Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

Once again Jim, the statement said "most people", which is actually true. Most people do switch to non-seq because they don't want to or can't troubleshoot the seq system. I didn't say ALL or imply all; I specifically used the word "most".

How is that? My statement was that non-seq loses 50-60 ft/lbs of torque over the sequential system by 3000 rpms. How does that "make it sound like non-sequential makes the car completely undriveable"?

Here's the quote (in response to Chuck's post):


It's really more so the comments from you and Chuck that are in question (i.e. saying people are lazy or don't know how to drive for using the sequential as it was designed to be used). Jim, you keep reading more into these posts then there really is...... There is nothing in that post above that says non-seq is undrivable.

jimlab

Yes, yes. Most.

Re-read some of your posts. Have you ever had anything positive to say about non-sequential? For someone whose own car is sequential, and probably always has been, you certainly seem to have a lot to say on how bad non-sequential is.

I daily drove a non-sequential car for a year and have converted, ridden in, and driven two others. If there was a problem with it, I'm sure as hell not able to remember it.

Perhaps you're not reading your own posts from the point of view of someone not biased against non-sequential...

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Jim, lemme ask you this...would you agree both seq. and non-seq. are essentially the same thing and offer practically the same performance minus the low end torque loss in non-seq? Because since they both behave the same as long as you stay above 3K, isn't it silly to say one's better than the other?

I think Mahjik and Rynberg are just trying to point out that you lose the ability to get instant throttle response w/o having to downshift when you switch to non-seq. It IS a loss, but depending on your driving style and needs, that may or may not be important to you.

1QWIK7

iTrader: (33)

i honestly think its rather dumb to argue over something like this

the thread simply asks when does boost come for non seq then already the vets chime in and say whats better that what..

its basically the same thing if you think about it, who cares

people chose one over teh other for their own personal reasons, not because one is better than the other..

jimlab

Non-sequential doesn't have a dip in boost response and typically produces more power in the range where the sequential system levels off before the transition. There's also a possibility that a ported exhaust manifold with the pre-control gate removed flows better at high rpm than the sequential system, but unfortunately there's no proof that this results in any more peak power because it's very difficult to compare different cars, and some are inherently stronger than others with the same mods.

There certainly is some loss of low end power, but whether it's actually 50+ lb-ft. of torque remains to be proven. All I've seen are comparisons of very strong sequential cars to poor man's or incomplete non-sequential conversions. Also, no one seems to be paying much attention to the fact that you don't spend an extraordinary amount of time hanging around 3,000 rpm when accelerating. Instead of comparing dyno charts, people should be comparing actual performance.

I just find it interesting that the majority of of Mahjik's posts are links to information posted by others, but when it comes to the topic of non-sequential, he's always got something to say.

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

The only bad thing I've said about the non-seq conversion in this thread was shown in dyno graphs.

The dyno's show the loss. Not saying that's a "problem". To some it is, to others it isn't. I'm simply stating the "facts" so people understand that the conversion is not "win-win". What is gained the in mid range is lost in the lower range. Quite honestly, I haven't seen dyno's that show a substantial gain as much as what's lost on the lower end.

Hmmm, calling people lazy for using the car as it was designed then calling me biased or hateful towards non-seq? Jim, you are definitely the pot calling the kettle black in this case.

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

If you notice, my posts are directed at those who put down people for "not being able to drive" if they "can't handle non-seq". But, I'm sure you failed to notice that as well.

jimlab

I don't think you're comparing the right dyno graphs, or drawing the right conclusion from the ones you do have.

No argument there. Dyno graphs can show a lot of things... not all of them necessarily valid.

While I agree that it's not "win-win", I don't agree that you're merely stating the "facts". The facts as you see them, certainly, but not necessarily the facts.

That's a long leap of logic... "as it was designed"? So I suppose the car was never meant to be downshifted?

Well, perhaps you can provide another explanation for why non-sequential happens to be your "pet" topic and why the majority of your comments seem to have a negative cast to them.

jimlab

When someone finds fault with something that works perfectly well for many others, the fault probably lies with the finder...

