SPOautos

Oh, well if you want it to be a pissing match, I'm all for it haha

I really cant **** that far but my 3 foot dick makes up for that lol

STEPHEN

spyfish007

Ah personal preference. If only everyone would try it for themselves, then they would know ..... Also to not we are talking about 4 mph .... I really don't see this as any significant difference. Besides there is always going to be someone faster with more HP. I mean come on if you want real allout RWHP get a Supra. If you want a canyon carver get a RX-7 and put on a trick suspension.

laujesse

iTrader: (19)

Well first off run a spell check on you location... after 2000 posts I think you might have noticed it... BIR...


If you have a 3 foot dick it is obviously draining the blood from your head making halucinate these rediculous fantacies about your sequential set up being as fast as the non...

laujesse

iTrader: (19)

Good damn poor southern states and thier sub-standard education systems.

jimlab

Brooks Weisblat ran 11.4 @ 120 mph sequential, among others. Search the database at www.dragtimes.com.

Trap speed is determined by peak horsepower and weight, and if you gained 4 mph you either made more boost, ran at a lower elevation, the temperature dropped, or possibly a combination of all three, among other factors. At the rpm where peak power occurs with the 13B-REW, there's really no difference between a non-sequential car and a sequential car because both are operating in twin mode.

It is possible that your rear turbo was not operating properly or making full boost in sequential mode and that switching to non-sequential eliminated that problem. But there is more than likely a different answer for why your trap speed picked up than just the conversion by itself.

It's a great mod for reliability, for eliminating some of the "stuffing" under the upper intake manifold which lets the engine shed heat just a little better, but it doesn't really mean that you'll make more power at a given boost level than a sequential car.

The quickest quarter on stock twins that I know of was by a non-sequential car and the most horsepower for stock twins that I know of (397 RWHP) was also a non-sequential car. But in both cases they were fully modified, running 17+ psi of boost (19 psi for the 397 RWHP pull) and race gas, and in the case of the 397 RWHP car, a Wolf 3D computer and an upgraded pump and injectors. It's not really a fair comparison. There are several sequential cars that have made 360+ RWHP, and one (before it popped at 18 psi without race gas) made ~380. You can make a lot of power with either.

I don't think that there's any huge advantage to being non-sequential, and I've always told people that if their car is working properly as it is, don't mess with it. But if you're having problems with your control system and just want to be rid of it all, then converting to non-sequential makes sense, and there are a few minor fringe benefits.

I'm happy that it's worked out well for you, but I think you've become just a little over-enthusiastic about interpreting your results. Let's call it a draw, shall we?

Michael Filippello

Well, I just did the conversion and have to say that I am not real impressed. The car has much more lag and doesn't seem to have any more top end power. I do not get full boost til around 4500 rpm. I am not sure if I am missing something but this is much too much lag for me. I tried running with the precontrol gate wired both open and then closed. This really didn't seem to help. I did not go the full route and remove the TC door in the manifold. I figured i would test the water first.

I have the full boat of mods. dp/mp/cb, intake, fmic, all hard piping, double throttle removed, street port, ported upper and lower intake manifolds, ported exhaust manifold, upgraded turbos with t25 exhaust wheels and super 60 trim compressor wheels and ported snails, ported y-pipe, and everything gasket matched.

It might be that the turbos are larger than stock and this is why it takes me longer than some to get full boost. I am nowhere close to getting full boost by 3600 rpm. The car feels no faster than it did sequentially above 4700 and much slower between 2500 and 4000. I am going to try messing with the waste gate manual valve to see if the problem lies here but i am 90% sure that the waste gate is fully closed.

I can say that the car feels less stressed when accelerating hard. It accelerates smoother and seems to rev more effortlessly. I did this mod because my front turbo starts to whine at high boost levels(12psi+). I figured that by alieviating some the pressure that the primary turbo sees below 4500, I could get rid of the whine. It worked. Now i don't here the wine until 5000 rpm when i am back at full boost and flowing a good amount of air. It looks like the correct solution is to pull the turbos and fix the real problem.

As far as power and speed are concerned it is hard to say because the two are so different. I can say that upper end power feels the same, lower power is gone, and midrange is smoother. Whether this makes a faster car i am not sure. whether the car is more fun on the street, I am sure the answer is no for me. I am going back to seq. and am going to fix my turbo.

