Srixon Q-Star Tour Opinions?

[BeerPerHole]

Yeah. If they were the same price I'd take the Z Star because I like a firmer ball, especially off the tee (odd as that might sound). I'm a 16, though, and so I think the differences are just about negligible for me. My regular ball is the MTB-X. Very firm off the driver, but strangely not too firm on the approach.

[CDLgolf]

I've been playing the QST since they came out. For me the ball does everything I need a ball to do at a price I like.

[mcmac]

If you get a chance, listen to the recent Podcast here on WRX with one of the Srixon reps. He states that the Q Star and the Z Star have the exact same cover and dimple pattern. Compression rating is the difference between the two balls. With that in mind, green side behavior and and putting should be the same. I’ve played both for years and really like the feel of them, especially for putting.

My swing speed is slowing as I age, so I find the Q Star a nice ball that feels like the premium balls. For those of us that don’t compress the ball well enough to play Pro V’s or other high compression balls, these work well.

[3woodvt]

Just purchased 10 6-packs of the Z star 6(version) from Golf discount on line, and came out to 99.90.  Free shipping over 100.00 so instead of 8.99 shipping charge so grabbed a 6 pack of Q Tours for 8.99.  I've played Z and XV for the last 7 years and love this series and the price point (9.99 6 packs so 20.00 a dozen for premium Z stars).  I play to a 1 and SS has dropped to 98-102SS with age.  Thought I'd grab a lower compression QST for a trial.  Recently moved from XV to Z for 90 compression instead of 102, thought the QST and its 72 compression for the winter months but I fear it will be just too soft feeling for my preferences.  Good topic and thanks.  looking forward to trying out the QST when I receive them.  I'll give my 2 cents after comparing as I've been a loyal Srixon ball fan for years now.  I see others mistakingly refer to the QST as a 2-piece but its a 3 piece like the Z....a little less spin in the winter is a good thing for me and hoping for when hitting into soft rotten wet winter greens....the Z sucks back off the green more than I like with the wedges during the winter....thus the trial...maybe it can be my Dec-March ball.

 

[SubaruWRX]

I bought a bunch back in October when Golf Galaxy has them for $9.98/dozen. They’re fantastic at that price.

 

If they were any more expensive, I’d get the Z-Star 6 packs. The Z is a much better ball for me in every aspect.

[arbeck]

Having the same cover doesn't mean that green side behavior and putting behavior is the same. You can actually compress the cover on both of those kinds of shots. A soft cover being pinched against a harder mantle/core will generate more spin than when it pinches up a against a softer mantle/core. The softer core will cause less spin on almost all shots. I truly doubt you are swinging slow enough where a ball could be too firm for you to compress. You need to be down below 60MPH for that to happen. Firmer balls almost always are going to be faster than softer balls, for all swing speeds. Now the difference in ball speed narrows considerably as your swing speed slows. So at 90MPH, you're only losing a fraction of a MPH of ball speed, and that is usually counteracted by the less spin giving more distance. But slow swing speed players are also usually low spin players, and they might not really be able to give up that much spin.

[brew4eagle]

I've found them to perform similar around the greens. I feel like I don't give anything away around the greens with either ball, they're both great with short game shots. QST a tad better off the tee for me.

[ChaosTheory]

I should revise my earlier comments. I found out that I am using the first generation of these. (Which didn't wow me.)

I'm still playing them, and I do think they behave well on the greens. Not seeing any obvious grab like I sometimes get with the premium balls, but OTOH there is enough grab that the ball is very controllable. The cover durability is not as good as the Z Star was for me. Since they are now using the exact same cover as the Z Star, I'm going to try the newest ones.

[wjdpar1]

I have played the new version of the Q Star Tour for 18 holes. Still evaluating but IMO:

It very durable

It has a soft feel

Seems to have better green side manners (but nowhere near a pro V1)

Feels good chipping

Feels good putting

more later...........

 

 

[CougarRed]

I too have noticed the high launch with the QST off the driver. And in the great ball test, QST was on the highest launch, lowest spin end of the spectrum. (Unfortunately, it also exhibited lower ball speed).

So next round, I will adjust my driver from 10.5 to 9.5 (and maybe 8.5) to see if that improves distance with QST while maintaining an adequate trajectory.

I have a feeling quality control is another difference between QST and Z Star. Certainly the dispersion in the great ball test would suggest so, and it would make sense why it's cheaper.

Other highest launch, lowest spin balls include Callaway ERC Soft, Bridgestone Tour BXS and Titleist Tour Soft. Almost as high launch, low spin were Taylormade TP5x, Snell MTB Black, Bridgestone BRX and Titleist AVX.

 

 

[arbeck]

I'm totally with you on QC issues. The Q Star shouldn't be any cheaper to make than a Z Star, so they're either making less profit, or they are saving cost somewhere else.

[HyzerFlipDG]

Anyone find that the new cover with Serm isn't as soft as the previous gen? Any other differences people have noticed?

[Frisco Kid]

I’ve been playing QST for the past two seasons exclusively since the Gamer Soft was discontinued.

For me QST is long enough and never had an issue stopping the ball on greens. Inside 100, it’s one hop and stop plus it’s very consistent in putting feel and distance.

Been trying to just stick with one ball model and with nearly a gross of these left, I’m committed to the QST for quite some time.