Robertio

FWIW I've dug out my dyno graphs and sequential I was making 230lb/ft at 3k rpm, non-seq I'm making 120lb/ft at the same rpm.

There does seem to be something amiss on my setup at the moment as I'm not hitting target boost (1.2bar) until 5.2k, but it does give some sample numbers.

Seq is much better if you spend your time driving around town / cruising around legal speeds, where as non-seq is better suited to people who drive with their right foot attached to the carpet. Pretty much every journey I'm caught in the wrong gear at a set of lights where I'm rolling along in second and they change to green, put foot down and get nothing. I'm getting used to it and have no doubt it can be driven around, but can be a pain if you are used to the seq setup. To be fair IMHO a NA piston engine is much better in these sort of conditions than even the seq setup.

Not too sure about all this new found traction from being non-seq, second gear in the dry and WOT isn't a problem, where as it used to be. Just have to sort out some more bhp once we get the boost situation sorted out as 360rwhp is nothing like enough.

F0RSAKEN

Most every turbo car I have ever ridden in/seen its dyno graph hasnt made significant boost until 3500-4500 rpm. Granted the vast majority of those were aftermarket turbos that were considerably larger than stock, at what point does say, a stock GSX Eclipse make full boost? The T-25 is a small, quick spooling turbo, but if I remember right, they dont make full boost until 3.5 or 4k.

rynberg

Jim, I have seen a lot of non-seq dyno graphs, some from nearly 400 rwhp full conversion cars, and I've never seen more than 150 ft-lbs of torque at 3000 rpm. A stock seq car at 10 psi makes 200 ft-lbs at 3000 rpm, more when modified. Typically, non-seq cars don't even make 200 ft-lbs of torque until after 3500 rpm. That's a lot of everyday driving rpm where the seq car is kicking the **** out of the non-seq.

YES, as it was designed. Otherwise Mazda would have saved a hell of a lot of complexity, engineering, and component cost and just made the car single turbo or twin non-seq from the factory. Obviously making the car have good low-end power and making it fun to drive around town and on the freeway at reasonable speeds was an important design goal for Mazda.

Jim, Mahjik, I, and several others don't just go around bashing non-seq. It's when someone chimes in and says how much better non-seq is that we feel obliged to paint the whole picture.

Let's face it, many (even most? ) people that convert to non-seq do it because they have seq issues they can't solve or because they've had repeated problems, or because so many other people say it's good. Then those people say how great it is, mostly because the human mind has an amazing capability of convincing one's self that one didn't make a mistake. I think it's very telling that some people with a hell of a lot more FD driving time than yourself spend the time to express appreciation for the sequential system, or even express desire to switch back from non-seq to seq.

I'm not bashing non-seq -- it would be nice to have that greatly simplified and reliable boost setup -- but at the same time, seq is a really great system that makes it fun to drive the car without having to drive the **** out of it all the time. And when you need it to -- on the track -- the seq system operates in non-seq.

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

Post the correct dyno graphs then? Rynberg posted dyno's as close to the same setups as he could find. If you have a comparison that is closer, post it up. Otherwise, we use what we have.

Well, of course not. If it doesn't prove your point, it's never a valid dyno.

So the sequential system was not designed to reduce turbo lag?

I have plenty of "pet" topics. However, I would have never posted in this thread had Chuck not made the comment he did. When people post incorrect information, that's when I post.

Jim, your trying to make an aurguement out of nothing (which isn't all that surprising). Trying to turn a "non-seq losses quite a bit of torque" into a "Mahjik is a seq system ****" is really pointless. You aren't telling me or anyone else anything they don't know. Do I like the sequential setup, you bet. Do I think the non-seq conversion is pointless? That depends on the application.

jimlab

Fine, but you're focusing on a 1,000 rpm window that the engine spends very little time in when accelerating in the appropriate gear.

That, I seriously doubt.

