# FB vs FBSS (4-valves vs 8-valves)



## iamraymond (Jan 22, 2004)

Why is it that alot of the bagged cars in Europe use a simple F/B setup rather than a FBSS? Most of the cars I've seen featured in PVW or in European online forums only use 4-valves. I've noticed also that the GAS and HAS air management systems only use 4 valves as well. Even the Bagyard MK1 golf that kippen posted in this thread only uses 4 valves.
What gives? Is it due to some regulations or just preference?
On the other hand, it seems like alot of North Americans perfer the 8-valve system (going by the build threads in this forum). Is the 4-valve setup really that bad for handling? Does anyone have any personal experience with the handling of a car with a 4-valve setup? I would like to know because I would be happy with a simple 4-valve setup, unless my car becomes uncontrollable while making emergency lane changes, U-turns etc. 
I personally would be happy with a basic 4 valve setup because:
-less parts to install
-cheaper
-would rarely use the FBSS control to change each corner independently


----------



## Def-Shooter (Dec 27, 2008)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (iamraymond)*

its easy to explain. In Germany you don't get Tüv with 8 Valves and controlling each wheel seperatly.
so for Tüv you have to build with 4 valves but some guys change it to 8 after Tüv.
I mad it like this on my Passat.
with 8 valve you avoid the air moving from left to right, so you have better drive characteristics


----------



## iamraymond (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (Def-Shooter)*

Ok well that makes sense. 
When you upgraded to an 8-valve setup, did you notice an improvement with the handling of your car? I'm guessing with a heavier car like a Passat, the change would be more significant than with a lighter car.


----------



## Still Fantana (Jul 16, 2008)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (Def-Shooter)*

Swoops (greg) went from a 4 valve set up to an 8 valve setup, he might be able to shed some light on the difference in characteristics, i just did an install for DFDUB-Vdub (something like that) and he was also doing a 4 valve.
One way you could lessen the side to side motion you feel could be by running really smaller airline all around.
I have noticed that alot of euro's run simple 4 valve set ups, just kind of tossed the idea aside.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 26, 2006)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (Still Fantana)*

adding more to the pot.
Parts are $$$$$ in Europe, cheaper in the US.
People in NA want everything, digital etc.
Europe has more of a simple style, approach.
on a small car, I find nothing wrong with a F/B set up. But I wouldnt do it on a big 60's Caddi thats foresure. Golf sure why not. I like simplicity.


----------



## Def-Shooter (Dec 27, 2008)

on mk4 or Passat B5 you don't nee it really on the rear axle. but on the front it is a better way to drive in curves


----------



## iamraymond (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: FB vs FBSS ([email protected])*

Hey Kev.. so with a small car (i.e. MK1 TT) and thin lines like 1/4", I wouldn't get too much body roll right?
There was someone on here who had a red TT with FB setup but I can't seem to find his username. Anyone know?


----------



## Still Fantana (Jul 16, 2008)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (iamraymond)*

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3627611 
there ya go...
i'd say maybe it'd be over kill but running 1/8" line would sure slow down the side to side feeling.


----------



## iamraymond (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (Still Fantana)*

cool thanks! I sent him a PM. 
But 1/8th lines would be super slow to fill/dump? I was thinking 3/8" front and 1/4" rear. Or maybe 1/4" all around.
I guess another option would be to use 8-valves to stop the air transfer issue, and then control the fronts together and the backs only using two 3-position switches. But then if the two valves don't fill at the same rate, there wouldn't be a way to adjust each valve individually. 
I might just be overthinking it and simply go with the 4-valve setup. My car is small and light just like Kevin said. It probably only weighs a few hundred lbs more than a MK4 Golf.


----------



## Still Fantana (Jul 16, 2008)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (iamraymond)*

I mean if you are considering 8 valves, whats the point of not just going w. a switchbox, pre made or fabbed up, to control all 4 corners?
it's like getting 6 hookers and telling two of them u'll pay them to just sleep and only using the other 4


----------



## iamraymond (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (Still Fantana)*

Thats a one way of putting it I guess! However, I would like to keep my interior as clean as possible and avoid a clunky switchbox. My plan is to have a simple setup with a simple controller. If I could hide the switches that would be even better. Maybe even run gaugeless. The interior in the TT doesn't have many places to hide or store things.
One thing that attracted me to the Arnott set up is its small footprint and controller (which is small enough to fit in the TT cubby hole).


_Modified by iamraymond at 3:30 PM 7-17-2009_


----------



## Still Fantana (Jul 16, 2008)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (iamraymond)*

gauge-less is def possible, or maybe even think about routing the gauges to your glove box??
i ran for about 6 months w. no guages, it's not hard at all just kind of annoying because you dont know what your stance exactly looks like (thats if you even care)
Switch boxes honestly aren't that clunky and could be hidden or placed in a number or places...i'm not trying to persuade you, if u are set on having "xxx" # of buttons then go for it, just sharing my .02s
However if u dont run gauges and run a smaller amount of switches or valves, the length of your lines being equal is going to play a huge roll in making sure you have an equal stance all around when airing up (which could again be solved by flow controls)


----------



## iamraymond (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (Still Fantana)*

The glovebox in the TT is very limited in space. 








