Hi..

I just bought a bnr stage 3 for my fd3s and they are for sec.running,I now thinking about running them non sec. is it just for me to change the vaccume lines or do I have to do something else?

 

Much more to it than that. Keep them sequential, they are fantastic that way. If you want to go non-sequential or higher horsepower, go single.

 

there's more to it than just "switching vac lines"

search: rich man's non seq - that is the best way to do it.

or look, here: https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...ht=seq+diagram

 

If you have operational sequential twins... dont go non-sequential. If you don't care for sequential twins, go single. Don't waste a good set of bnrs on a sequential setup. I have yet to meet someone that has sequential bnrs that was unhappy.

You won't gain any power just by going nonsequential... a negligible amount of top end... for a LOT of sacrifice in the low end.

 

This man speaks the truth.

 

don't listen to all these fools. non-seq is 1000% more reliable. ditch the rats nest.

look up the number of threads about boost pattern issues with seq, then look up the number about boost issues with non-seq. lol

when i went non-seq i didn't notice any low end power loss or additional lag. i attribute this to the better internal flow of exhaust though the manifolds and air through the Y pipes - not having all those silly flappers in there and such.

 

The main thing I like about running non-seq was the ease of regular driving and it did give me less fuel consumption.

The reason I did it was because I was at one auto-x event and there was a turn that I just hit the transition point when exiting a turn and it was killing me compared to my friend running non-seq.

 

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this.... There is a night and day difference between a sequential and non-seq. NO additional lag? I don't think so.... For general purpose use, a properly functioning sequential will run away and hide from the non-sequential before it has a chance to spool.

The improvements in flow are largely mythical too; it may amount to a few horsepower, at best.

 

The difference isn't that big in lag. A full non-seq conversion will initially spool fully 300-400 rpms later than a seq set up. I don't remember when full boost was available in either configuration, it has been a few years since I rode in a stock FD. I do know that the difference wasn't that dramatic. As for horse power difference I think is all bs. They are the same turbos delivery the same amount of air, there is just isn't a transition point. I do like the linear power delivery of a full non-seq set up though but also like the "push you in the seat" of the transitioning at 4500 rpm in a seq system.

 

is it anyone that can lay out a link to witch vaccume diagram I can use when I whant to have the a/c together with fpr and boost controller,
there are so many diagrams and I dont know witsh one is the one for me

 

sequential and non sequential operation greatly changes the driving feel of the car, regardless of what boost is achieved at a particular rpm

 

The difference in boost is NOT just 300-400 rpm. The boost pattern in sequential hits 10psi MUCH sooner than non-sequential. And it is VERY noticeable.


poor man's non-seq conversion is for those too lazy to learn how to have a reliable sequential system. The benefits are next to nothing overall, and the drawbacks are very apparent. Besides, you have BNR's.... you can still hit awesome peak numbers AND get to keep the benefits of sequential operation... WIN-WIN

rich-man's non-seq is for those trying to get the highest PEAK power out of the stock twins... the lag is still there. You might as well go single. Sell your bnr's and use that money and the money saved from a rich man's non-seq to get a single turbo that will be more efficient all-around versus non-sequential twins.

non-seq twins will ALWAYS be less efficient than a comparable single. Always. No matter what. Physics works.

 

You guys are missing one major point---- the newer iteration of the BNR 3s have larger turbine wheels, thus making them pretty laggy non-seq (and definitely laggier than stock twins non-seq).

I made a bunch of changes at once so it's not apples to apples, but my current 500R (with a larger 67mm compressor wheel) has much better response then my old BNR3s did.

Same engine, larger diameter exhaust and GZ LIM on the 500R setup.

BNRs are fantastic bang for the buck, but I'd highly recommend keeping them sequential.

