TimZ

This is probably obvious, but if you try to aim the outlet gasses toward the inlet, it's important to make sure that it's aimed in a manner that will not oppose the direction of spin of the turbine. You don't want the blow-off valve to try to stall the turbine.

I'm assuming that you are asking how to plumb the recirculated output of the valve back into the turbine inlet - you _could_ build your own adapter and try to angle the reccirculated flow such that it tends to help spin up the turbine. Or if you want something quicker and easier you could just buy something like this These adapters come in various sizes - just search ebay motors for "silicone adapter tee"

It was also discussed here, and this one even ends up with a nice FZ reference! Tony D also backed up his assertions with real data - take a look at post #405 in the thread that NewZed referenced.

At first it doesn't look like it will fit the way I mentioned, but it will!

Sorry - I've been meaning to respond to this for a while and kept forgetting. If you clock the motor 180 degrees from the way you have it, the motor will sit higher and be out of sight. It's kind of a tight fit, but it can be done, even with the factory AC: Also on the 78 Z at least there was a speed switch built into the speedo that was used for emissions purposes with the manual transmission models. It changes states at around 10 or 15 mph. I used this switch to power a relay that switches in different resistance values for the assist level adjustment - I get higher levels of assist at low speeds and lower assist levels once I'm rolling. The controller that they use seems to filter the transition, so the change in assist level isn't obvious. I _really_ like this setup - it's one of the best mods I've done to this car! As someone else already mentioned it does take more than just a couple of hours to install, but you can still do it easily in a weekend, and it's WAY easier than trying to figure out how to mount a PS pump, get a belt to it, retrofit a rack and plumb the hydraulics!

With the larger valve you may start running into shrouding issues as well, depending on your combustion chamber design.

Agreed. The only thing that you should be using the cam sensor for would be to answer the question "which 360 am I on?" As I already mentioned, you don't have to be very accurate to be able to answer that question reliably. Trying to use it for anything more than that is folly. I'm advocating foregoing the sensor inside the valve cover altogether, and using a modified stock distributor pickup to tell you that. It's a much less harsh environment for the sensor to live in, you don't have to figure out how to mount it and get wiring to it, and there's already a reliable solution for it. If you really hate having a distributor still hanging off the front cover that much, then engineer a more compact unit that mounts in its place.

This is a common misconception. The "waste" gap is on the exhaust stroke and as such is a MUCH easier gap to jump than the one on the compression stroke. FAR lower pressure and higher temperatures results in a far less dense atmosphere for the spark to jump through. There is some energy lost vs not having the waste gap, but it's more like a few percent, certainly _NOT_ 50%. As I mentioned the main advantage here is the increased dwell time for the coils, but you have to go pretty high in the RPM range to see big advantages. Granted this head should still make power at 9000 rpm, but there are waste spark systems that can still go that high. I'm pretty sure that the cam sensor is only being used to determine which 360 you are on. This is certainly true on any aftermarket systems that are likely to be used with this head. OEM Direct Injection systems _might_ me able to use cam/crank phasing info to some advantage, but I think its safe to say that nobody is going to be doing direct injection with this head.

It sounds like you are thinking of sequential injection, as opposed to ignition. They are two separate and independent things. In both cases you double the amount of time between events, but the advantages take place on opposite ends of the RPM range. For sequential injection the advantage takes place at low rpm, where the doubling of time between events means that you also get to double the injector pulsewidth. When you are running large injectors and require really low pulsewidths at idle and cruise, this becomes pretty much essential to get any kind of part throttle driveability. As RPMs rise this becomes less of a big deal due to generally higher loads, but it's still helpful. As far as I know, there would be no reason for it to revert to non-sequential at higher RPMs. For sequential ignition, the advantage is at high rpm, where the doubling of time between events allows more dwell time for the coils to reach their full energy potential. Waste spark systems have been used successfully to some very high (10,000+) RPMs, though, so the advantage for this application is debatable. While you could do a single point timing pickup using cam or distributor timing, as Brady pointed out, that would be a step (probably several steps) backwards in timing accuracy. Most setups that I have seen for this use a crank trigger for the actual timing, supplemented by a cam/distributor trigger to tell it which 360 it's on. In this setup the inaccuracies of the cam trigger are not an issue, as it essentially just needs to fire somewhere within the correct 360 degrees. A potential problem with this setup is that you now have a second sensor that must be working in order to get the sequential feature to work. For sequential injection, this isn't a big deal, since being 360 degrees out of phase on injector events still works, and probably isn't even a noticeable thing. For sequential ignition it's a much different story - being 360 degrees out is kind of a bad thing. For this reason I would prefer using a modified distributor mounting for the cam timing, as it is a much less harsh environment for the sensor than trying to get it to live inside the valve cover.

Sorry I wasn't trying to be a jerk but the GT35r is a great turbo - IF your goals are for ~500 to 600 rwhp. That's WAY too much for your goals and it actually won't work very well at all at lower boost/power levels. If you will truly be happy at 250hp, then definitely stay with a smaller turbo that is sized for that. Depending on your budget you could probably reach your goal with a fresh stock or stock-like turbo, or you might be able to do some pretty interesting things with some of the more modern designs that are becoming available.

So you are going to use a GT35R to make maybe 250hp at 10psi boost? Did I miss something?

Well, I guess you could make your own, or don't buy this one...

The "few minutes" is to heat cycle the engine - see Tony's comments on embedment above. The whole point of torquing the head is to achieve uniform clamping force across the entire gasket and head. How you could possibly make that better by purposely putting the aluminum head into a thermally unstable condition while you are doing it is beyond my comprehension. And people wonder why their Felpro head gaskets keep blowing...

NEVER re-torque a head when it is warm. That is _not_ the Nissan method. You only want to do this when the engine is stone cold, as in sat overnight without running. You _should_ run the engine through a few heat cycles before re-torquing, but let it cool off completely before re-torquing.

Just for the hell of it, here's the old spec sheet from my head studs: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-CQ13kNRteRo/SRQ7qAW99AI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/nsZu0nAGbho/s1024-Ic42/Arpspec.jpg Can't imagine how anybody could be confused...

That does sound really high for an ARP 10mm stud, especially with their assembly lube. When I bought my l-series-spec'ed studs several years ago they specified what seemed like really low torque specs - something like 45lb-ft with assembly lube and 55lb-ft with motor oil. They have since upped that spec, but I didn't think it was that high. Personally, although I do like their products, I think ARP has done a lousy job of spec'ing these. There are multiple specs floating around to the point that I'm not convinced that anybody really knows what the right number is. I do recall a friend of mine snapping one of these after being told that the "real" torque spec was 90lb-ft. I don't recall whether this was with assembly lube or not. I generally torque mine to 65lb-ft with motor oil.

Most everybody that has gone down this path have old broken ring land piston examples.

This is probably a good time to point out that replacing a blown head gasket, while not fun, is far easier and cheaper than broken ring lands... Sometimes doing it "right" is counter-intuitive.

1 fast z

Actually your idea was sound, but you still need the springs. You could install the head with just the rockers missing and achieve what you were thinking of.

You can omit the word "novice" from that sentence and it will still be accurate.

Here's my favorite pic of mine...

I was thinking the same thing - there are aftermarket gearsets (the gForce kit is quite a bit more than $800) that would work, but due to the reasons that Xnke has already laid out I doubt that anybody is going to make a t5 adapter for that engine.

_most_ people in the USA...

Well, that doesn't sound so bad...