| Home  Blogs Help Search Login Register  
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Bagheera on ebay - anyone bidding from here?  (Read 11594 times)
macaroni
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 533


Murena and Multipla - I like it 3 abreast!


« on: September 26, 2006, 09:54:02 am »

There is a blue Bagheera, S reg, on ebay. The  bidding will end in an hour and it is only £192 at the moment.
Is anyone from here bidding on it?

Apparently it needs some work for the MOT...
Logged
Lennart Sorth
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2006, 10:21:18 pm »

Apparently it needs some work for the MOT...
heh - show me a Bagheera for sale that doesn't :-)

Even Murenas with their galvanized chassis cannot boast about having no MOT problems anylonger - so many small brackets or connectors have corroded away in the 20+ years

btw - I have lost my translationtable of UK registration, which year is 'S' reg ?

I know they started all over again in 1983 (?) with preceding 'A', - and before that it
was a trailing (?) letter ?


Logged

Lennart.Sorth@matrasport.dk
Murena 1983 1.9i silver // Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2.0d 2012 white // Smart 4two cdi 2010 blue //
macaroni
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 533


Murena and Multipla - I like it 3 abreast!


« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2006, 10:56:17 pm »

I think it is personal reg number as S is 1977.

The ebay ad claims it is a 1984 car!!
Logged
Lennart Sorth
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2006, 11:11:52 pm »

I think it is personal reg number as S is 1977.
The ebay ad claims it is a 1984 car!!

1977 sounds OK for a Bag series-II 'S', as I believe that was launched in 1976.

1984 is wrong in every way, as Bag-production stopped by 1979, but maybe it was imported or finally sold from a dealer in 1984 ?

is it btw rhd or lhd ?
Logged

Lennart.Sorth@matrasport.dk
Murena 1983 1.9i silver // Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2.0d 2012 white // Smart 4two cdi 2010 blue //
Spyros
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 323

I'm a real donkey!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2006, 02:11:29 pm »

Apparently it needs some work for the MOT...
heh - show me a Bagheera for sale that doesn't :-)



Hi Lennart,

A couple of month ago, a known german Bagheera was proposed on ebay.
Perfect state, hot galvanized chassis...
It didn't sold and the owner came to join us at Spa Francorchamps this summer. It drove very well on the track.

Regards
Spyros
Logged
Lennart Sorth
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2006, 04:39:58 pm »

Perfect state, hot galvanized chassis...

Oh yes, - that will keep the rust-monsters on a distance.

Matra made a few as development-platforms for the Murena chassis, and also brave (=capable) owners have done this to their cars themselves. Its a big job, but apparently it can be done.

Originally Matra designed the Murena-chassis with some modifications compared to the Bag - especially to make it an easier object for hot galvanizing. Also some consideration went into avoiding the chassis going pearshaped because of the heat, - but this has apparently not been a problem for the people who did the hotgalvanizing afterwards.

Maybe it was more of a production-scale issue.

Anyway, if I should buy a Bagheera, I would certainly love to get my hands on a galvanized one.

Logged

Lennart.Sorth@matrasport.dk
Murena 1983 1.9i silver // Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2.0d 2012 white // Smart 4two cdi 2010 blue //
Matra_Hans
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 642


Owner of Bagheera, Rancho, Murena & Espace


« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2006, 07:08:24 pm »

In this case the galvanized Bagheera chassis has been made by Matra as an experiment or test before start of the Murena production. The galvanized chassis were sold as spare parts. I talked to the owner at the Matra meeting in Northern Germany last year. The guy in question actually had two galvanized Bagheera chassis.

Regards Hans
Logged
Spyros
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 323

I'm a real donkey!


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2006, 08:29:35 am »

I also spoke to him.
No pear but he showed me how banana shaped his chassis was ...

On the length of the car, about 2 mm of deformation that can be seen on the gasket of 1 rear window.

Since I'm then also one of these brave and capable owner who hot galvanized a chassis, I can tell you that most of the deformation is to be seen as slight wave effect on flat pannels like the boot. Things totally hidden once the carpet is fitted.

Sincerely Lennart, I appreciate your caution when you speak about the often repeated legend that hot galvanization will destroy a Bagheera chassis.

Most of the modification to the Bagheera derived, Murena chassis was to enable communication between the various profiles and holes to let air and liquid zinc escape. Very visible on the Murena sills showing these big holes.
We are not here with the big bus chassis, the espace that considering all the openings of the 4 doors, boot, was prone to deformation.