 

bullshit? i've had two FD's now. both were sequential when i got them with perfect 10-8-10 boost patterns. on my current FD, when i went non-seq, i really did not notice much difference other than the lack of the 2psi drop at the transition. how is that bullshit? i went from a non-ported stock motor with seq stockers to a ported motor with non-seq stockers using the "rich man's" method. like i said, i didn't notice much difference.

i'm not sure what cars you have driven that were seq and then went non-seq, but if you do it right (rich man's method) it's not as much of a difference in spool/lag.

sure, with B&R's im sure you might notice a bit of difference, as rich said, due to the larger wheels, but honestly, for the added reliability and simplicity of non-seq, you can't beat it IMO - unless you're willing to spend mad time diagnosing boost pattern problems every time a vac hoses pops off / breaks, or a solenoid goes bad. haha

 

Because stock turbo cars have such huge turbos...

 

So what you're saying is that you have no experience with BNR turbos (not B&R btw)...

This thread isn't about stock twins bro. You're coming across like a real jerk/know-it-all when, in fact, you have NO basis for comparison on the subject.

Oh yeah, I'm running 17.5 psi on my SEQUENTIAL BNRs all day, every day (when I'm not deployed), and I'm not seeing all these problems you're so scared of. Granted, I've only been doing it for a year or so though...

Bottom line, if you're going to take the time to make BNRs non-sequential, and do all the mods to get the most out of them, then you might as well just go with a good single turbo since you're spending the money anyway.

 

how am i coming across as a jerk by stating that: NON-SEQ IS MORE RELIABLE THAN SEQ!?

non seq vs seq is the same argument, no matter what type of twins you're talking about, stockers, 99spec, BNR, etc.

reliability & simplicity.

if you want to talk about the slight differences in spool time, that's fine, but all i have been suggesting is that non-seq is the way to go for this reason.

that's a fact. so suck a d.



VERSUS

 

OOOOOOoooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh!! Tom told you to suck a D!!!

In my opinion, if you take the time to do all your vacuum hoses over I would stay sequential. I have non-sequential twins and the lag isnt too bad but I'm guessing it'd be far more noticeable with BNRs. If you're having boost issues with a sequential setup then go with a GT35R or something similar instead of non-sequential BNRs.

 

My BNR's will be hopefully installed tomorrow or Tuesday so I might have more to say on those. I have chose to stay sequential, but I have done a back to back comparison on stock turbos with non-seq and sequential. Too me the difference was huge.

I think the difference is huge based on MY DRIVING STYLE. Stock sequential delivers boost quickly at very low RPM's while the non sequential does not. In order for them to be comparable you would need to down shift.

I am pretty sure if you raced the two cars then it would be close. But general driving in low RPM's there is no comparison, sequential all the way.

Yes I would say that non seq is more reliable, but if I wanted that kind of boost pattern I would just buy a single turbo.

 

I vote for seq.

Never had any problems the 2 years I had my car that way. The only thing I didn't like about my seq setup was the transition point at 4500rpm. If this is a problem 4 you, consider the non seq.

Name calling in post 16 and 17 is lame, come on. grow up

 

I am currently going richmans non sequential and i will never go back to the stock vacuum Headache.

 

I have never understood the simplification argument. Most of the so-called simplification involves removing emissions solenoids and hoses, which have nothing to do with the turbo operation in the first place (and are not typically a cause of failure in the operation of the system).

The difference between sequential and non-sequential control hardware involves three actuators (which rarely fail), a CRV (which almost never fails), three solenoids (which do, but are easily debugged and are cheap to replace), some check valves (which should be replaced with failure-free Viton ones), some hoses (which, again, should be upgraded to Viton or Silicone for years of failure-free operation), and some pressure chambers (which almost never fail).

The hoses, check valves and solenoids can be replaced over a weekend (for not very much money).

Sacrificing a shitload of low end torque on an already torque-challenged car to avoid what essentially involves some basic maintenance is something I find hard understand.

 

mine are seq and i have no problem what so ever, i am hopefully getting it tuned in nov.. if it were me i would just go single instead of non seq

 

You're only really sacrificing torque while street driving the car. If you're racing, once you're over 3500rpm in 1st gear and keeping the revs up you will never know the difference. The advantage is its just so much easier to maintain and doesnt give many problems, thats probably the reason RE-Amemiya's togue cars are non-sequential stockers.

 

If you are above 5k rpm all of the time, sequential makes no sense. Tracking a car is a whole other ball of wax.