Big Thanks to......

[Carl]

Basically there are two ways of doing this conversion.
One is reasonably inexpensive and the other is quite alot of money.
Both work well,but the more expensive route gains you a bit more power ultimately.
The least expensive route is easily reversible.
We can take either route for you.But if your engine is pretty standard then the lesser expense route is the way to go in my opinion.
Regards
Carl

[Donato]

Mine was the more expensive one, which i did myself so it wasnt expensive  

[wedgiekray]

http://www.fd3s.net/

.. is the URL you\'re after I guess.

[Kieron]

This is someting I have looked into, once the engine is run in and I\'ve got a few time slips I\'ll probably do it to see how it changes the 1/4mile time  :cool

[ro284]

Great, Thanks for that link Wedgie, Something else i would like to see is a Dyno chart of a non seq, setup, anyone got one Please?
Cheers Bob

[tr1cky]

After reading that I\'m thinking its something I don\'t want to tackle on my own! More removing/involved than I first thought! :eek

Could some one please give abit more detail of the two versions \'cheap\' and \'loadsa money\' :rollin

ie- Cost difference, what sort of gains?

Also will the car require a remap/tweak of ECU??? :xconfused

Cheers Rich

[20B_boy]

I\'ve been running non seq twins for the last 6 months or so.

As Carl says, its not like the car is dead low down without them working sequentially. But the eventual spool up is a little later I would say. The reasons I went non-sequential were to a) remove the complexity of the turbo control system to minimise maintenance and problems and b) for car control as Carl mentioned above; the delivery of the twins sequentially is NOT ideal for track and thats my red car\'s purpose in life - tooling about and going to the Nurburgring. I want a predicatable and smooth power delivery, not a sudden momentary shove in the back that leaves me in the trees, :rollin

R.