines). I mentioned it in my post to remain technically correct and so it is known that there is an effect from the pressure source above the diaphragm.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

Jez xbx said:


> I've read through these posts with interest.
> I've some sort of Forge BOV (allegedly!) discharging to atmosphere from the previous owner
> Big black thing that wobbles around in the engine bay (oooohhh errrrr missus!)
> 
> ...


I hope nobody is interpreting what we are saying about the standard Bosch 710n the wrong way. It is a valve (when mounted properly) that will perform as intended within its designed capability. What we are saying is that if you are operating past its designed capability, you're asking it to do more than it physically can. What is that designed capability? About 10-12 psi depending on age and condition of the valve.

So if you are running your car within that 10-12 psi window, there is nothing wrong with using the 710n -- past that, you're just asking the turbo to do extra work to cover the bleed that valve turns into at WOT. My question to you is why don't you use the existing aftermarket valve you have to run it in a closed loop recirculated fashion?


----------



## JorgeTTCQ (May 7, 2002)

Hi all,
06A 145 710 N is now 06A 145 710 P, this is the newest version.

http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=924690

Cheers


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Gonzy don't be giving blowing kisses to other folks or we are "OVER" ! ! !
> ...


 :lol: oh boi


----------



## intott (Apr 7, 2015)

Ok, so drove to work and home with no dv fitted.

Normal driving.

No difference at all to running with 710p dv with the n249 delete. The flutter from the turbo during every gear shift did make me smile tho.

WOT

The initial speed boost rises from low rpm is slightly faster but after 10 inhg it felt the same as before.

I haven't checked duty cycle yet but I don't think much will have changed.

Gear changes are improved and it seams come back on boost faster.

I'm keeping the dv off for now but will look into things more st the weekend.


----------



## Jez xbx (Oct 24, 2014)

Madmax199 said:


> Jez xbx said:
> 
> 
> > I've read through these posts with interest.
> ...


Hi Max, 
I don't think my valve has an attachment for a 'return' pipe
Just a bunch of holes round the circumference of the valve
I'd just assumed that would prevent it?
Jez


----------



## CollecTTor (Jan 17, 2014)

Jez xbx said:


> Madmax199 said:
> 
> 
> > Jez xbx said:
> ...


It looks to be plumbed back into the inlet, or is that a plugin the return port? Hard to tell and I don't recognize the valve.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

CollecTTor said:


> Jez xbx said:
> 
> 
> > Madmax199 said:
> ...


Someone has plugged the return for the DV to the tip with a chrome bung which is what I can see. jezxbx if you're looking to remove the BOV, it's a simple job and refitting the OEM will be as easy by removing the chrome bung under the BOV which I can see.  
The BOV is fitted to the charge pipe.

Sandy


----------



## Jez xbx (Oct 24, 2014)

Morning all,

thanks for all the replies and scrutiny!
so my best / most cost effective solution is to re install the oem Bosch valve.
And this should be in it's 'factory orientation' or should I reverse it?

A second question would be if anyone had spotted any cut pipes but it sounds like not!
cheers

jez


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Jez xbx said:


> Morning all,
> 
> thanks for all the replies and scrutiny!
> so my best / most cost effective solution is to re install the oem Bosch valve.
> ...


OEM valve should be mounted in OEM orientation. Otherwise you will see why it's so bad lol.


----------



## Jez xbx (Oct 24, 2014)

thanks Gonz,
tried my local TPS but they are strictly trade only.
found original skoda one online which is latest version 06A145710P
I take it thats ok for my car?
They've said it is ok so gonna order it later!
the steady but slow un f***ing of my car rumbles along!
Jez


----------



## Dyslexicdog (Apr 25, 2015)

Right reading this thread last week and thought I would go see what way round my DV was, Sure enough was configured in PULL, so decided to try it in PUSH for a week to see if there was any difference.
While been just over a week now and I can honestly say I didn`t notice or feel any difference :? 
On the downside, and this might be a complete coincidence but my DV diaphragm has failed :x 
Only fitted in April this year, but getting flutter at low rpm lift off


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Dyslexicdog said:


> Right reading this thread last week and thought I would go see what way round my DV was, Sure enough was configured in PULL, so decided to try it in PUSH for a week to see if there was any difference.
> While been just over a week now and I can honestly say I didn`t notice or feel any difference :?
> On the downside, and this might be a complete coincidence but my DV diaphragm has failed :x
> Only fitted in April this year, but getting flutter at low rpm lift off


Hold on bud. Is that what you diagnosed as a bad diaphragm? If it won't hold boost then that mean it's broken. Flutter is perfectly normal if I remember correctly.

Also, what DV are you using?


----------



## Dyslexicdog (Apr 25, 2015)

Well its NEVER flutter before at the any revs, been complete normal all week with the DV in PUSH config
But yesterday driving home it started to flutter, seems ok if you give some beans
Took it off today and looked, couldn`t see any damage, but tried the push the piston in then put your thumb over the vacuum port test (which work on a Forge DV and the last OEM DV I had) and the piston just shut with no resistance.

Oh, Its a OEM DV (Not 100% sure its genuine, Amazon jobby) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cars-E-TING...522709&sr=8-8&keywords=audi+tt+diverter+valve

Like I said might be a complete coincidence :?


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Copy. all cheap ones are copies.

Go for oem a little pricey but better off :mrgreen:


----------



## Boruki (Mar 2, 2014)

I've not touched my DV yet, but have developed a flutter when moving off. Is it maybe a change in the weather? Or something.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Boruki, you know better than that or should do, the weather is colder so the car should run better with dense air :mrgreen:

It's probably the dv fluttering or possible leak maybe?.

I was running 1.5 bar of boost stabilising at 1.2 wih an old type dv so wouldn't have thought there'd be any issues although it would be hard to tell if there was a teeny weeny leak in it.

Sandy


----------



## Boruki (Mar 2, 2014)

Oh it's not causing any performance changes, only the noise when I'm getting the car started moving . I'm hitting 0.9 on my gauge.

My fuel economy seems to have improved as its getting colder, which I put down to denser air.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Boruki said:


> Oh it's not causing any performance changes, only the noise when I'm getting the car started moving . I'm hitting 0.9 on my gauge.
> 
> My fuel economy seems to have improved as its getting colder, which I put down to denser air.


 Ok that's good.
Replace the dv as I did when I had the same problem.


----------



## Gonzalo1495 (Oct 13, 2014)

Dyslexicdog said:


> Well its NEVER flutter before at the any revs, been complete normal all week with the DV in PUSH config
> But yesterday driving home it started to flutter, seems ok if you give some beans
> Took it off today and looked, couldn`t see any damage, but tried the push the piston in then put your thumb over the vacuum port test (which work on a Forge DV and the last OEM DV I had) and the piston just shut with no resistance.
> 
> ...


So let me ask, if you did in fact read this whole thread, where did you gather that it was okay to put your OEM DV in push orientation? We have been specifically saying that push orientation is not ideal for such a weak valve.... :-|

If anything, I wouldn't be surprised it was because you mounted it that way, the boost is what's pushing the valve open now, with such little resistance from the spring, it could be possible that's what caused it to tear/break.

Take this opportunity to buy a PERFORMANCE valve. Madmax/forge 007/anything with a spring capable of 20psi or more basically. THEN you can mount it in push orientation and notice a positive difference..... [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Is that the Royal "we" :roll:


----------



## Dyslexicdog (Apr 25, 2015)

Gonzalo1495 said:


> Dyslexicdog said:
> 
> 
> > Well its NEVER flutter before at the any revs, been complete normal all week with the DV in PUSH config
> ...


Fair point, Might of skipped a few posts.  
Ordered a Forge 008, going to order one anyhow was never that comfortable with the amazon jobby :roll:


----------



## Boruki (Mar 2, 2014)

Sandy said:


> Ok that's good.
> Replace the dv as I did when I had the same problem.


This DV is only a few months old. I have a 007 sat in my glove box though. I don't know what pressure the standard 007 spring can take so don't know if it's suitable for changing orientation.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

What colour spring?.


----------



## Beunhaas (May 14, 2014)

Boruki said:


> Sandy said:
> 
> 
> > Ok that's good.
> ...


If i were you, i would chose the spring colour and DV orientation you think looks sexy with a forge DV :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1162425


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Beunhaas said:


> Boruki said:
> 
> 
> > Sandy said:
> ...


 :wink:


----------



## Boruki (Mar 2, 2014)

Beunhaas said:


> Boruki said:
> 
> 
> > Sandy said:
> ...


It's worrying it makes such a little difference when it's a product.

Still, my OEM DV shouldn't be dieing yet as its so new.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Remove it and do the test as per waks site.


----------



## Boruki (Mar 2, 2014)

Sandy said:


> Remove it and do the test as per waks site.


I should've done that today, doh! Maybe I'll take it off to see what all this orientation shiz is about with my 007. Then if the OEM is ok it can go back on.


----------



## Sandy (May 5, 2014)

Boruki said:


> Sandy said:
> 
> 
> > Remove it and do the test as per waks site.
> ...


I had it on the wrong way as per jamman and a few others mentioned but it dome me no harm ALTHOUGH when I fitted the oem one on boost was better  That's my opinion to what I felt with my car anyway.

Hope you get yours sorted. 

Sandy


----------



## Boruki (Mar 2, 2014)

I finally put my Forge DV on in the opposite orientation... and it pings! Is that normal?? Instead of the air going pshht I get a metallic ping! I was wondering if I did something wrong (not sure how..) or if maybe he DV needs some attention, it wasn't sticking when I put it in.


----------



## ProjectMick (Sep 29, 2015)

It should ping. I don't have a technical answer as to why but it does!