Then you should probably return your car to stock, because Mazda released it that way. Anyone adding modifications and increasing horsepower obviously isn't using the car how Mazda intended...

jimlab

A couple more snide remarks like that one, and I'll be more than happy to tell you where to put your opinon. Please spare me the dramatic story about being my one and only protector among the moderators this time.

BRTNCUSTOM

What is a Poor Mans Non-sequential setup and which is the correct way of setting up a single system?

rynberg

Again with the acceleration thing? Do you drive (or should I say DID you drive 5 years ago) around at 4k rpm? You keep using this argument and I don't get it. Most of us who actually drive their cars aren't driving around town and on the freeway at 4k rpm. I'm usually at 2500 to 3000 rpm in those conditions, and I can tell you that having instant boost in that rpm range where I spend 90% OF THE TIME in street driving, makes for a fun car. Having to drive around at 3500-4k rpm to get the same throttle response (which you do, I don't care if it's full non-sequential or not) is too loud, too wearing on the motor, too fuel inefficient, and just plain attracts too much attention.

Ok Jim, you can doubt all you want but how long has it been since you even drove a properly functioning seq car? 8 years? I was under the impression that you switched to non-seq fairly soon after you got the car. That and you have what, 11k on your car? Quite a few of us have several times those miles in an FD, seq or otherwise. Jim, you are extremely knowledgable, but I think that some of us are in a better position to comment on how seq feels in NORMAL everyday driving than you are.

I was just replying to your reply to Mahjik. I think it's pretty easy to see that Mazda wanted a wide powerband in this car with good low end -- why would they have spent so much time developing a complicated seq system otherwise?

And besides, all of my modifications to the car HAVE kept the intentions of Mazda, AFAIK.

*I have more power, but it's still the the seq system, no change in design goal there.
*I have modified the suspension to have less roll and sharper damping for track use but have kept the original handling balance, something Mazda would have done if not selling the car to the general masses.
*I have increased reliability by adding an aluminum radiator (Mazda would have done this with more money) and a second oil cooler (R models).
*I have added larger brakes but maintained stock braking balance, Mazda did this on later models.

No changes to Mazda's design goals there.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Jim...are we running out of arguments? C'mon now. Shifting the powerband entirely from low and mid to some mid and huge upper (like a large single) is modifying the car very differently from what Mazda intended. Dropping an LS-1 is modifying the car very differently from what Mazda intended. But performing reliability mods, and increasing overall hp, while still maintaining a rotary w/ a sequential turbo system to minimize turbo lag, and make the car more responsive, as it was meant to be a track car...well, that's just finishing up where Mazda left off. You can't even begin to claim that it's going off on a tangent, in comparison to Mazda's original goals w/ the FD.

No impressions necessary Tyler. Jim posted this on page 3...So he had barely broken in the engine when he converted. You actually beat me to it. If you switched over sooo soon Jim, and it's been about a decade since you've driven the car, I'd say you're prob not in the best position to recall how the stock sequential system felt like, driving it around every day.

He's dead on here, Jim. At highway speeds, in 5th gear, you're cruising along anywhere between 2500 - 3000 rpm. I actually LOVE not HAVING to downshift to swiftly and strongly pull by a car next to me. Slight throttle, immediate turbo response, and you're gone. I RARELY downshift, because a) I don't NEED to, and b) I LIKE not having to need to. Frequent downshifting isn't the best for your tranny and clutch components, given that the vast majority of ppl I've ridden w/ do NOT rev match when downshifting I leave downshifting for the necessities...when I'm in a serious race, or for whatever other reason I REALLY need to haul a$$

Said simply, Mazda made the sequential system to ensure the gear you're in would almost always be the optimal gear for your situation...so downshifting WOULDNT' be necessary. That's the beauty of it. But when you do gotta downshift, she's already in non-sequential, so you're good to go... And THAT'S keeping in line w/ what Mazda originally intended for the FD

jimlab

Because you still don't seem to get it. Gear multiplication is higher in a lower gear. That lack of torque you two keep harping on is non-existent after a downshift. If you want to get into higher rpm fast, there's no quicker way than downshifting. Not even sequential boost response in the current gear can match that.