SPOautos

I find it interesting that over the years there have been thousands of rx7's converted to nonseq and you 2 guys seem to be the only people that think it made thier car much faster. Then on top of that your arguement is based on a drag racing time slip. I've seen big mph differences on the same car with the exact same mods on different days. With those mods I would have expected close to a 117 trap with the seq set up as well, just because it didnt doesnt mean much, thats drag racing, thats what happends. Its pretty dang hard to stay consistant in drag racing.

As for my location, yea I know I had a typo, but guess what I didnt really care, its been there for years. Should I go back thru all the posts you've ever made to see if there is a typo??? Oh looks like I wont be looking too far......you might want to try two "L's" in the work halucinate....as in hallucinate. Next time you want to correct someones spelling how about checking your own first. Guess you didnt learn much either. Too bad you dont have the big dick excuse

Later,
STEPHEN

SPOautos

I'm not sure man, I wasnt there. Thats like asking why you ran a 12.43 with a trap of 117, even with a 2.1 60 foot you should have been closer to a high 11 or 12 flat with a 117. There are always things that affect times/mph. I've seen my et drop 3/10's before just from the sun going down. Thats why I'm saying its hard to compare based on timeslips, especially when they are on different days. I've gone to the track and busted out a 13.0 on the same car that ran a 12.3 just cause one day they didnt prep the track good enough. I pulled a 1.80 60 foot on time cause I ran right after a dragster that layed down some serious hot rubber for me to launch on. That probably would have been my best run ever if I hadnt missed 3rd.

There are ssssoooooooo many things that can affect a et/mph that its not even funny and being inconsistent is part of the game, thats what makes bracket racing so damn hard for guys with stick shifts. Bracket racing is all about consistency and nothing else. You could kick some major *** and win some money with a auto Honda.

Anyway, this is starting to get boring. Its the same old thing being said from both sides. You guys just believe what you want.

SPOautos

No hard feeling here men, I understand different people have different view on things, its no skin off my back. I'm a firm believer that people can believe what ever they want, if I didnt believe that one of us would have to change haha

Jim posted some info about time slips and seq. You might have missed it but here is a copy from Jims post..... Brooks Weisblat ran 11.4 @ 120 mph sequential, among others. Search the database at www.dragtimes.com.


There have been a lot of people that ran 11's back in the day. The problem is that most of those people and modded 7's are now single turbo cars and most people wanting 11's and alot of HP seem to be going single. There doesnt really seem to be that many people trying to get there with stock twins like there used to be. I would imagine its due to people having a lot of miles on thier stockers by now and having to replace them just take the single turbo route.

Anyway, I havent really "give'n up" its just that there isnt anything to argue back against. I havent heard one good reason as to why nonseq is faster than seq. The only thing I keep hearing about is your timeslip and I've said my part on that a couple times already.

Personally when racing I dont fall below 5K so seq versus non seq doesnt matter. Around town I'd rather have seq cause its funner to drive.

STEPHEN

spyfish007

Michael: What ECU are you running? If you are running the PowerFC I would suggest tuning lots of fuel out in the midrange reason. The PowerFC really adds a bunch of fuel to dampen the transistion. It is not smooth fuel curve. The ignition timing can probably be tweaked for the samed reasons too.

LilFatCrazyWop

ok, what the hell are you guys smoking? you guys say that nonseq power band is lower rpm/s and then you say that you have to down shift to get into your power band? well if you down shift you will get into high rpms! maybe think before you bash.

laujesse

iTrader: (19)

SkitsoDeago- Im not bashing.. but which post are you talking about? I did not see that. Let me know then perhaps I may proceed to bash him with you. I never saw any one say that non has more power in low RPM's. That is retatarded whoever said it/misread it.

SPO autos - B-I-R..... evarybodie spel it wit mi now. I am not a championship speller but 2000 posts with out noticing the city you are from is spelled wrong... damn. Just giving you ****. But you started that crap with your 3' ***** crap...

RX-14

If you have enough money why don't you get a custom sequential system? You could get a smaller and larger aftermarket turbo and have the larger one be large enough to suppport how much top end power you want.

jdhuegel1

This thread is the reason I want to try the switchable version of the non-seq mod. This way I can fell the results of the change back and forth for comparison. I hope to get it done tomorrow. I know I won't be eliminating the headache nest, but I would like to feel the non-seq pull vs. the seq...

