FD3RotorTurbo

iTrader: (1)

I was jus wondering how many ppl out there have the non sequential setup? and if you like it or not? cause i am thinkin about doind it...

rynberg

Why are you thinking about doing it? Do you have turbo-control issues that you can't solve? Do you road race? Are you pushing over 15 psi?

If you answered no to all those, I don't know why you would even consider it.

On a close to stock car, your car will feel like a dog until 3800 rpm or so.....

dubulup

I went Full non-seq, and was kind-of disappointed at the low end torque/response...then you hit 3k! after that boost builds linearly and will throw you back in your seat and keep you there thru redline. So don't get me wrong I like it and it's probably more safe to drive, but the ~225 ft-lbs of torque I used to have at 2500rpms isn't there spinning my tires anymore.

So if you like low end torque don't do it. IF you like nice smooth power and high rev driving and a simple engine bay to work on, try it...I always think one day, I'll build the seq system back up...but SOOOO many things have to go right and the right time for it to work, other wise you might just get a primary turbo machine that gives at 4500rpms...like a few FD owners I've met.

TwinTurbo93

I went non-seq too and I was kinda dissapointed the first 2-3 day's till I got used to, I was also running very low boost first few day's, now I'm running 14psi and would never go back to seq. setup, keeps full boost all the way to red line.

FD3RotorTurbo

iTrader: (1)

i am jsu sick off all the **** that comes with the seq setup. and this is what i dont understand... whay would you need seq? cause if you are gunning it then when you shift gears you are already in the 2nd turbo range so the primary would have no use...

FD3RotorTurbo

iTrader: (1)

what did it cost you after all said and done?

teamstealth

well technically...it costs nothing. Maybe a few feet in vaccuum line. and if you want to do the FULL nonsequential, u need some resistors from Radio Shack and a set of Block off plates for about $60 (you can make them urself out of sheet aluminum....but the pre made ones are worth the expense IMO) I did the full NS conversion after 6 months of the seq system giving me 10-5-3....havent looked back since

RotaryMagic

Any increase in gas mileage? hahaha, j/w as it would be a cheap excuse to do it.

rynberg

I see people post that all the time and it makes me want to pull my hair out. I don't go around racing all the time. I like being around town or the highway and being able to get great throttle response at 2500 rpm. I have a Power FC and so I can experience what non-sequential feels like anytime I want -- it sucks.

And let's be honest, 75% of people who go non-sequential do so because of sequential problems. Afterwards, they tend to justify that they think the car is more enjoyable to drive as non-seq. I think that's BS.

Non-sequential only makes more power than sequential from about 3500-4500 rpm. After that, the power is the same. Below 3500 rpm, the sequential will put out a LOT more power.

Like I said before, non-sequential is great for road racing where linear response helps and also for running a LOT of boost where you can't afford a power spike at transition. For normal driving, non-seq is terrible.

My 3 cents.

streetdreamzny

iTrader: (6)

my turbos were working fine when i switched to non-seq
i think its alot better to drive around town or if you get caught in the rain. its pretty hard not to hit boost with seq but with non-seq you could drive all day and never hit boost. also i drag alot and non-seq is definatley better on the track

clayne

A couple things.

1. The Power FC "no-seq" mode is not the same.

2. People seem to have an aversion about down-shifting in their cars. If you need torque immediately - downshift.

rynberg

I'm not talking about the non-seq setting. I'm talking about when you shift gears while in twin mode and you shift to a point above 3k rpm. You will be in non-sequential until the revs drop below 3k rpm. I find this annoying when getting on the highway as the car is a complete dog until I kick the clutch to drop the revs. It doesn't happen around town much.


2. People seem to have an aversion about down-shifting in their cars. If you need torque immediately - downshift. [/QUOTE]

That's justifying having no low-end torque IMO. The point is I don't want to HAVE to downshift just to accelerate. You don't seem to get that with the seq setup, you don't HAVE to downshift to have torque, it's already there. I like cruising at 75-80 mph on the freeway in 5th and just nudging the throttle to accelerate into an opening. Or cruising in town at 2500 mph and just nudging the throttle to get around someone or fit into an opening in traffic. You can't do these things with non-seq unless you drive around at 4k rpm all the time. No thanks. Like I said, non-seq has it's place, but street driving isn't it.

I've never had a problem driving in the rain and controlling the car, if that's what you are talking about. If I do, I can just turn off my Profec and only get a slower spooling 7 psi.

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

How about if you are sitting still?

FD3RotorTurbo, you should find someone local (or even in the LA area) who has done the conversion to see if it's something you would like. To me, it's a waste of time on the stock twins. I'd rather fight sequential problems than go non-seq on the stock twins.

Running upgraded turbos like the BNR Stage 3's would be something different.

clayne

Yes, it's a small engine, it doesn't have low-end torque like a larger displacement engine would have. Yes we use turbos to increase the volumetric effeciency of the engine to make up for it's smaller amount of displacement compared to larger engines with more immediate torque.

That being said, you still need to shift gears.

Is it really that hard to disengage the clutch, move the shifter, and re-engage the clutch?