Murena and Bagheera chassis are much more rigid.

If I speak about Bagheera derived chassis for the Murena, it's mainly simplifications and adaptations. Like the 2 chassis legs running under the car. The Murena ones appears as different due to the change of rear suspension with the suspension arms at an angle. What do you think they ( matra) did ? Simply take the Bagheera chassis legs. Cut it after the piece that hold the rear of the front torsion bar system. Incorporate a little bracket piece and reweld it at an angle. Nothing more fancy. I know it, I have the part at home.
For the part holding the door hinges, the Murena one is different but actually much simplified compared to the uselessly stronger Bagheera one. And  Wink adaptable ...
Logged
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2823



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2006, 11:08:37 am »

Spyros, that's very interesting information you are sharing.

The Bagheera concept was very successfull, so I find it very understandible why they chose to make the Murena so much like it even on the chassis. Besides, I don't think the hot galvanisation should be underestimated - we know how big an improvement it was to the cars of course, but I'm sure they must have spent a lot of engineering to make it work. Besides, just convincing management to make the investment must have been difficult.

The Espace chassis is also very stiff and the pillars over the cabin are too, so they may not have had that many problems really. But from pictures I've seen of the Espace 3 chassis undergoing the galvanisation, it looks like they stiffened it with bars for the galvanisation.
Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
Spyros
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 323

I'm a real donkey!


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2006, 03:22:02 pm »

Hi Anders,

My belief is that when the change from Simca to Talbot ( please read Peugeot) occured, Matra lost most of his freedom.
If you compare a 1980 TALBOT Matra Bagheera with a 1979 Matra SIMCA one, you really wonder if there was a real improvement.
The Murena... The project started with a code name "super Bagheera", so I'm not surprised to see what happened.
Yes there was an extraordinary change but not a new car. Much more something like 2 or 3 times more changes that they already had between the Serie 1 Bagheera and the Serie 2.
I was always wondering why they were so shy, especially with the 1.6 engine. An additional weber must have looked like an impossible spending.
Same for the "non S" 2.2. Was it such a good engine ? Well at that time, I was driving an old bmw 320. Old car, smaller engine size, more HP. And if you compare the internals of the 2.2 engine with the 1.6, you will sometimes find a better design in the 1.6.
Of course, this hypothesis that they lost freedom is in contradiction with the fact that they introduced the zinc dipping process. So ... I don't know.

Was it such an elaborated process ?
Don't forgett that they started the galvanization with Bagheera parts, just to avoid a stocking problem : After galvanization, they could store them outside.
I can imagine that one of them had the idea to try to dip a complete chassis instead of parts.... and then they had to discover the modifications to do.

I've been told that the test involved dipping a chassis in water, to study how and were the liquid would go in and how it would go out, withour being trapped.
I've also being told that the espace chassis needed to be reworked past the galvanization to put them right. Something they didn't had to do with the Murena.
Logged
Lennart Sorth
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2006, 06:00:34 pm »

I've been told that the test involved dipping a chassis in water, to study how and were the liquid would go in and how it would go out, withour being trapped.
Oh yes Spyros, - that was excactly what I thought of, when I wrote "make it an easier object for hot galvanizing".

The "pearshapeness" part is, as you say a long told story, which nobody really can confirm. Thats also why I wrote that it apparently hasn't been a problem for the people who have done this afterwards themselves.

The "brave and capable" was certainly ment positive, as I have high respect for people who have done this. I did not mean to ridicule anything.

When I moved to UK in 1995, I needed a car, and immediately started looking for my old love - the Bag series II, which I "would have somebody galvanize". First of all, it was not easy to find anybody who could/would do this, secondly I didn't find a good car to start with, and third (and most important), it was only then I learned that the Murena was galvanized from the factory - which is why I changed my focus to the Murena, a car I hardly knew then.

Then I met up with Roy Gillard at Silverstone, to have a look at his car, and that was it - I was hoplessly in love, and started locating a good bareboned 1.6 (due to my fear of astronomical import-taxes in Denmark).  This mainly means manual windows Smiley

I still love the Bagheera - and would love to own one, - preferably a galvanized one.
But I would also love top own a Djet.