If I end up using gauges, I have one of these gauge pods which I can house a dual-needle for the bags and a single needle for the tank. The center section would be milled to accomodate the two switches. 
Hiding the switches and running gaugeless is preferred. 
Anyway, does anyone else have first-hand experience of a MK4 or TT with a 4 valve setup? I'm interested in the handling characteristics.


----------



## Still Fantana (Jul 16, 2008)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (iamraymond)*

just to add one more...
let's say you do end up running an 8 valve, you could always fab 2 switches for F & R (spliced from the valves) and then just have a remote somewhere tucked away just incase.


----------



## iamraymond (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: FB vs FBSS (Still Fantana)*

Thanks for the input. I discussed that option with [email protected] first switchbox/2 switches. But I just thought "why bother" if 4-valves are sufficient. 
Anyone else running 4-valves?


----------



## baggedhatch (May 23, 2009)

i am running 4 3/8 valves and 1/2 lines. i like how fast it lifts and lowers but the side to side is terrible. you have to slow way down on turns. i will be converting to 8 valves that will be at the bag not the tank. this will have a little rougher ride but no side to side play. even with the 8 vavles i will only have f/b. i dont like sides.


----------



## iamraymond (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: (baggedhatch)*

Thanks for your input.
As Fantana suggested, why don't you try thinner lines like 1/4"? Is it because you would like to keep your fill/dump rates?
aren't the 1/2" lines pretty big for a small car like a civic hatchback?


----------



## Still Fantana (Jul 16, 2008)

*Re: (iamraymond)*

1/2" line is huge for hatchback, IMO...
mostly see trucks and bigger running something like that.


----------



## baggedhatch (May 23, 2009)

they are big. i just really like the speed. the car shoots up and is ready to go. I wanted the most out of the 3/8 valves. if i were to do it again i would keep the same in the front and maybe a 3/8 line in the back with 1/4 inch valves. all personal preference.


----------



## baggedhatch (May 23, 2009)

also the one thing i dont like about my 4 valve set up is that the car always has a slight lean in it. with me in it it leans to the left just slightly. im not that big either only 190lbs. i was thinking about using 6 vavles so i can adjust the fronts independantly and the back would be linked. i have seen a few trucks like that.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 26, 2006)

I was just giving this some more thought.
I had 2 cars come in this week, one for an air leak, the other a bag issue.
64 Impala 2 door hard top 2 way system, Asco valves, 5 gallon tank, one compressor.
57 Chevy Sedan Delivery 2 way system, manual valves, 5 gallon tank one compressor.
hmmmm both big heavy cars, both 2 way systems. and I think both guys didnt even know what they had.


----------



## baggedhatch (May 23, 2009)

wow manual vavles..... i didnt know anyone sold those anymore, other than plumbing places. did the impala sway alot. thats alot of weight on turns. i think it all depend on what you want to do. 
small lines with slow fill you can run 4 valves easy with not alot of swaying. with the bigger lines and valves means for more movement side to side but fast fills. i have even seen guys use 2 valves for the back and then 3 for the front. the fill for the front is at the tank. then splits goes through a check valve at both front corners and then there is a dump valve after each check valve. so with the check valve keeps the air from bridging side to side, but there is still simplicity. which is always a good thing to me.


----------



## Afazz (Feb 10, 2002)

*Re: (baggedhatch)*

Has anyone ever done 4 valves and 8 check valves for a f/b system?








I've never tried this, but it should work.


----------



## theAntiRiced (May 7, 2005)

*FV-QR*

I run ~5psi less on the passenger side to keep the same height, so side-to-side control is really nice.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 26, 2006)

*Re: (Afazz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Afazz* »_Has anyone ever done 4 valves and 8 check valves for a f/b system?








I've never tried this, but it should work.

check valves arnt cheap, or perfect. I would think by the time you bought checks and all the necessary fitting, you could have just bought valves.


----------



## iamraymond (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I saw that 8 check valves would be $200CDN ($25x8 from AAC) and the 4 valves would be $180CDN ($45x4 from AAC). I would rather have an 8-valve setup. For that price, I could get the Arnott manifold. 
Plus I think all the check valves is just adding complexity to the system. If the side-to-side transfer is that much of an issue, I guess FBSS is the only way to to go?


----------



## Afazz (Feb 10, 2002)

*Re: (iamraymond)*

Exactly. I made that pic a few months ago to show it was possible, but as Kevin said 8 valves are the way to go unless you need to run 4 for some reason.


----------

