Maybe you should have. One is actually, irreversibly non-sequential. The other is just playing at being non-sequential temporarily. Anything you can do in an afternoon with a couple pieces of wire is not true non-sequential.

Now repeat after me... whether. Do you even have a high school diploma?

You don't know how a catalytic converter works either, so I'll have to remain unimpressed by your knowledge of exhaust systems.

Then what are you basing your statement that there is no noticeable increase in noise on?

So now you're starting to change your story because you realize you might be wrong...

Barely, and it's to blame for half of the negative opinions about non-sequential boost response.

Maybe I should buy you a spell-checker instead.

If you go back and re-read this thread, you'll notice that both Kevin and I said after removing the gates. This has long been considered to be true non-sequential. What part of that didn't you understand, and what rock have you been under for the last several years? This isn't something I just came up with.

Do you understand that they call wiring the gates "poor man's non-sequential" precisely because it is NOT true non-sequential? How much more dense can you get? Sorry, how much more dents can you get?



I'll be waiting.

 

I thought this topic was CLOSED. Why are you guys arguing over stupid stuff all the time. LET IT GO.

 

Why do you care? No one is forcing you to read it.

 

Because I started the stupid thread. I needed an opinion, not a stupid argument on who knows how to convert to non-seq better.

 

Didn't you get the opinions you were looking for? Looked to me like your questions were more or less answered on the first page.

 

Well having just done non-seq as discussed in the above mentioned stupid argument, I must say I like it.

I've had sequential twins for the duration I've had the car and the change was exciting and makes it a new car in a sense because it's something new. It was a small concern of mine originally not having the quick spool of seq turbos but it's really not as bad as a lotta people seem to think it is. I have an open exhaust and I spool pretty quickly IMO. The main trick was just staying in a rpm suited for boost when I thought I might need it.
The fact that there's no transition is great and the fact that I can get better gas mileage when I want by staying out of boost is just another perk in my mind.

So if you have any other questions that you want an opinion on in regards to how my car / turbo's act with non-seq let me know.

 

Thread jackers

You guys need a teacher so you can go tell on each other HAHA

Too Funny =)

 

Sorry I started laughing at work from the (dents) : ) pretty funny.

OH BTW there is a rather large difference between wiring a gate open and cutting it out. In its open position the gate still poses a rather large obstruction to flow. Pull off the manifold and put the gate in the "open position" and see for yourself compared to the pictures Jim posted above of a cut out gate.

Kevin T. Wyum

 

Jim, have you started taking Paxil or something?

hehe

Stephen

 

When I converted my open exhaust car from sequential to poormans nonsequential it got SUBSTANTIALLY louder. SO much so that I was then forced to go buy a presilencer to weld into the MP, I couldnt stand the added noise. I imagine FULL nonsequential would be even worse as far as noise.

perhaps the noise isnt so noticeable on a car with one or more cats or restrictive mufflers.

 

It wouldn't be, but then you could bitch about how poor boost reponse is non-sequential...

 

I have a quick question. Why would you go through the trouble of porting and rebuilding the motor just to run the stock turbo setup? What kind of horsepower are looking at by porting and using the twins?

 

You can get on the ups of 360hp outta the twins.

 

I would simplify and do the switch activated conversion where you can go NS if you want (not full NS) and try it out, if you like the way NS feels, then go all out and modify manifold, etc...

 

You don't have alot of common sense do you Jimmy?

The fact that I have performed the modifictaion and did not notice any difference. I'm pretty sure I said that dumbass.

No I am admitting that I was talking about poormans nonsequential. If your goingt to accuse me of something at least get your facts stright.

Why bother I know youer a loser with nothing better to do than correct it for me. Get busy on this post bitch

I know the difference between the full version and the poormans, regardless both ways run the turbos at the same time. You seem to have a problem grasping that concept. Btw stop taking credi for ideas you didn't come up with. You didn't "come up" with any of it.
Don't bother waiting I think i said my peice again. Now have fun spell checking me.

 

Not even enlarging the wastegate opening to help control boost?

 

I was wondering how much you can get after porting because you can get that without porting the motor.

 

Enough for high tens in the quarter at 125MPH. That's of course with true non-sequential, also with trimmed exhaust wheels and porting of the manifolds and turbos, not the motor.

 

I thought Al Gore invented NS?

 

I wish you had so I could tell you how pointless it is.
I had no problems controlling exactly 15psi of boost with "true non-sequential" ported engine and unported wastegate. You wanna argue that too?

 

Actually, I did, but you're right that it's pointless. That's the problem with being the first. Your innovation eventually just ends up being taken for granted. Of course, a lot of people have made the same modification since then, so even if it was pointless, it seems to have become quite popular...

Here's a picture of the first, taken at Jim Dagley's house in August of 1997.



I guess non-sequential boost creep must be a figment of everyone's imagination as well. You're right, we're all just making it up, just to **** you off.

 

I dont think he said boost creep was a figment of anyones imagination, I think he just said there are ways to avoid it. I have almost the same setup Dave had when he was non-seq, same ecu and the same boost controller and I hold constant all the way up the rpm range.

And who "invented" this that or the other thing is pointless and all just something that's your assumption. Unless you have a patent on the damn thing its pretty hard for you to know if someone hadn't done it elsewhere prior to you. So let's at least stop that bitch fest and get back to our other worthless arguements.

 

HHHAHAHAHA, your so full of yourself. I knew you would take the bait. Jim it's called sarcasm. Try to recognize it next time.
I did not say that boost creep isn't for real. I simply said that I never had any boost creep on my car with full NS, straight exhaust and a street port. All done without porting the wastegate, imagine that. I am glad to see that you take credit for doing so little as saying " hey I larger hole would help" Way to pat yourself on the back there genius. You even went through the trouble to find a pic to post. classic!!

Hey Jim, it sunny by my house right now, You wanna post a pic of your house to prove that the sun isn't out

 

Actually Jon, I had the full version on my car. I also never experienced any boost creep and get this. I didn't even port the wastegate!! HOLY ****, The sky is falling!!!

 

Well no **** you won't have boost creep at 15psi! What made you spit out that outrageous comment?
Most people get creep when they try to maintain stock boost. I never had any creep when I set my boost to 12psi with a ported engine and all bolt ons. But 12 is the lowest I could go as it would creep back to 12 again any way.