/Lennart
Logged

Lennart.Sorth@matrasport.dk
Murena 1983 1.9i silver // Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2.0d 2012 white // Smart 4two cdi 2010 blue //
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2823



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 24, 2006, 10:23:45 pm »

It is very likely that the cut from Chrysler to PSA had set Matra on a very tight budget... I think I have read that somewhere, and Peugeot was, I beleive, extra conservative at the time when they were really tight on cash. Yes, one tends to wonder why the 2.2 engine was carburetted when Toyota came on with their MR2 just a few years later - and it was fuel injected from day one. Ok, Toyota was looking at the american market too with its tighter emissions regulations, but still... the early 1980's were changing times and Matra seemingly must have found themselves in the middle of a fight for survival.

Spyros, what is it that you find is more advanced in the 1.6 engine than in the 2.2? I have no prejudice, just want to hear Smiley

I am very satisfied with my 2.2 so far - I have just renewed gaskets in the carburettor, and it runs so smoothly that I feel impressed with it every day.

Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
Spyros
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 323

I'm a real donkey!


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2006, 09:28:59 am »

Do you remember this ?

That's were this old Simca engine is coming from.
Like the 1.6, the 2.2 is an old type of Simca designed engine.
I believe that if we limit it to the french production of the time, the simca's were top engines at the time they were born.
But re-used and re-used with little and little improvements, you would agree that when they find their way in the Murena, they were nothing but just old, obsolete concepts.
The 2.2 might be a top head cam engine but that's it.
For small engines, side cams were performing well and if you take the origine of what was strechted out to the 1590, that was a convenient solution.
Now if you go deep in the engine, you will find lots of little details that were better on the 1290- 1440 -1590 engines. Look for instance to the pistons and the way they were linked to the rods. Interference link in the 1590 versus a circlip on the 2.2. Much better but by the way not there from the beginning in the small engine.
That might be the obvious explaination : Much much more small engines produced versus the rather confidential 2 litres serie
Because of that, the small engine has probably benefited from lots of updates versus the absence of evolution for the bigger one.
If you look at the various version of the engine, well the 1640 version of your engine was delivering 80 Pk. Less than the 1290 cc version of the small engine...
Logged
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2823



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2006, 11:06:28 am »

Do you remember this?

No, I'm not old enough Wink I'm also a 69'er.

Quote
That might be the obvious explaination : Much much more small engines produced versus the rather confidential 2 litres serie

Agree, a mass produced engine will always have more problems fixed than a low volume one.

Quote
If you look at the various version of the engine, well the 1640 version of your engine was delivering 80 Pk. Less than the 1290 cc version of the small engine...

which is probably a question of tuning.

Obviously the side cam, push rod system cannot be tuned as much as the overhead as the cam simply cannot be made as agressive.

That said, I do agree with you that Murena was probably suffering from sub-optimal engines, even in the 2.2, but also with the 1.6. Lennart has recently started wondering if his Murena with the 1.9 alloy 205GTI engine is actually lighter than a standard murena with 1.6, and he may be right, which is interesting as that engine was producing quite a well amount of power even in the standard dressing (and he will be approaching a 50/50 weight ratio!).

But anyway - Matra went through quite a bit of struggle to make the 2.2 work well - they weren't allowed to upgrade it much, but did finally get the 142 prep in place. We know the 4S was never approved, though we probably all agree that it should have been. However, looking at the work they did with oil pan and air flow around the engine bay, I'm sure they would have wanted to do it much better, and also that they could have done much more.

I think it's always sad to see things like that happen, when on the other end of the scale (though this is a contemporary project, but really - the world hasn't changed that much) a silly VW boss can push the monster Veyron through the system at ridicuolus cost.

Anyway, PSA was struggeling for survival at the time, which they did eventually, and Matra is returning to automobile business, so it could have been much worse.

And what Matra did to the Murena, they did really well: It's an excellent vehicle Cheesy

- Anders
Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
krede
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1166



« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2006, 08:30:13 am »

Quote
And what Matra did to the Murena, they did really well: It's an excellent vehicle 
The hot galvanization still being the one single improvement, that sets it lightyears ahead of the Bagheera... atleast in my book..... i meen... the look on peoples faces when i tell them that I have a '82 talbot that will probably outlast their brand new bmw in the test of time... priceless.. Smiley
« Last Edit: October 29, 2006, 10:05:39 am by Lennart Sorth » Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to: