I did a search can can't seem to find any documentation on the this. Did anyone ever dyno their car after the non-seq mod, if so can you please post the dyno graph for everyone, thanks.
P.S.
I can't see any reason why the max power and torque would be different between the seq and non seq, the only difference should be the power band charactoristics. I am very curious to see the difference between the two.

 

I will have a dyno sheet next Sunday the 16th

So if anyone posts theirs i will be able to compare them.

 

Here's a comparison that Fritz did a while back...it's not the same car tho.

http://www.micromanx.com/goble/rx7/p...3/compare.html

You can also look on my projects page to see some before and after dyno charts...however, I did a bunch more mods when I went full non-seq. But it's clear that the mid-range is much smoother and more powerful.

Top-end should be the same between stock-seq and non-seq. If you go full non-seq, you may get a little extra power (I did) mainly because there is less retrictions when you go full non-seq.

http://www.micromanx.com/goble/rx7/projects.html

 

I posted mine a few weeks ago.

https://www.rx7club.com/forum/showth...threadid=81652

 

I post this back in March...

------------------------------------

Well, I've been talking about my dyno run for a while, and talking about how happy I am with my non-seq (welded gate, ported wastegate)

Here is my dyno sheet:



My mods are basically the M2 Stage 3 kit, with the non-seq turbos

Here is a copy of a dyno sheet with the M2 Stage 3 kit and regurlar sequential turbos.


(note, I normalized the data between the two sheets, for ease of comparison)

Conclusions:
All things being as equal as I can see, my non sequential setup gives better overall power, over a wider rpm range, coming on sooner, and lasting longer.

Turbo lag is non apparent, and the torque is lovely and linear. There is no 'kick in the ***' between 4500 and 5000. Infact, at 4500, I'm already above 250 hp, while the stock seq setup goes from 200 - 270 in a very short range. Also notice that I'm above 300 hp from around 5200 to 6200.

From my dynosheet, you can see that my wastegate opened at 11lbs, right around 5000, and there is some flapping, and 'breakup' or whatever, but it is less violent and shorter lasting than stock.

I started the path to non-sequential because of chronic boost problems. Now that I've had solid, reliable boost for 3+ months, I will never go back. Add in my dyno results and torque curve, and I would encourage any of you that have boost probelms to go totally non-seq.

 

On the post above posted in March, I stated that I had reliable boost for 3 months... well make that 6 months now. No problems at all... infact, this is the longest time I've gone without working on my engine setup... no new mods this year, no changes. I'm very very happy with my non-seq.

The only things to be awear of are the increase in noise ( I love the sound tho)... but a cat-back and dp causes a much greater jump in noise levels.

One last thing, I'm now 100% non-seq.. I can't go back unless I get new turbos, solonoids, hoses, etc. I wouldn't go back anyhow... I love the setup.

 

Thanks for the info guys.
Rotarynews, looking at your dyno chart I noticed that the rpm range above 300hp is the same for both cases, just shifted by about 800 rpms. (non-seq 5200-6200, seq 5800-6800). Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the reason for having the seqential setup is to get low end performance? That doesn't seem to be the case here, the low end appears to be better in the non-seq setup. Did Mazda engineer a complex useless boost system (god knows it wouldn't be the first engineering fauxpas they made)? Anyone else notice this on their non-seq conversion?
The plot thickens........................