donny

Those of you that have gone non-sequential, do you like it?
I have brand new 99twins, straight through exhaust, a new 3mm street ported engine, front mount intercooler, and all the other goodies. But I also am having a major problem with the sequential set-up right now and we cant find the source. I get no boost for a few seconds after a short WOT run.
I am losing my patience with the sequential set-up. I know the system very well but it is getting to be a routine thing to have my car on jack-stands. I think its on them more than it is on the road.
Just wondering if those of you with non-sequential would recommend it, or should I sell my new 99s and go single again.

Thanks, Donny

Jay7 Nyc

iTrader: (3)

single again? single is probably your best bet if you want to put down serious HP numbers.. If you stay with your twins go non-sequential, less crap under the hood and alil less headache.. I'm going non-sequential real soon.

DCrosby

Me too, I had the option of getting '99 's at cost, or going Gt35/40, I went 35/40 Now where's that manifold
(Haven't been able to gather all the parts)

CYM TKT

iTrader: (4)

I like my non seq. I pretty much have everything you have and I am using 4x 850 cc injectors. I run 13 psi on low boost and 15 on high. I must say its a little laggy, but definetly liveable, and when it hits, it hits a lot harder than when they were seq...

RotorJoe

Just suck it up and go single. The non seq don't build full boost tell about 3800 or so and I think a single would build full boost around there. Plus the single will kick in harder when it does. To me it sounds like the non seq turbos are working very hard to hit 14-17 psi. Plus it looks nasty in that area. A single set up looks real clean. I also think you can produce more hp with a single at the same boost level as the non seq twins. I believe CFM is the reason. I wish I had a large single.

1QWIK7

iTrader: (33)

yeah, pretty much if you cant afford a good single, go non sequential, like said above, almost less headaches and it clears up some engine bay room..its like the closest thing to going single..

but the only thing that sucks is that if you're daily driving, its annoying cause you dont start moving til like 4k rpm, you dont have that instant power delivery found in seq..but at least it moves higher in the rpm range

o btw, im non seq and i love it (my fd is not a daily driver)

rdavidsrx7

if ya got the 99's, don't they have a smaller primary compressor to aid in spool when sequential. This should hurt the top end and high boost CFM.
Just my opinion...and I'm no genius

Bob

evot23

iTrader: (17)

Love my nonsequential, but only went that route as a step towards the single. I think single is the way to go.

jpandes

I went non-sequential 2 years ago because I couldn't(or was too lazy to) trouble shoot my seq boost issues. I haven't had an problem with it since. I wish it wasn't so laggy but the trade off for reliable, linear & predictable boost is worth it.

Go for it. You can search around and find the Po' man's non-seq how-to and do the conversion in an hour and a half. And if you don't like it you can easily convert it back to seq. Just keep the instructions.

wickedrx7

iTrader: (14)

What do you want to do with your car? Street driven only, drag racing, autocross, track events.

Street driven and autocross stay sequential, Drag or track events, I would recomen non-seq.

It is really nice not to have that stupid transition on track events, that is why I went non-seq.

Also do a search, this has been debated more that Jim's v8 rx7. Do whatever fits you best.

donny

when going to non-sequential, does the Power Fc need to be changed for proper boost?

Also, what is "laggy". Are we talking T78 laggy or Apexi single turbo/T04s?

cewrx7r1

iTrader: (2)

You laggy people are wimps! If you want low end torque, drive a friggin truck.

I drive non-seq and sure it has lag if you drive it like a piece of low reving crap. Drive it as a sporst car and then there isn't any problem.

What do do think the manual shift it for?

Maybe I should apologize because you have less than 320-350RWHP.

Snook

iTrader: (12)

donny I wouldn't do it
do the sequential simplification if you havent already. that puts it at about 26 hoses and 4 solenoids under the rack.

non seq is really laggy and the power isnt there to make up for it. If you do make big power your twins will last maybe 3-6 months

wReX

iTrader: (6)

Non-seq is great. Never any problems with vacuum hoses anymore and boost is a lot more controllable. I can drive around town without ever even hitting boost at all so it's not overkilling the turbos. My car put down 367rwhp on non-seq stock twins with 53k miles on them and they have been running like that for over a year. Sure it may spool at (oh no) 3800 but when it hits, it hits a lot harder.

FC Alex

My brother went non-seq, and neither of us like it. He had a lot more lag with only a bit more power topend to compensate. Eventually he ended up going single within a matter of months. I strongly suggest you go single instead.

1QWIK7

iTrader: (33)

i agree with wReX

for those of you who are saying non seq isnt good or is sucks are for people who either daily drive their fd or have a heavy *** foot and have to be moving in the lead all the time

like for me, im happy i have non seq, i think if i had that seq power, ill be trying to race everyone on the street, since i normally drive regular, i dont even hit boost on my trips, ill prob do a sprint run like once a week but that lasts for like 10 minutes.

and i also agree that when it hits, it hits hard.

particleeffect

i dunno, i didn't get very much time in it while non-seq, but he was also running stock ports.


considering how many parts could be malfunctioning right now on my car to make the secondary boost flaky at best (sometimes it's there, sometimes not), non-seq looks real good.

add to that the fact that my AC **** itself and i have to spend some time diagnosing some wiring aspects of that, and non-seq looks even better.

i'd rather be driving than working on the car and there are just too many separate pieces of the seq control system that can be broken on any one symptom...

losing a little down low power doesn't seem to be a bad trade off for reliability and a rock solid boost pattern.

tt2323

The moral of the story...try the temp. non-sequential to see if you like it...if you don't switch back and continue to work on the car on jackstands

impactwrench

I miss the instant oomph at lower revs but as others have said, launch at higher revs and you wont know the difference,other than now you can drive it, without working on it all the time

Montego

iTrader: (1)

Ok now that the first I've ever heard of this. Do you have a link?


I'm one who is sick and tired of boost issues but I know I would hate non-seq. I love how it responds intantaneously when i want to pass a car on the freeway. I don't drive the hell out of the car everytime I take out so I know it's not for me.

rynberg

Once again, most of the people who went non-seq did it because they couldn't solve a problem, and then do their best to justify the loss of low-end response to themselves and everyone else.

True, if my car was not a daily driver, non-seq might be acceptable. As far as problems go, I have 80k on my car with the original motor, turbos, and vacuum lines. I've had a check valve break and a line or two has popped off. That's been the total of my boost problems attributable to the seq system.

rynberg

The seq simplification removes all of the smog equipment, so you probably would not want to do it, being a fellow Cali owner.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

AAWW oh well there goes that idea. Thanks Rynberg.

particleeffect

little preachy eh? if you want low end power get a v8, the sequential turbo system hardly has low end power. if they justify it to themselves what else matters? you come of so damn judgemental on the issue.

donny

I already have the simplification done. I am thinking that I may have a problem with the computer (Power Fc) not sending the signals to the solenoids properly. I will know tomorrow after I run a couple of tests. I will be teeing a vacuum line/pressure gauge into the (pressure side) of the "turbo control actuator" and wiring a test light into the "negative" side of the appropriate solenoid. I figure, if there is pressure in that line when I should have boost at low rpms ( meaning the gate would be open )and the solenoid is getting a signal at the same time , the computer is at fault. If there is no power at that solenoid at low rpms, but the line has pressure in it then something is not allowing the pressure to be released from the actuator allowing the gate to close and produce boost at low rpms.