No, and I think you're probably well aware of how ridiculous that question is...

Obviously. A dyno chart is a one gear pull. Are you trying to tell me that the loss in low end torque can't be made up for by shifting to a lower gear when you want to accelerate hard? It's like saying a Corvette in 6th gear accelerates more slowly than an RX-7 in 3rd. True, but who says the Corvette has to stay in 6th gear??

Your entire argument centers around stepping down on the gas in the current gear at low rpm and getting snappier acceleration prior to 4,000+ rpm. Fine. I'm not disputing that at all. But that's a characteristic of your driving style, not "the way it has to be done".

Neither was I. Nor did I ever have a problem turning corners without downshifting to first, nor did I ever have to downshift to pass someone in 5th gear on the highway. This is just ridiculous.

So was I. Having the same gearing sort of makes it inevitable. Perhaps I would have been impressed by the 1-2 seconds of "snappy acceleration" that sequential has when stepping down on the gas without downshifting, but then again, you're talking to someone whose background is naturally aspirated V8s. You haven't seen snappy until you've driven a sports car with a big block.

Then maybe you should get an automatic transmission, because the instant downshift under hard acceleration makes for a "fun car" too.

I daily drove a non-sequential car for a year and have driven three others that behaved identically. None behaved in the way that you and Mahjik seem to think non-sequential behaves. Implying that you have to keep the revs high to make non-sequential drivable is absolutely ridiculous.

I did.

But not non-sequential, I'll bet.

I'm sure of that, but you can't really tell me how a properly-converted non-sequential drives either, nor are you in a position to make a fair comparison between the two.

I agree with you, and I'm not arguing that. I think you keep trying to turn this into a non-sequential vs. sequential debate, and it's not.

Personally, I don't care what people do with their cars. This isn't a crusade to convert people to non-sequential. If no one ever converts to non-sequential again, I won't lose any sleep over it. I do, however, think that the "facts" that you and Mahjik are stating would lead someone who was inexperienced to believe that non-sequential is damn near undrivable. If I thought either one of you had driven a properly converted car that was operating properly, I'd probably feel differently, but I think your opinions are based on a lot of half-conversions that aren't at all representative of what non-sequential can be.

jimlab

No, just illustrating how ridiculous some of the arguments of the "opposition" are.

Ramy, you should be able to figure out when I'm telling people how non-sequential behaves vs. telling people how sequential behaves.

Have you ever driven a non-sequential car, Ramy? Do you know what the load of 5th gear does for boost response when stepping down at ~2,900 rpm @ 70 mph? Yet another example of someone with no experience with non-sequential telling someone who daily drove a non-sequential car for a year how it operates...

So did I.

That alone tells me you still don't understand gearing.

Fine. Just be advised that I'm really not in the mood for your bullshit today.

ruos

iTrader: (1)

Its sunday afternoon. Why don't we fire up the grill and get the steaks ready or something. Or, go for a nice cruise shifting at 3000 rpms. But NO, lets rather talk about the sequential/non-sequetial disadvantages, and get headaches from intensily focusing on the monitor. Having said that, I think non-seq setups are misunderstood.

bfeito

I went non sequential recently, and was very worried about how the setup would effect my car. After driving it for a few months, I will say I am definately very happy with the mod. Disclaimer-If you are considering it, Do the full conversion, if not, it is a waist of time. The reason I went non-sequential is because I decided to switch to a Microtech LTX-8, which does not have the capabuility of running a sequential setup.

-I get full boost at about 3500 RPMs, with noticiable boost by about 2200-2500.

-There are many arguments against non-seq which have many valid points, I think the most important part your decision for the conversion is truly personal preference, and how you drive your car.

-When I first decided to go with it, I was scared shitless I would not like it, and it would be too laggy, mostly because of the opinions expressed on the forums. I found that while the opinions are based on fact, through "the forum effect" they have become very overexagerated.

