TimZ

I think you are both right. The A/C-equipped cars use a cable actuator to do the temperature regulation (this I know for a fact - I've replaced mine on my '78) just like all the other Z's, but there is an additional vacuum valve that simply shuts off the hot water to the heater core when the A/C gets turned on. This vacuum valve is on-off only, and is in series with the cable operated valve. It does not regulate the temperature.

I was able to find a pic showing the difference between the two input shafts: also, here are some pics of the tailshaft housing mods:

I believe that they are generally mated to the fasteners. So, if you are using the flywheel bolts for the P-30, use the 101 lb-ft spec.

Are you sure about that? When I did this, neither the GM or Ford-style pilot were the correct diameter or length. Did they add another input shaft option? The pieces that I'm seeing on their website are the same as what I got and it was not the correct size or length for the L6. We are talking about using a Datsun ZXT T5 here, right?

No - it's for cooling the fuel lines after shutdown to prevent vapor lock in hot weather.

As I recall, the shifter lines up approximately with the front edge of the opening in the console. This is for an L6, right? I don't think their standard pilot shaft is going to work with that - unless they have something new, their standard choices were too short and the wrong diameter.

The length difference can be very misleading - the shifter on the Datsun T5 sits much higher than the one on the Datsun n/a trans, so much so that you will have to clearance the hole in the tunnel for the shifter body. Because of this, you don't get to use the angle of the shift rod to set the shifter position back. The shifter will come through the console much farther forward than stock, and it does not clear the existing hole. What are you doing for a tailhousing? Is gForce modifying it for you? How about the pilot shaft? Both will need to be modified from what gForce supplies normally. As far as I know, gForce has not done this to a Datsun trans before.

...whew!

I understood what you were saying, but an airfoil is more like a teardrop cut in half - flat on one side, curved on the other. If you made it curved on both sides, there should be no lift. Of course you'd have to be careful to keep it exactly symmetrical, which might be difficult if you were doing it by hand. I think if you actually did this shape you would end up taking off way too much mass on the trailing edge. What I had in mind was more like rounding the leading edge, and maybe a slight taper to the trailing edge, leaving it flat instead of pointed - think "Kamm back"

It should be possible to shape the teardrop such that is symmetrical and does not create "lift". Of course if you want to start worrying about lift, then you need to take into consideration the effect of the proximity of the crank throws and the rods which periodically pass by creating ground effects and causing lift imbalances (good luck figuring that out). That said, we don't really know that the design that JohnC showed doesn't create lift. It looks like it probably doesn't create much, though. It strikes me that if this is the approach you want to take (and it does follow the theory of the "need" for knife-edging much more closely) that you would want to put the knife edge (or teardrop) shape on the leading edge of the counterweight, not on its end. This is where all of the supposed drag would be occurring. Personally, I'm dubious on how big of an effect this is in the first place.

I think that was all I was trying to say in the first place.

I guess I'm not sure exactly what you were disagreeing with. I thought I was talking about appropriateness of different mounting techniques for a strut bar. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - sorry.

Torsion bars and anti roll bars are being used as springs, not structural members. This is not germane to the discussion.

I agree completely (sorry for the late post - I've been meaning to post on this for a couple of days now). Just to put a finer point on this - you don't want to put anything but tension/compression loads on the strut bar (or any long tube for that matter). Trying to control other motions will never be effective, and will eventually fatigue the mounting points. Because of this, the Heim Joint is actually the best solution, since it only allows tensile forces to be put into the bar, and it rotates for everything else. The bolt (clevis-style in double shear) is second best since it at least allows movement in one axis, and rigid mounting is by far the worst solution for a non-triangulated strut bar. The PDK bar above should be okay for fore/aft movement, since it does have properly loaded, triangulated bars to limit this, assuming the bulkhead is sufficiently stiff. If the towers actually do try to move up and down with respect to each other, it won't be able to do much about that. So, the lateral crossbar needs to be a bolt in so that it won't try to fight such movement - I can't tell from the pic if this is the case or not.

I just made some new brackets from some aluminum scrap I had laying around. Same idea applies with using the cardboard first.

This is good advice - here's what I ended up with using that technique... http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=112290

Did you re-torque the head after a couple of heat cycles? The proper procedure for this has been gone over several times.

Same here, except I didn't have to do anything with my sway bar - I used a Suspension Techniques bar, and it clears everything so far.

Last time I checked, the SR20 was not a V6 - you'll probably get more responses if you post in the correct forum (Nissan 4cyl forum).

The stock ECU for the '77 does not have any sort of EPROM - as far as I know it's all analog, so good luck 'cracking' that. I seriously doubt that JWT can change the calibration of the stock 280Z ECU. You are probably thinking of the 300ZX ECU swap that they do. As I see it, your only way forward (aside from just using the stock ECU) would be to stuff a progammable ECU in the stock housing. If the rules won't allow it, then you are SOL (or you can always cheat ).

Hmmm... perhaps they just stock the turbo bolts for all applications now - there used to be a difference.

As a side note - use at least the turbo head bolts (ARP studs ideally), and follow the proper torquing sequence when torquing the head down. I usually go around the head two or three times with increasing torques - say 45 lb-ft the first time, then 55, then 65 (the turbo head bolts get 65 lb-ft). Also, re-torque the head after running two or three heat cycles on the engine. Let the engine cool overnight, then back each bolt off ~ 1/8 to 1/4 turn, then retorque in sequence, one at a time. I usually do this two or three times on a new gasket, just to make sure the gasket hasn't compressed and caused a loss of clamping force.

Not sure what you mean by "T valve", but you need two hoses to supply water to and from the heater core. It looks like you have the one from the back of the block, but you still need the one that goes to the lower rad hose inlet. The fitting at the back of the block supplies water to the core, the one at the front of the block is where the water is returned. I see two (maybe three) fairly easy solutions offhand. 1. Mount the coils closer together on the plate, offset towards the center, so that you can clear up enough space to put a 90 degree fitting in the stock location on the rad hose inlet, and route the hose around the coils. 2. Weld a 1/2" npt female bung onto the inlet at an angle that will allow you to install a hose barb without relocating the coils. or 3. braze (or weld if you have an aluminum rad) a 1/2" npt female bung onto the radiator tank just above the lower rad hose outlet, such that you can get a clean routing from the rad to the core.

Helpful hint: If you are thinking about grinding down the casting marks and making the surface smooth, Roloc ScotchBrite pads on a die grinder work wonders.

Hey - that looks like my valve cover.