Nope.

 

I never will. I love the sequential setep (and the headaches it can bring).

 

ohh man sequential is WAY better than non seq in my opinion. I had a perfect boost pattern 10-8-10 and then went to non seq added a midpipe and fuel pump and upped the boost to 12psi and the car did feel faster but it was more like a racecar and I had to floor it for 5 seconds before I was really going anywhere. For street driving sequential is really really fun but I tend to think that non seq is faster in the 1/4 mile and more helpful at roadraces/autocrosses. Now I have a t66 single and that turbo although it hits full boost ~500 rpms later than non sequential FEELS way less laggy than the twins and is very smooth.

I don't want to argue with you guys but those who agree with me have good taste Stay sequential as long as you can

 

In THAT situation, you are right. However, if you do a higher speed entrance, say in 4th gear until just after transition, and then shift into 5th, you will be stuck in non-sequential until you drop below 3k rpm. Trust me, it's very noticeable when you are cruising at 3200 rpm and have almost no throttle response. It does happen at town speeds too but it's much less noticeable.

It seems like the PFC either likes gentle driving or full-out, not somewhere in the middle.

 

oh and why don't people do the turbo simplification?

that clears up your engine bay and makes the setup very relaiable and simple. Only thing that can fail then is a solenoid or valve but that should be easy to figure out if it ever happens since you can check all of the hoses easily (i believe 26 total) and then you know to start looking at the solenoids that control the pattern of boost that is going wrong on your car.

people dont know about it I dont think
non seq is advertized on here

 

Not everyone is fortunate enough to live in a non-emissions testing state....

 

how do you know the vacuum diagram for the simplification? and why do it?

 

http://www.rx7turboturbo.com/robrobi...lification.htm

The simplification removes the emissions part of the car which removes a lot of the vacuum line hassles but retains the sequential turbo operation.

If you don't have emissions testing in your area and you are using a midpipe, it's an option for you. If you have to pass emissions, it's not an option.

 

If you can stand keeping two more solenoids and the ACV, much can still be eliminated while keeping the car emissions testing friendly.

 

i know that this is probally a stupid question, but when you do the simplification you stay seq right? and i am stright piped 3"s and i have a friend that does emissions for me, so does that mean that i should do it?

 

It doesn't mean you should, it just means that you can.

 

amen to that

 

so when you do this, do you take out the "rats nets" of vacuum lines?

 

No, read the link:

http://www.rx7turboturbo.com/robrobi...lification.htm

 

Where do you think the exhaust load is going while you're spooling up in 5th while not downshifting? Spooling the turbos of course - that is to be expected. But, only so much torque you can actually be utilized in 4th or 5th gear, so where is the rest of it going? Out the wastegate. This is actually wasting power.

But when it comes down to it, is it really necessary to constantly have instant turbo spool just to handle standard highway manuevering?

I don't even think the weight of my argument is seq vs non-seq. It's more about using the advantages of a manual transmission as it was designed to be used. There's really no reason to be lugging the car at 3000 rpm and relying on turbos.

 

i dont wanna get in the way of your guys' debate, but just to put down another point for non-seq....

i have plenty of passing power in 5th at 60-80mph, and im not even "full" non-seq...im poor-mans. maybe its just me, but i dont know when my car is EVER below 2500...and even in non-seq mode i have enough "feelable" boost by 2800-3000 to satisfy me.

 

IMO, waiting for two turbos to come online at the same time when you don't have to is wasting power. It's all in what you want for the car. As I said earlier, it's personal preference as to what each person likes.

I don't think anyone was saying you wouldn't have "passing power" on the highway. Honestly, on the highway is probably where you won't notice the difference. Putting around town is where you will.

 

What about full non-seq verses poor mans non-seq? Is there any difference in power between the 2? I was considering going non-seq for the spring and wanted to do the poor mans version to see if I like it or if I wanted to work my bugs out and stay sequential... some heavy opinions either way ... I do lots of street driving but I will want to drag it and try autocross as well.

 

Can I go full non sequential by pulling the turbos out etc. BUT leave my rats nest intact for now?

 

And my solution to this:

Downshift!

Also, while you're waiting for two turbos to come online, the boost is building in parallel, not serial like the seq setup. Linear acceleration.

Why don't we just boil it down to reality:

Pro-seq people want the hard punch of the first turbo immediately because it gives them the "my car is fast" warm fuzzies - where as non-seq users would like a more predictable and linear power-band (which is what the goal is anyways!) in addition to less crap and antiquated "sophistication" under the hood. When I'm putting around town, I don't just point and shoot and nail the accelerator. I downshift when I need to get around something and take advantage of the car's gearing first, turbos second.

On a track, no contest, non-seq wins.

 

Once again, opinion, but everyone is entitled to their own.

 

Well if you pull the turbos, then you won't be non-sequential, you'll just be non . I mean.... yes, you can, it's called the poormans non-seq, do a search on here for directions.


Mahjik I couldn't agree more. These threads always boil down to personal preference. I prefer the simplicity and reliability of non-seq over the hassles but quicker spool of seq. Some people like the quick spooling seq regardless of the systems complexity and greater chance of failure.

To each his (or her ) own

 

go get em mahjik..rynberg....lol

911 ..I sure wish Id have gone over to worcester before i left boston. i dont think you would have ever said anything about your non seq love again.


j

 

Dont rotary engines have general better functionallity at high RPMs anyway? I say let the motor move the car not the turbo!

Doesnt anyone have dyno results for a comparsion of NON seq to seq (everything else remaining constant, and preferrably stock)?

 

Completely stock?

The torque and hp curves will be exactly the same above 4500 rpm. From 4000-4500 rpm, the non-sequential will be a little stronger. From 2000-4000 rpm, the sequential car will beat the ever-living **** out of the non-seq car. Does that sum it up well enough?