Originally Posted by rynberg

See, that same thing gets said whenever I point out the cons of going non-sequential. I never said it wasn't daily drivable, just a lot less fun.


I've been tracking the car for two years, LOL. I'm aware of the downfalls of the sequential system. I don't have my head in the sand like quite a few FD owners about their setup, whatever it may be.


Oh really? Rich and Stephen have both laid down over 400 rwhp at reasonable boost levels....sounds similar to what the vast majority of single-turbo cars are running.


Gee, I guess you enjoy accelerating like a V6 Honda Accord around town? It's called throttle response -- and I like to have it without having to cruise around at 3500+ rpm. It's nice, even on the open highway, to easily pass and zip around without REQUIRING a downshift.


Bullshit. Show me a single turboed car hitting 80-100k like a twin car. The only thing a single turbo is more reliable than the seq twins is boost response/consistency.


A lot of these statements in this thread are the same old tired crap. It seems like a lot of single-turbo guys have their heads in the sand. EVERY setup, whether it's seq twins, non-seq twins, upgraded twins, or single turbo, has its pros and cons. Intelligent and wise people realize this.

A single turbo gives you more consistent boost over seq twins and is easier to troubleshoot. A larger single has more power potential than upgraded twins. But the powerband is significantly narrower and, with larger singles especially, the powerband is also hard to control in anything but a straight line (and sometimes even then!). It's just plain ignorant to act like a single turbo is better than seq twins in EVERY way, because it's simply not true.

I should be making the power of a smaller-sized single, with a powerband from 2800-8000 rpm, with these BNR Stage 3s run sequentially. Yes, there are the normal seq twin cons, which I am very well aware of. It's all about how you drive the car and what you want out of the experience.