no torque?

i'm just breaking in the motor with my single to4s and haven't taken it over 4k rpm or 2-3 psi and i'm leaving traffic left and right. Not on purpose...but just cause i'm driving what I feel comfortable with. I think the car has signifigantly more torque in the "driving" range than did the hugely restrictive stock sequential setup. I can cruise in 5th at 45 and not feel completely powerless.

I'll have to come give it the old autocross run once everything is good and seasoned. I've been toying with giving it a go in my favorite street car sport...rallycross...but the suspension just is a bit too harsh. My 15 inch rally wheels do fit though Maybe sometime down the road. Driving fast in low traction situations really teach the right foot how to control(and instinctually predict) stuff alot better.

john

 

Come on.....

None of us are talking about mashing the gas at <2500 rpm. We're (at least I am) are talking about throttle response below 3500 rpm, which is WAY better with the sequential setup and is more fun around town and freeway driving. If I need to floor it, of course I downshift. It's about throttle response. Who the hell wants to cruise in 4th on the freeway at 4k rpm just to have throttle response?

If you don't understand what I am talking about it, cruise on the freeway at 75 mph in 5th and just lean into the throttle a little bit. A sequential car will boost 5-10 psi and just start accelerating very quickly and easily. A non-sequential car will sit there trying to make 2 psi of boost and going nowhere.

What do you think about my track comments? I have sequential for the street and the car essentially runs in non-sequential the entire time at the track. Point out the bad things of that setup (other than the old boring complexity, blah blah blah).

 

Big deal, the seq twins do that easily. Hell, my wife's Protege does it easily.....

 

No, Jeff mentioned that.

That's what the shifter is for. Are you sketching back and forth all over the freeway or something? You need to pass, downshift, or ease through 5th - it's not even an issue.

Riiiighht.

You're in the Bay Area, let's go for a ride sometime. You aren't even more than a half hour away from me.

BTW: Connect your boost gauge to the y-pipe side and watch your "vacuum" in 5th at around 75.

It's not old "boring complexity" - it's just useless crap you really don't need. ESPECIALLY if you've got a single turbo setup. I also believe this PFC non-seq while at the track business to be speculation. Are we saying the stock ECU/PFC is now keeping the TCA open when it detects " hard drivin' " ?

 

How can you say it's speculation? It is FACT that the turbos stay in non-sequential mode once you've crossed transition, until you drop back below 3k rpm. You can look at the datalogit screen if you don't believe me. You can even adjust the transition point and the point where the car goes back to sequential.

Even better, all you have to do is drive the car. It's behavior you can easily witness simply by getting on the highway -- accelerate hard to redline in 3rd gear and shift into 4th, you will be above the transition. Drop down to 3500 rpm. You will STILL be in non-sequential. Floor it until you go through where the transition would normally be. Guess what? You won't feel the transition because you are still in non-sequential. And you will be there until you drop the rpms below 3k rpm. Happens every time. It's how the system is set up.

As far as your other comments go, you are right. If my FD was a track or weekend-only car AND I was running a midpipe, I could see the benefits of the simplicity of going true non-sequential or single turbo. However, my FD is a daily driven car through city and highway, that still has to be relatively smog legal. Non-sequential simply cannot match the drivability of the sequential operation in daily driving. If it did, Mazda wouldn't have gone to such lengths to make sequential work.

 

When do you want to get together?

 

Haha, maybe this weekend. I'll have to see, my weekend's getting crowded already. I've got to give my car a good look over underneath after going off track at Buttonwillow last Friday.....

I do enjoy these debates. Far better than reading another thread about a 16 year old who wants to buy an FD for $10k.

 

BTW: In order to "be" in non-seq it would require the ECU to hold the CCA and TCA open after dropping back down past the transition point. If this is indeed what the PFC does - great. It would be mindless not to.

However if it is closing off CCA and TCA then it would just be a perceived non-seq feeling as the transition point would be less due to the secondary already being pre-spooled.

If datalogging shows it as holding CCA/TCA open though, cool.

However,

The fact of the matter is that the car has plenty of drivability without a turbo even on the engine.

