what are the shitty things about nonseq and what would i have to do to make sure nothing catches fire when im racing my brother in his beemer (he's gonna get smoked because if he is still ahead in 2 gear im read lining it )

 

NOTHING !! ALL GOOD BABY !! I love it !

 

Non sequential has very poor response compared to stock sequential. It is much louder < 4500 RPM. It also doesn't provide a power benefit by itself.

Wade

 

Non-seq makes launching the car much easier, you don't get as much spin or hop, so that is a plus at the track you just need to rev high...

The negative would be in town or street driving, the lag is a little more than most would like, you can get smoked by a honda off the line but 1 second later they will be in your rear view mirror

 

Non-seq by itself doesn't give any more power, period.

If you really did see such an improvement in your 1/4 mile, it was because something else was different. Maybe it was a little cooler outside, your plugs were newer, your tuning different, cat not as heat soaked, who knows. Regardless, I hope you aren't telling many people that more power is a side effect of the non-seq mod because of your observation, because it is simply not true.

Wade

 

Non-seq clearly gives more power (both hp and tq) in the mid-range.

Top-end should be about the same (a tad more if you do full non-seq, mainly because some restrictions are removed).

Non-seq has less power in the low-end than stock-seq.

http://www.micromanx.com/goble/rx7/p...3/compare.html

 

Brian,

When people refer to their power they generally are talking about max power. Yes, my statement was oversimplified. If you want to split hairs, then I admit that a non-seq car might make more power around 4000-4500 RPM, as your car did. But if we continue to split hairs, I think we'll find that a sequential setup will produce a faster car overall in a variety of conditions, too.

However, the extra 4 mph and associated horsepower that Ryan saw at the strip is obviously not caused by the non-sequential mod.

BTW, never saw pics of your wheels, I'd still like to see them.

Wade

 

isn't there a guy that made a website on how to make your car non-seq?

 

Wade, yeah when you said "Power", to me, that means the area under the curve--as opposed to only talking about top-end power.

IMO, if you don't give a full explanation, people won't fully understand what the advantages and disadvantages really are and then they can't make a good decision (for their situation/likes/dislikes) for deciding on whether or not to go non-seq.

The big problem is that some people seem to think the reason to go non-seq is to improve top-end power...which is not the reason to do it (since it doesn't really increase top-end power at all).

Kinda like someone asking how much horsepower they will gain if they get rid of 400 pounds of dead weight from their car. Well, they won't get any horsepower gains...but they will see performance gains in other areas (acceleration in this example :)

Hey, I came across some of those wheel pics on one of my machines at home just the other day...I will dig em up this weekend. :)
-Brian

 

Anyone ran this NS setup with the PMS? Any problems with controlling boost?

Thanks.

 

I think the only downsides to non-seq are the lag, the ruich a/f mixture (more fuel consumption), and possibly higher engine temps due to the richness.

Owning an rx7 u shouldnt be worryin about fuel consumption, but i can tell the car is running a bit hotter. May need upgraded AST and radiator if you're gonna be running non seq in hot weather

 

Rikki... is probally right... What rpm do you launch at
Rikki?

I think Non-squential has a big advantage in launching the car and getting better 60 fts. then squential. Which is why you are getting a few more mph in the 1/4 mile.

Please correct me if I am wrong though. jc.

 

so does this mean that non seq. suck at street racing or road racing? why is that?

 

isn't there a guy that made a website on how to make your rx7 non-seq

 

There are many websites on how to do it, but I used www.dontbearikki.com just go to the how-to section you'll see it there.

 

Brian,

Please send me a PM or email mail me after you find those pics. Just don't email the pics without talking to me first because there's a good chance they will fill up my hotmail inbox.


Ryan,

I certainly don't want to get into a pissing match either. Let me put it like this and I won't bring it up again (as long as you don't)

If a person dynos his car, changes NOTHING else but wires it for non sequential, then redynos, he will not make more power with non sequential (within dyno variance of course). This can be proven. The reason is because the restrictions are the same for nonsequential and sequential above 4500 RPM (where most of the power is and where most people drive when trying to go as fast as possible).

Now, it is certainly possible that you picked up 4mph in the 1/4 after your conversion, you could have shifted at 5000 RPM in each gear when you had sequential, after all, or given 3/4 throttle. So obviously there are ways to lower your MPH at the dragstrip.

But stating that to people who are considering converting is simply misleading. You are suggesting that the result of the non-seq conversion is more ultimate power (since MPH is very well corellated with ultimate power). And, if you really did pick up 4 mph, it was because something else was different.

If anyone here is curious why, or needs more convincing, etc. I will provide more detail in private. I don't want Ryan to think I'm on his case or anything so I will try not to mention it on the forum in response to one of this threads in the future.

Wade

 

I really think non-seq let ryan get off the line easier, which lowered his time.

No one has said how Mazda wont work on non-seq... wait maybe thats a positive.

 

"Non-seq clearly gives more power (both hp and tq) in the mid-range.

Top-end should be about the same (a tad more if you do full non-seq, mainly because some restrictions are removed).

Non-seq has less power in the low-end than stock-seq.
http://www.micromanx.com/goble/rx7/...q3/compare.html"

Brian has a great comparison here, but needs some clarifications, esp regaring low end power.

The seq runs both had lower boost in single mode, 11 psi or less. This is reflected in the seq'l torque curves.

The brooks run shown, in twin mode, is actually 13 psi. He had also had a 12 psi run, so I averaged them to get consistent 12.5 psi (in twin mode) curves. Brian's table was 'tainted' by the transition at one data point, so I used dff rpm points to compare hp. Below 5K is lower regulated boost for the seq'ls:

rpm, ns, sq, sq(brooks ave)

3500 140 140 125
4500 220 185 190

5500 275 275 280
6500 308 335 328

For seq'l, if the primary boost is brought up to 12.5 psi, and the transition is optimized to about 4K, then the midrange power would be similar, and of course low end response and power would still be great for seq'l.

in comparing the 3 curves, it's clear the seq'ls were running better above 6500 rpm for some reason, and this had nothing to do with seq'l vs non.

I'm sure ryan ran faster ns, but the difference may not be that great with a sequential tuned as noted, with a flat torque curve.

 

In Fritz's comparison of the 3 cars...Brooks' and Brad's car had ported motors which definitely helps on the top-end...I am stock ported (and running less boost).

Also, on some cars/setups, the primary turbo can't support more than 11psi by itself as it approaches the transition point. This also contributes to the hp curve starting to flatten out as it approaches the stock-seq transition point.

My point is not to argue which is better (since "better" will depend on your likes and dislikes) but give people as much info as possible so they can make the best decision for their situation.
-Brian