-1. Not having good responce on highways, making passing difficult.
-Not sure about you guys, but my cruizing RPM on the highway is at about 2500-3000 RPMs. (70-80 MPH). At that RPM I find that my car has PLENTY of responce, in fact, it is quite nasty. Takes no time to get up full boost and fly. I really feel that the lack of tourqe is not really noticable after about 2500, I have enough boost at that time to do anything I need. The time it is most noticeable is when you are around 1750-2000, after slowing down without downshifting, say going 50 in 5th. Call me crazy, but I found my car laggy at this range when I had my sequential setup, so it is not much of an inconvinience for me.

-It has effected my driving in that I generally do try to keep my RPMs above 2000, under that and the lag is pretty heinous, but again, i found it laggy at that range stock. However I certainly agree that it is amplified by the non-seq slightly.

-I wholeheartedly agree that Non-Seq makes the car ALOT funner to drive in the rain, alot less scary. I just keep the RPMs low and I feel very comfertable, I am not worried about the boost creaping up on me like before(I'm sure not everyone feels this way about the Seq-setup in the rain, but that is my personal opinion.) This is one of those personal things that has great impact on whether or not you prefer Non-Seq.

-I also agree that once the power comes on it is excellent, very smooth. When I man the car on a nice tight road I don't miss sequential at all, don't even notice its gone. I am generally above 3000 all the time when I am getting down, so the boost is instant and very powerful. I am usually tearing some serious *** out of that corner.

-It definately cleans things things up in the bay, the first time I looked down and saw no more rats nest, I had to change my pants. Makes the wiring under the UIM very easy to get to, I got a replacement harness with the microtech and replaced these, that cavity is like a slow bake oven, great for wiring.

I found the new setup to increase the versitility of the car in terms of more civil on the street while maintaining its excellent track power.

Would I switch my car back to Sequential? No-I am very impressed with the setup, I find that its shortcomings in relation to responce are not very noticable at normal or spirited driving. If I bought another RX, would I go Non-Seq? No, I would rather undertake the challenge of building a very efficient Sequential setup, If I had a second car to mess around with. With lots of money, I would love to have both. But If I had to choose one, i would go Non-Seq/Single first, Sequential second. I have alot of respect for you die hard sequential fans, takes alot of dedication and knowhow to really get them running like they should, and keep them that way. However, as of right now, it is not my bag, I have having too much fun with non-seq.

-So I would say think hard on your personal driving habits and how you like car to drive. There is plenty of information on how the setup effects your car, so just decide how those effects apply to the way you drive. Than make your decision. The procedure is fully reversible, even the full conversion, so worst comes to worst and you don't like it, switch back, and have fun.

Brent

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

Jim, if you can't take wit like you give it out; don't post. It gets real childish when you begin to insult when discussions don't go your own way. If you don't like the way the discussion is going, don't post. It's simple.

You made your points, others made their points. You aren't going to convert those you are arguing with and they aren't going to change your opinion; so why keep it going? Just to have the last word? Well, go head.

Mahjik

iTrader: (1)

Yes, but you can't really compare most larger aftermarket turbos to the stock twins running parallel. While a larger turbo may be making the same or less PSI at the same rpms, the CFM is going to be different (i.e. 10 PSI on a T-78 is not the same as 10 PSI on the stock twins).

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

I admit, you got me there. I was going based on what others mentioned re: non-sequential, but I guess nothing beats 1st hand info.

I knew you were going to jump on that statement and say something to this effect. I just didn't know how to word it better. What I was trying to say was, I believe Mazda designed the car so that you wouldn't have to be in the optimal gear to have quick response all the time (to an extent). If you compare the FD setup to say another car w/ a large single or large twins in parallel (ie a car w/ considerable lag), being in the correct gear is really the difference between crawling along and getting up and going. The FD sequentially will pretty much get up and go, even if you're at such a low rpm. Hope that's clearer?

And that's supposed to mean...??