Now if you want to talk performance driving, that's another story - who's hammering it at 2 krpm?

Also, the "Mazda did it this way" defense never flew with me. Mazda did a lot of things for a lot of different reasons - not all of which were performance related. I'm not saying the sequential setup is crap one bit - I'm saying it is an over-complex solution to a problem that isn't much of an issue anymore.

2004 here, ball-bearing turbos are freely available.

Soon we'll have variable-vane operating with decent efficiency maps as well.

 

Let me know. I'm up for hanging out in general whenever.

I noticed you listed "Acoustical Consultant" as an occ. - on a related note, I am also interested in pro audio/mixing/etc.

 

Yeah, my job is from the architectural side of things -- designing buildings to have good room acoustics, sound isolation, and mechanical noise control. I also work with the audio side of my company in such matters as loudspeaker aiming/modeling.

However, I played drums for several years (still do occasionally) and did the band thing for quite a while. So, I can relate to the pro audio side of things as well....

 

Ah.. so a lot of standing wave and mode analysis.

Are you familiar with HR824s? That's what I use for monitoring. It's nice to have full range and not have to worry about room anomalies or ns-10 style near field sound.

 

rynberg's right. Power FC does stay in non-sequential mode @ open track driving conditions. I seldom fall below 3000 rpm, so yes, both turbos are going full tilt boogie. rynberg's right again with interstate driving in top gear. Say you're cruising along @ 3000 rpm (~75 mph), and you want to pass a long line of cars, no need to downshift, just floor it, and away you go. I absolutely LOVE THAT LOL This is especially effective with J-specs and my modded setup.

 

Actually, I don't do that much at all... I rarely am dealing much with "small room" acoustics. Usually I am working on auditoriums, theatres, theaters, band/choral rooms, etc., that are large enough that room modes don't really come into play much.

The Mackies are pretty good monitors for the price. Don't even mention NS-10s to me, LOL....too many people use those EXCLUSIVELY instead of understanding that they are only good for checking to see how the mix will sound on shitty sound systems...

However, once you hear a set of Genelec's....

 

 

Oh come on, you all are going to debate that long then just go to a different topic all together?

Be considerate. There are people out there (of which I am one) who are trying to figure out the real difference between a good twin turbo setup and a good single setup. We've followed the conversation between adamant believers of each and come to no conclusion. It would only be fair to meet up, drive the car you don't like the setup of, and then come back and give feedback.

FFS don't leave me hanging!



-RedHaze

 

Oh, gimme a break....

There will never be a "group conclusion". It is up to each individual to analyze the characteristics of each setup and make the decision for themselves. The facts of how each system aren't in dispute, at least among honest drivers:

Twin Sequential:
*better low end than any other setup
*less lag than any other setup
*power curve can be slightly non-linear due to dip/spiking at transition
*ultimate power output is limited by small size of turbos
*the seq twins run hot

Twin Non-sequential:
*poorer low end than sequential
*more lag than sequential and perhaps more lag than the smallest singles, depending on mods
*more linear power curve than sequential
*more reliable boost than sequential
*simpler underhood setup
*runs cooler than seq twins
*ultimate power output still limited by small size of turbos

Single Turbo:
*poorer low end than seq twins, may or may not have better low end than non-seq twins, depending on type/size
*more lag than seq twins, some turbos spool very quickly though (RX6, T04), may have less or more lag than non-seq twins, depending on type/size
*more reliable boost than sequential twins
*simpler underhood setup
*runs cooler than seq twins
*higher ultimate power levels than the seq or non-seq twins
*not smog legal in many states, especially in visual states like Cali
*very expensive to do properly

It's up to you to decide which is more important to you.

 

I lied when I posted that I have not driven a single turbo. Actually, I have driven radkins single turbo @ Putnam Park Road Course. His rear end had handling problems at the time, so I could not get a good feel, for the car; radkins car wanted to spin every time I dipped into throttle coming out of a turn. I can say that @ 0.70 kg/cm^2 (10 psi) boosting on the Power FC, his car IS STRONG!

 

'99 Japan Spec Twins, 16 psi. Not too shabby for twins. Throttle response is fantastic...much better than stock twins!