----------



## Beunhaas (May 14, 2014)

Boruki said:


> I finally put my Forge DV on in the opposite orientation... and it pings! Is that normal?? Instead of the air going pshht I get a metallic ping! I was wondering if I did something wrong (not sure how..) or if maybe he DV needs some attention, it wasn't sticking when I put it in.


A ping? what sound might that be then? Video?
It should sound like normal pshhhhht or in the other direction it's a bit higher sound, more like a horse :lol:


----------



## Boruki (Mar 2, 2014)

It's a ping a bit like a short high hat on the drums.. haha. It's the same noise it makes when I've tested its ability to hold pressure (finger over the small hole, then release) and all I can do is guess it's because it's metal? He car runs (to my untrained eye) fine, it's just a noise I dislike. Other mk4 platform forums have said the same thing about it too.

Should the DV be greased up a bit maybe? Grease would provide a barrier for the metal...


----------



## ProjectMick (Sep 29, 2015)

Is it like the sound in this link (sorry don't know how to embed a video)






That's what I assume you mean


----------



## Beunhaas (May 14, 2014)

ProjectMick said:


> Is it like the sound in this link (sorry don't know how to embed a video)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ahh that high pitch whistle sound. Sounds like a HKS SSQV bov, awfull if you ask me. How to change it? maybe orientation or a weaker spring. Performance wise, it does it's job.

Are you sure you don't have any vaccuum leaks? That would cause the valve to not open completely so forces the air through a small opening in the DV instead of a fully opened DV piston.


----------



## Boruki (Mar 2, 2014)

I don't often drive to hit the top of the boost, only to 0.5 rather than 0.9... maybe I'll have to try and hit it tomorrow. There could be a leak though, haven't really checked for a bit.

But it's not a hiss noise, it's the metallic pinging noise that I don't like.


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

so got a forge 008 going to fit hardest spring as im running about 1.5 to 1.7 bar of boost

which way round to fit it though that is the question :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:       [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=gossip.gif]


----------



## Beunhaas (May 14, 2014)

anthony_839 said:


> so got a forge 008 going to fit hardest spring as im running about 1.5 to 1.7 bar of boost
> 
> which way round to fit it though that is the question :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:       [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=gossip.gif]


Hahaha hardest spring for 1.5 to 1.7 bar of boost. What a joke :lol:
Do yourself a favour and fit the weakest spring.

The valve is self closing on boost because the area of the vaccuum side is bigger than on the boost side. Pressure times area is force that keeps the valve closed. Soo the bigger the boost, the better it closes.

Orientation, fit it what you think looks sexy :wink:

BTW, did you read the whole thread?

If so, maybe this is a nice addition.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1162425


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

Beunhaas said:


> anthony_839 said:
> 
> 
> > so got a forge 008 going to fit hardest spring as im running about 1.5 to 1.7 bar of boost
> ...


yea man why not ? [smiley=gossip.gif]

otherwise i might as well keep std dv :wink:

yes i did read though that


----------



## Ludford (Feb 6, 2016)

Seems like the right place to ask.

It seems like Forge doesn't make a diverter valve called "007p" anymore which is the valve everyone talks about.

This is what they do

http://www.forgemotorsport.co.uk/Turbo_ ... --979.html

Should I purchase this one?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Ludford said:


> Seems like the right place to ask.
> 
> It seems like Forge doesn't make a diverter valve called "007p" anymore which is the valve everyone talks about.
> 
> ...


The 008 was made along side the 007 and is supposed to be better looks like it has now supersede it


----------



## Garth (Feb 7, 2012)

It looks like the design has changed quite a bit since the original dv007 and dv008, which is a good thing. I've had two dv007's and a dv008 and all were poor in my opinion. They all leaked badly. Forge's customer service was fantastic, they sent me a complete service kit including a new piston for my last dv007, but even then it still leaked so I threw it in the bin and fitted a new oem valve instead.

If anyone has one of the new valves and wants to take a photo of the piston, I'd like to see it. Forge's original valve was poor due to the piston design. I believe this has been improved now so I'd like to see it.


----------



## anthony_839 (Apr 9, 2013)

Garth said:


> It looks like the design has changed quite a bit since the original dv007 and dv008, which is a good thing. I've had two dv007's and a dv008 and all were poor in my opinion. They all leaked badly. Forge's customer service was fantastic, they sent me a complete service kit including a new piston for my last dv007, but even then it still leaked so I threw it in the bin and fitted a new oem valve instead.
> 
> If anyone has one of the new valves and wants to take a photo of the piston, I'd like to see it. Forge's original valve was poor due to the piston design. I believe this has been improved now so I'd like to see it.


i have one i just fitted it didnt get any photos

tbh fitted the normal way i.e. the way audi fitted them i havented noticed much diffrence tbh

im going to fit it the wrong way (but some how the right way) and see if that changes anything


----------