While you may be into the instant gratification of the sequential setup, I am not into the non-linear aspects of it's torque output.

I have absoultely no problem downshifting to get around people - sequential or non-sequential.

You might as well just buy a roots supercharger and throw it on.

Then you surely aren't hammering it in first, or you're going nowhere .

clayne

I should also mention that some people's frustration with downshifting to get torque appears purely to be an American thing.

911GT2

I can fry my tires as good as anyone off the line. I think thats plenty of torque for me thanks

Non-seq is the way to go. Cleaner engine bay, many less problems, and no usable loss of power. If I'm driving my car in a spirited fashion, my revs are rarely below 3500 rpms. I get a solid 5-7 psi by then, which is plenty to propel the car very, very quickly.

Around town I think it's actually more enjoyable, because the car can be as slow, docile, and civilized as it needs to be. I can go in 1st gear without building boost and risking a spinout in the rain or snow. Which brings me to my next point. Many inexperienced drivers (me included) have had issues with either spinning the car, or coming damn close because of the quick boost building of the seq, especially at the transition. I have never had issues with this with non-seq, because the throttle response is much more linear and predictable.

True Rynberg, you do lose some of that wonderful awe inspiring passing ability while on the highway in 5th. But my typical highway cruise is at 80 mph, which is approximately 3k rpms in 5th. There is plenty of power to get out of harms way, or into an opening as fast as I deem necessary. That doesn't mean its as fast as seq, but it is fast enough.

clayne

The fact of the matter is that I could have already downshifted to 4th and already be into boost with a non-seq setup while the seq-setup guy is waiting for boost to build completely in 5th (not to mention the crappiness of 5th gear in general). Guess downshifting ain't worth it eh?

Same experiment with 3rd vs 2nd, 4th vs 3rd.

rynberg

I think it's been too long since you were seq if you think you have to wait for boost in 5th gear. A NUDGE of the throttle is usually enough to get 10+ psi damn near instantly. Whereas when the PFC leaves the car in non-seq, you DO have to downshift to get any power.

Well, everybody has their own opinion, I guess. Arguing the merits of seq vs non-seq is akin to an abortion debate -- neither side will change their mind and civil debates usually degenerate into flame wars...

RX7SpiritR

iTrader: (1)

I'm going non-seq too for several reasons, almost all of them are probably the same reasons everyone else went non-seq.

clayne

But see that's the fun part about debates is the assumptions the other party makes.

My car IS sequential.

I have DRIVEN non-sequential on more than one occasion and know the response to be smooth, linear, and expected.

Yes you build boost in 5th relatively fast, but you can't really do much with it due to the shitty gear ratios. As long as you have powerband left in a lower gear, the lower gear will be better.

But more seriously, what are you referring to with the PFC reverting to non-seq style mode?

You mentioned:

Something is not right here. If you get on the highway let's say in 2nd, punch it, feel the primary then secondary after, with full pull to redline, then shift to 3rd (obviously above 3.5krpm in the next gear) you're saying you expect to feel a difference in pull or that you actually feel less pull (not attributed to difference in gearing)?

From the shifting point into 3rd of course it will be non-seq as the entire concept of sequential is out of the picture at that point.

Besides, it's serial (seq) vs parallel (non-seq) boost buildup and intake compression. When it comes down to CFM figures, the simpler system will win.

Something also to consider is the fact that SEQ-turbo was put into use on the FD without the array of turbocharger options we have today. If Mazda ever did a major revision of the FD, I wouldn't be surprised to see them go to turbo with a GT25 or 60-1 style setup.

BoostCrzy

i also am running in non-sequential.....i get full boost at around 3500rpm(third gear) and power stays linear through redline....response is still good and i have no problems what-so-ever with city driving in this setup(the car actually feels more responsive to me from a dead stop)...i have 2 friends that still use the sequential setup and i spool just as quick if not quicker when we race....(unless its from a 20mph roll in 5th..lol)....my mods are on the page in my sig....im running at 13-14 psi.....my only complaint is the fact that the car is now noticeably louder at idle and cruise.....lol....

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

Basically, sure, you can get used to everything (i.e. needing to downshift more when running non-seq). However, the sequential system allows you to not NEED to shift just to get power.

For me, my car is on the streets more than it is on the track. So I do spend quite a bit of time below 4000 rpms. I'll take my full boost below 2500rpms and be happy. IMO, one turbo at full boost is better than none.

Everyone likes what they like. However, the basic facts are:

Sequential: One turbo, full boost by 2500 rpms. Both turbos full boost at 4500 rpms

Non-Sequential: Both turbos, full boost around 4000 rpms.

There definitely is a "huh" factor when waiting for both turbos to come online in non-sequential mode, however many people like it. Many people don't.

Decide what's best for you.

FD3RotorTurbo

iTrader: (1)

all you say that the NS spools around 4000RPM, but i heard that if you have a stright pipe (MP,DP, Cat back) and a intake that you will get full boost around 2800-3000RPM. is that true?

DaPlaya96

So does this mean the Seq. people will never go to a single turbo setup?

TwinTurbo93

That is 100% true!