KZ1

I figured I would chime in just to get my name on here.

non-seq is better than a seq that is not working properly. If you do it porperly and remove the restrictions in exhaust manifold you may get extra power. But, what most people seem to forget is that the stock seq' setup operaties non-seq once engaged until you drop below about 3k rpm, so if you want to test it, just drive. On the track you are in high rpms anyway, so won;t make a differnce but around town the car will fell much faster at low rpm.

As for non-seq having more power at mid range, that is not neccesarily true, especially of you have a good streetport, my power during transition actually increases. I woudl post the dyno graph but I don;t have scanner.

basically, like Jimlab says, I woudl only do it if you cannot fix the stock setup, or maybe if you only race on the track.

jpandes

I just did the Non-seq conversion the other night.
It's just ok IMO. In 1st and 2nd gear I get around 10 psi by about 4800-5000 rpm! And that's my big gripe. It's also really noisy above 4500 rpm. It might quite down a bit if I remove a restrictor plate between the dp & cat(I noticed a wheezing sound once I installed it).

However, on a positive note before going NS I barely got any boost in 1st gear! Bad primary? The car also revs alot easier and smoother. I do miss the big rush of power when the secondary kicked in.

How can I get the turbos to full boost by 3000-3500 rpm? I know that some of you guys are seeing better boost patterns than I am...


John

kwikrx7

Lately, this topic has really gained popularity. Personally, there is nothing like the sequential turbo system on a FD (working properly) - instant throttle response at almost any rpm range, no downshifting, kick in the pants at transition. Seems like only 50% of them are working anymore though. I much prefer the sequential system over NS because I drive in town alot and the FD WILL pull harder down low. It's ridiculous to say that NS is better than sequential - it just depends on what you like. Don't let anybody fool you, there's more punch in the 3.5-5.0K rpm range with NS. When you downshift and floor it in the powerband - you're pulling HARD - but to say that overall power is better is totally wrong. No FD out there will get full boost by 3K in NS mode although when my primary turbo was working correctly I'd get it by 3200 rpms in 3rd and 4th gear. There are maybe 10 vacuum lines if that left - no rack, no solenoids, no actuators - just a simple working turbo system. I would only do this mod if you can't fix your sequential system. I have heard more success when racing people in NS mode and the better trap speeds have been attained with NS setups over sequential. But sequential is hands down much more fun to drive around town and quieter.

laujesse

iTrader: (19)

SPO- Still from Bimingham, AL I see...


kz1- If you have a seq with a streetport you will beat a non seq with a stock engine. That means nothing... The mid range power increase is there. At 3000 rpms your seq turbines are NOT in non mode.

kwik- The seq's are great if you have an automatic. These pieces of crap were originally designed for the auto trannie only cosmo 13&20B. Then since the fd had an auto version they kept these monstrocites... and they suck seq and they even kind of suck in non too, but not everyone can afford a single turbo. (like me at the moment)

On a non **** talking note:

The orginal question was... what are the shitty things about non sequential?

So far the only thing I have seen is low rpm power isnt as good. Other than that I have heard nothing bad.

Good things:
*No complicated boost problems*
*No secondary turbine stress and heat cracking*
*I have heard engine life, but I dont quite fully support that yet, but my friend reduced his knock with the more predictable boost though*
*Mid range power increase(Disputed)*

All the crap talking aside about the mid range power. Thats a lop sided argument...

FstFD3SPOWER

If you don't want to convert.. don't convert..
If you don't like non seq setup.. go back to seq setup..
Both set ups has advantage and disadvantage.. chose is yours.


Im going for non seq.

WhtRocket

So far this seems to focus on drag racing . One thing about the Seq is you get about a 75 hp increase in 200 or 300 RPM. if you downshift below the transition, the backend can step out when it hooks up. I know, just drive better. For those of us not quite perfect, the NS might be easier to run in the mountains. The other very annoying part of Seq is the big question. When I hit it, will there be any boost? I expect getting some check valves and solenoid and CRAP out the the system will result in the F'in thing actually working more often. Ever merge on the FW, hop into the left lane with someone comming up fast only to find the boost is not available just now?

racedriver

enough about the pros and cons about ns and S.

isn't anyone interested in that 3 foot *****. ?