Squape X Dream (clone) review

Discussion in 'Rebuildable Atomisers' started by Oldhead, Jul 9, 2016.

  1. Oldhead

    Oldhead Member

    Jun 15, 2015
    As a solely MTL vaper this item was purchased purely as a possible option to the various Kayfuns and Russians that i use.,and im glad i did.
    Everything about this clone is IMO excellent,its packaging and quality of manufacture is completely thorough in its attempt at copying the original.
    Two of the only things that i cannot confirm is whether ( the contact pin and posts are truly gold plated ) and i think not,and whether the coating used on the removable base is comparible to original.
    The item arrived ,looking and smelling totally clean but,was put through the Ultrasonic to verify.
    Disassembly was easy and threading was excellent quality,the base housing the coil and wick has a three pin position cam locking effect and i found that a small amount of modification to the lugs was needed for the locking to be completely smooth.
    A simple sand with 1200 grit wet and dry paper to remove any straight edges from the lugs binding on the receiving mechanism.

    Easy top fill proceedure, with plenty of space for juice bottle tips, no need to drain juice when rebuilding coils or re wicking,just twist base to remove position , Fully lock position closes juice tank for traveling or pocket , twist base to open position to allow juice flow and vape. (3 base positions)
    Air flow ring with multiple positions allows for huge range of variables and once set does not seem to move from set position when using RTA.
    Glass tank is very well protected from accidents due to SS sleeves design and shape.

    Now the test, single coil, 26# kanthal ,2.5mm dia @ 1.00 ohm and at 10watts.
    Air flow ring set at 50% of one only opening (there are three air inlets).
    Original drip tip removed and replaced with a smaller internal throat drip tip .(tighter draw)
    Wicking with Ken Do and used extra cotton to well fill the juice base .(65/35 juice) as i found that just wicking through the centre of coil was not sufficient and caused some dry vape.
    Juice usage when vaping was comparible to my favorite RTA,s .

    This RTA is now one to keep and will be now amongst my favorites as it produces excellent flavor and a dense,gently warm vape that suits me perfectly.4 out of 5 and only due to modification required and narrower drip tip .A Chinese made almost Swiss movement.
    Hope this helps other MTL vapers.
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2016
    Dalork, Wanda, Aqualung and 1 other person like this.
  2. Nico and Laughter

    Nico and Laughter Senior Member

    Jun 3, 2015
    Wollongong the brave!
    Where did you get your clone from Oldhead?
  3. Oldhead

    Oldhead Member

    Jun 15, 2015
    Got in early by the looks of it , 3Fvape approx $32.00 ,looked again today and they have sold out .Shoot Gina a message re (when is new stock arriving) Good luck.
    The Model 9038 made by SJMY is the best made clone, cant vouch for the cheaper one.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2016
    Dalork likes this.
  4. Dalork

    Dalork Senior Member

    Jun 12, 2015
    Good review Oldhead,
    I've got the exact same Squape clone and had it a while (got it early) and have really been enjoying it. Some people think it's a bit large but I think it's fine, no different than having a Kayfun sized atty. It vapes just like a Squape, which is a good thing lol and you can really close down the airflow if your a MTL lover.

    When twisting the air flow control ring, you will see if you look that you can have 2 incoming airflow points or just one while being able to completely adjust the airflow rate through these by reducing the size of opening with the ring. Also had exactly the same issue with the locking mechanism in the base, bloody nice vape though and the machining is very nice indeed as you mentioned. I've been using mine on a SMOK e-pipe
  5. Andrew Parker

    Andrew Parker Senior Member

    Aug 12, 2015
    It wasn't a surprise to see Oldhead and Dalork all over the new Squape X as I know your vaping preferences. I, too, was fascinated and intrigued by the new design of the chamber and the air-flow which is a bit of a departure from MTL for Stattqualm.

    I purchased the SMJY clone about 3 months ago (also from 3FVape) and on the back of that, I purchased the authentic about 3 weeks ago.

    I may (or may not) do a comparison. But not today. I would like, however, to give my initial impressions which I think will be welcomed by the afore mentioned gentlemen.

    Gee, guys, it is so very hard to tell them apart. The build quality of the SMJY clone is so good it is a very viable alternative. Am I pleased to have spent the bucks on the authentic? Yes, I am.

    For a couple of reasons - I like the idea of having an authentic and very well made atomiser to go forward into an uncertain future where, maybe, our choices and supply become restricted. In this sense, my reasoning is that the authentic will be better made and last longer. I also like the idea that I have contributed to the effort that went into the design which was so easily and quickly stolen. However, this is my only authentic high end atomiser, so the righteousness has to be tempered with apologies to Svoemesto (I also have a SMJY Kayfun 5 clone).

