found another NZ !

DanW · Post by **DanW** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 12:39 am

lovely, just found out that a mate from my work has a polo, and not just that, I was it was a H reg, asked him to pop the bonnet MPI! lovely!

On anotehr slightly simlular note:
Me and kupra (Alex) were discussing the tunability of the NZ block in general. I've had 2 people at BVF say it's more tunable.

Whats the compression ratio on the NZ ang GTs? I thought the GT had a better head or something. I would like to tune my car now after BVF...

p.s. Rob why did u park so far away from the porka lot? We would have made u some space, even if it was on the Type 2/3 (i dunno) spot. Didn't seem to want to talk to us much

. But I'm very immpressed with the P's!!!!! did u have to ask to have the Black bits done in the "P"? It looks the dogs balls. I'm hopefully getting some 14's off the guy who's doing my body work..

Dannnnnnnnnnnnnn

optima21 · Post by **optima21** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:46 am

ythe Cylinder head I got with some NZ parts has 7mm smaller inlet ports than a GT head, and the NZ shares the same inlet manifold as the G40, which again has smaller ports than the GT.

I understand the GT has a higher complression ratio and a lightened flywheel and of course a sportier cam.
The GT has an 10:1 compression ratio but I'm looking to increase that to 11:1 on mine, as long as Im not going to have problems with valve clearances.

and dont forget the powerpolo guys are going to use an NZ engine on nitrous in an MK2 at santa pod in a couple of weeks

hardhitter · Post by **hardhitter** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 8:32 pm

It depends how you define tuneable. Either to get the most gains over standard or give the most power out of the two.

I will say you can more power out of the 3F engine compared to the NZ engine. For a start the 3F engine has 10:1 cr, sportier cam, bigger inlet manifold, better head and closer ratio box amogst other things. The NZ has slightly lower cr, milder cam, narrower inlet and head and an 8P box. The flywheels are the same.

But there is plenty you can do to an NZ to get a decent amount of power.

DanW · Post by **DanW** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:08 pm

so changing the CAM and the gearbox (which I already have),

and maybe eventualy the inlet manifold. It is possiable to change it?

Is it possiable to hit 90bhp?

polog40racer · Post by **polog40racer** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:19 pm

Well easy to hit 90bhp.

Christ, I had 102bhp on my NZ recorded on a Rolling Road full setup that was with just a BR motorsport Hi torque camshaft, 2" custom exhaust straight through (not cat or mid silencer) and pipercross vector induction kit + heat shielding.

It was 89bhp when it wasn't running right (I got it on a RR day with club G40 years back).

Then 113bhp and 111lb/ft (I kid you not!) with a Cosworth adjustable fuel pressure regulator and a proper cold air induction setup that I created (think Saxo Ram-Air kit). And setup again on the Rolling Road setting fuelling and ignition up.

I hadn't even disconnected the oil breather fromt the intake or anything.

The rolling Road was Hi-Tech Motorsport in Dudley.

And this is always why I can never understand people saying you cant tune GT's very well! Been there, done it!

DanW · Post by **DanW** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:33 am

ah well a PM is flying your way m8

polog40racer · Post by **polog40racer** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 5:33 pm

Just pointing out that I was talking about the NZ 78bhp MPi version tuning and not the 55bhp SPI version.

But the lesson is though to always get your car on a RR to get setup, just planting mods on it doesn't bring out its full potential.

Gareth_GT_Hatch · Post by **Gareth_GT_Hatch** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:13 pm

NZ is 55bhp according to VAG, same as Spi. Of course it may well be more than this but it has a lower compression ratio than the 75Bhp GT (3f) engine; as well as having a milder cam, smaller ports on the cylinder head, smaller inlet manifold and different ECU.

polog40racer · Post by **polog40racer** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:58 pm

VW UK Head Office confirmed mine as a 'test' engine (had to give them all the info and numbers for it) for the MK3 before they introduced the GT with 3F. This is why its a CL chassis, and registered in Jan 91, but dont know when it was built, and registered as a CL for insurance. Quite a few of them had them, Ive just found another in my local scrappie.

Originally they were going to use the German Spec'd 78bhp version (Europe had two versions) of the Coupe S. Your right about teh lower compresion ratio.

I forget all the differences now as I found out all this info out years ago. I dont really care what you reckon the NZ has, as mine is different to a normal one. I wa just on about the tuneability of the higher spec'd one that was never released in the UK.

I had mine RR'd as standard at 79bhp when I had it years and years ago.
Its now for sale too.

Krupa · Post by **Krupa** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:02 pm

Sorry, I just don't get this...

So, VW are releasing cars badged up as CLs with GT engines to trick insurance companies? And giving them a CL chassis?

To me, that just doesn't sound plausable.

I would've said it's more likely that they had spare NZ engine parts from the Mk2 range, the newer 3F engine is there ready for the GT so the only place to use up the spares is in the CLs.

In that case the remaining NZ engines, 79bhp, 55bhp or whatever would end up in a CL bodyshell/chassis with the CL gearbox and so on to save them from just being wasted. Hence some early CLs getting the engine.

I can't see why VW would do a "test" 75bhp CL when the GT, also 75bhp, is in the pipeline. Doesn't make sense to me!

In fact my local mechanic has shown me a manufacturing sticker on a 93 SEAT Ibiza 1.3 showing its engine code as 3F.

The other thing is I'm surprised that VW UK give out information like that? What exactly did they say? Who did you call? My local VW garage told me they're not very forthcoming with information about particular cars.

Gareth_GT_Hatch · Post by **Gareth_GT_Hatch** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:16 pm

I dont like this testbed idea. GTs in this country were available at the lauch of the mk3, so why do a testbed if ones already out?

Tahrey1043 · Post by **Tahrey1043** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:35 am

Seeing as the NZ has always been supposed to be 55hp round these parts i'd be pretty chuffed with 78hp off a "stock" one.... you sure it hasn't been worked on at all?! That RR was calibrated right wasnt it?

(quite why did they go back to SPi but with a higher compression? cheaper/simpler, more torquey for the comparitively low power figure, or both?)

hm, thinking about some of the things said on here, how many parts off an NZ would bolt onto a 1-lt ?

(hehe)

hmm, all the multipoint love, plus higher compression, better economy, and lower tax/insurance brackets. 62hp should be adequate for a 1000 shouldnt it? (muhahaha)

Gareth_GT_Hatch · Post by **Gareth_GT_Hatch** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:49 am

The compression ratio of the NZ and AAV engines are the same, its only the GT and 1.0 that has higher and the 1.0 was always spi (untill about 1997 anyway)

Im pretty certain it was a cost thing with regard to going from mpi to spi. I think they would have done alot better leaving it tho; for us polo owners anyway, not for them obviously.

Aphex · Post by **Aphex** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:46 am

[quote="hardhitter"]I. The NZ has slightly lower cr, milder cam, narrower inlet and head and an 8P box. quote]

8p: so the same as the GT and G40 then?

Karl_CLCoupe · Post by **Karl_CLCoupe** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:21 pm

[quote="Overmind]8p: so the same as the GT and G40 then?[/quote]

The 8p has longer gear ratios than the GT box. The 8p is most commonly found in CLs (as an optional extra in most cases), however, I'm not too sure whether the G40 has the 8p. It certainly has longer ratios than the GT box.