Is the poor mans non sequential noticibly faster & more efficent? Rather than keeping it seq. What exactly happens when its running non-seq.bBecause The roads I drive everyday here in Colorado are extremely twisty turny up n down hills. I don't have the money plus I don't really want to go single anytime soon. I like the quick spool for the narrow twisty roads. plus I got my fd because it came from factory with a twin setup. & I love that atribute

 

If the car is working properly, there is no reason to go non-sequential in your case.

 

Like Aaron Cake said, a properly functioning sequential setup is equally powerful as a nonsequential.

The only exception is if you do a "full" nonsequential setup and take off the turbos and port the openings, remove the flapper doors, and weld shut some stuff. That will improve flow somewhat making the nonsequential more powerful by just a little bit. It's still not as much pop at low RPM compared to sequential, but it's pretty good.

Keep in mind that the "poor man's" nonsequential is where you don't do all that work and just replumb the system to operate nonsequentially. In that case you will notice more lag time than the full nonsequential.

Personally, I like sequential and if it's working keep it working. A recent survey* indicates that 72% of all nonsequential conversions are the result of an improperly functioning sequential system. Any impression of more power is the result of not being able to compare to a good sequential system.

Dave

* me counting up a few people I know without them realizing I've called it a survey

 

I'd have to agree with these guys. I recently did the rich mans non-sequential and it seems faster only because I must have had a boost leak somewhere. The sequential is really good because its got a way nicer powerband but I dont find the lag to be as bad as people make it seem with the non-sequential twins. I get full boost by about 3300rpm or so but its noticeably sluggish before that. I say if your sequential is working properly and getting 10-8-10 pattern just keep them the way they are.

 

its alot of money

 

thanks guys this info is perfect. I bought the car last summer from a nice guy in CA i had never driven an FD untill that point. It was really fast for stock. I ran against my brother in his stock jdm 97 supra, and crept on him. I was installing intakes, boost controller, and fmic a little while ago and discovered many broken vac lines. As soon as I got the car home from CA i put in a boost gauge and it was only boosting 6-7 lbs. I didnt know untill two months ago that they boost 10-8-10 stock. Isn't the safe max limit for stock twins 14lbs?

 

Yes and no.

14psi is "safe" for the turbos, although they won't last as long. 14psi is extremely unsafe for a stock fuel system and ECU. Keep it at 10psi until you've got the proper mods in place to support anything more than that.

 

the mid range drop in power gets pretty damn annoying once you crank the boost up. the best pattern I've gotten is 14-10-14

 

by proper mods what does that mean, I plan on getting a fuel pressure reg. Injectors, and fuel rail. I already purchased 255 walbro pump and apexi power fc and comander, hoping it Would do the trick.

 

I'm not the ideal person to say exactly what fuel mods will get you exactly what boost. But this is what I know:

The stock fuel system tops out around 12-13psi. It also cuts fuel at 12psi. With a PowerFC you can tune for that. With the fuel pump you can probably go to 14psi, however like anything done well the best answer is to use a wideband and observe your duty cycles in the PFC. Most people will agree it's not wise to run your injectors in the 95-100% range.

Dave

 

I'm only planing to run stock psi daily for reliability reasons. But as for higher boost and those days at the track. what's practical and reliable for 14 psi eg. (1000-1200 cc injectors), braided fuel lines, FPR, I don't know. Let me know if I'm in the right ball park there. I just my baby to be happy

 

What do you mean by duty cycles. I havnt instaled the PFC yet