    SMJY did a 1:1 clone and used 316 SS. They did this extremely well - even to the extent of the box it came in and the instruction manuals which I struggle to differentiate, but there are a couple of differences.

    The similarities first:
    1. Design and dimensions are almost exact - they may even be exact as I haven't bothered to measure something that could only prove to be micro-millimetres apart (except for the chimney section - see below).
    2. The grade of steel used is good (I would have said excellent but a difference is noticeable) but very much better than any other clone I possess (and I confess to one or two, or twenty).
    3. The edges are a little more rounded and have a more comfortable feel on the original, but the clone is very good - and, again, better than any clone I have of any other models.
    4. The threading smooth, improved with a bit of toothpaste, but so are many others, and perfectly acceptable.

    The differences:
    1. The most obvious is the two part chamber which is, on the SMJY clone, unfortunately, black. The original has a light beige colour and this works so much better! Perhaps others have had less problems than I have with being sure about which way to turn the body to close the juice flow. I have it written large on a white board in my study but when it doesn't seem to be working, you doubt it is correct (and start twisting it the other way!) With the authentic, you know. You can see it. With the clone, it appears the same colour open as closed - black, and I have resorted at times to poking a thin screwdriver into the AF opening to make sure. With the authentic you don't have to do this. In addition, I have had problems with the clone in either situating the upper part of the chamber, or that it has moved during use. This leads to problems with operating the bayonet fittings, making it more difficult to move between open/closed or access to the deck. The authentic isn't totally different in this respect and can present it own problems, seemingly dependent on whether the upper portion is located correctly.
    2. The intrusion of the chimney into the topmost area for filling seems to be greater for the clone than the original. This impacts on the small o-ring that sits inside of the milled top cap. On the clone this can lead to problems in replacing the top cap and ensuring the tightness of the chimney section (which requires a 4mm Allen Key) is important - something easily missed when refilling. With the clone, I have at times removed this o-ring and placed it over the chimney before securing the top cap. This improves airflow on the clone but is something I haven't felt necessary for the authentic.
    3. The steel is different. Both are supposed to be 316 SS, but the authentic looks and feels so much better. Is this 6-7 times better ? (the price ratio) - well hardly.
    4. The threading on the authentic is, as you would expect, perfect.
    Overall impressions of the two:- They are both excellent RBAs that will appeal to a certain sector of the market. Both present a very flexible way to achieve a MTL vape but which can be adapted to provide an acceptable direct lung inhale. I can appreciate both, so this atty works for me. I like the way that I can use dual coil or single coil, horizontal or vertical. I like the way I can adjust the air-flow. I like the way that I can close off the juice to work on the deck. I like the way that I can close off the juice flow for travel and know I won't have any leakage issues. Does the side air flow improve the vape? I'm not sure about this. It is more aligned with an RDA in this respect but I think I would have preferred an air-flow from beneath the coils. The Rose achieves a similar flavour production with its small ceramic heating chamber and bottom, but restricted, air flow but with everything else going on with the Squape X, this was probably an acceptable compromise. Is it better than the Rose? (something I'm very reluctant to admit) - well, yes, because it provides much more air flow and a simpler and more flexible deck to work on. Is it better than the Squape Reloaded? Well, yes, because it allows dual coil (and single) with much better air flow. I am, however, very keen on obtaining the dedicated single coil deck for the Squape X to see how it compares (sold out everywhere at the moment, so I'll have to wait).

    This is not an atomiser for the inexperienced - and I doubt that they would appreciate its charms. It requires experience to know how to use this. The wicking is a little tricky and the balance between too much and too little is fine. It will leak if you get this wrong or it will impede air flow- perhaps not drastically, but it can be annoying. I'm still experimenting with the positioning of the coils (especially the single coil) as I think this makes a big difference but I hope that time will tell and most good atomisers do take a while to master. But it does what Squapes do. It provides an amazing vape, full of flavour. The exceedingly small heating chamber and thin chimney delivers one of the best vapes for flavour imaginable outside of RDAs. And both do this, albeit with a slight difference in quality of the apparatus but little in the way of the end result. Is it noticeable between the two? I have to confess that, comparing the price differential, both do it exceedingly well with little difference.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2016
    Dalork likes this.
  6. Andrew Parker

    Andrew Parker Senior Member

    Aug 12, 2015
    By the way, for those of you who love flavour atomisers, have a look at the Advken 'Omega' nano.

    A very understated and under-appreciated atomiser which can be picked up very cheaply at the moment. It has a very small chamber and thin and short chimney but allows dual coil with very good bottom fed air flow. Comes with a fantastic bell cap included in the price which is the way I use it and it is very simple to use. It does have a bottom fill mechanism but if you have used a Kayfun Lite Plus, this will be very familiar and this does have some very definite advantages in terms of vacuum and leaking.

    Highly recommended.
    rupert likes this.

Share This Page