| Home  Blogs Help Search Login Register  
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print
Author Topic: Murena 1.9i XU9JA (205 gti) performance  (Read 30139 times)
macaroni
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 533


Murena and Multipla - I like it 3 abreast!


« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2006, 09:33:13 pm »

That didn't mean to sound as rude as it came out, you know what I mean! But any ither time you're passing the A21, please feel free to drop in.

I willm it is only 29degrees there at the mo...
Logged
Lennart Sorth
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2006, 10:14:14 pm »

I wasn't offended at all macaroni, - just having a good laugh  :-)

I *will* remember your invitation, - mark my words.  A21 thats mighty conveniently close to my favourite track - Brands. Had my Murena on it once (and broke down there another time, but thats another story)

Actually I was down the A21 some years ago, when my bl**dy cultural kids wanted to go to Battle and Hastings - the year before it was the Bayeux tapestry in France, and my daughter wanted to go to Oxford on her 9 year birthday same year...   :-)

/Lennart
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 #17 on: October 11, 2006, 10:44:03 pm »

Blimey they are culture vultures! All mine want to do is play their Gameboys!

We go to Brands a lot, not to drive though. When I get my 205 finally sorted I will take that there for some track action.
Logged
Spyros
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 323

I'm a real donkey!


WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2006, 12:07:13 pm »

I also have a theory that my car was lightened quite substancially by fitting this engine, - but until now I haven't had it weighed (silly me). However, I have pictures of the car before and after the conversion which suggests that the rear suspension raised itself 2-3 cm after the conversion, which in round figures would be 50 kg or so...


Lennart,
A comment of Anders in another post attracted me here.
I might be out of scope but It's difficult for me to understand that swapping a 1.6 engine to an Peugeot XU would produce a weight reduction of about 50 kg.

Why ?

Well, alone, I can lift a 1.6 engine. My back doesn't like it but sometimes it has to be done. And a difference of 50 kgs is really big. I don't believe I would be able to lift an engine so heavy to have place for such a weight reduction.

Are you sure the change of attitude of the car was due to such a weight reduction ?
Logged
Lennart Sorth
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2006, 03:13:31 pm »

Are you sure the change of attitude of the car was due to such a weight reduction ?

yes quite sure
 - as I didn't do *anything* else between the two pictures:
before: http://www.matrasport.info/Cars/Murena/Conv/P1.9i-8v-ls/Med/19951017_001.html
after:   http://www.matrasport.info/Cars/Murena/Conv/P1.9i-8v-ls/Med/mvc-011s.html

The XU9J engine is alloy, and maybe the gearbox/diff is lighter too ?

Anyway, I also found it unexpected and hard to believe - but I have been annoyed by the high attitude rear for a while, and when I found my pictures from 1995, I realised that they all show my car much lower. Still not with the wheel centered in the arc, but at least closer.

At a photosession some time ago, I stuffed my 17 year old son in the boot, to make the car look right (after all, thats what kids are for - isn't it? :-) ) - which told me that you need something like 75kg to get the car down where it would look right, - so I interpolated and came up with the 50kg estimate, as it always was a little too high - as I believe all late 1.6's are.

Matra possibly jumped the fence somewhere, and fitted 2.2 parts to the 1.6 chassis or maybe even 2.2 springs ?? I don't know for sure, but it is a fact that almost all the late 1.6's I have seen, also have been standing somewhat too high at the rear. - and on my car, this has been much more apparent since the conversion. And you need a lot of weight, to compress the springs 3-4 cm.

I have noticed that Simon now stocks a set of springs for the 1.6, which will lower it about 3-4 cm, which is excactly what I would like - as that would put the wheel in the center of the wheel-arc.

I will get my car on the scales sometime in the immediate future ( :-)  ) - as it really is interesting to know if, or how much weight it has lost.

Logged

Lennart.Sorth@matrasport.dk
Murena 1983 1.9i silver // Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2.0d 2012 white // Smart 4two cdi 2010 blue //
krede
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1166



« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2006, 09:44:51 pm »

I seriously doubt that fitting the 1.9 unit will net you 50kgs of weight.
Its a HUGE! weight save for an engine/transmission swap.
However.. 3cm or so of extra "tail height" is a realistic amout if 50kg is removed.
When i was refitting my manta with a 6cylinder engine instead of the standard 1.9s, i was told to expect a 3-4 cm drop of the nose if standard springs was used.
The 6 cylinder was some 70kg heavier.
Logged
Lennart Sorth
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 818



WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2006, 11:11:29 pm »

I seriously doubt that fitting the 1.9 unit will net you 50kgs of weight.

agreed - but then my springs must have become firmer with age ... :-/ (unlikely)
I really cannot explain the "one inch taller tail" after the conversion in any other way.
Logged

Lennart.Sorth@matrasport.dk
Murena 1983 1.9i silver // Alfa Romeo Giulietta 2.0d 2012 white // Smart 4two cdi 2010 blue //
krede
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1166



« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2006, 07:42:09 pm »

Well.. what ever the cause is, the lowering springs are not that expensive.
I have just ordered from Simon the other day, though it was only some minor thinls ,like bushes gaskets and a windscreen washer tank,I must admitt that I'm impressed of how easy and fast i got the stuff..... and the price really isnt that bad either if you compair to modern cars, or worse...Classics!
Logged
hru
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 171


Murena Lover :-)


« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2006, 03:11:25 pm »

All this conversion stuff - engines and carburators......

Would it be possible to replace the carburator with a fuel injection system - using the standard 2.2 engine ?

What would be the cost ?
- and the benefits ?
Logged

Matra Murena 2.2
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2823



WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2006, 04:27:36 pm »

All this conversion stuff - engines and carburators......

Would it be possible to replace the carburator with a fuel injection system - using the standard 2.2 engine ?

What would be the cost ?
- and the benefits ?

The cheapest way forward would be to modify the standard 2.2 manifold to accomodate four injectors with a suitable fuel rail. An idle valve would also need to be fitted to the plenum chamber as a bypass of the throttle body. One way to make a throttle body would be to block the fuel lines in the carburettor and removing the jets and the choke mechanism etc. That would probably be the cheapest. Another would be to find another car with a similar sized throttle body that can fit the manifold - I've read about a conversion for the (mechanical) fuel injection system from a Porsche 924, and apparantly the TB from there fits approximately.

Water temperature, air temperature, and manifold pressure sensor would also be necessary to fit in suitable places.

The cheapest and most flexible computer system available is the MegaSquirt as it's a DIY system with source code fully available. It can even control the ignition, which opens for some performance improvements.

Simple? No. A good idea? Maybe. Reliable? Only if you know what you are doing!

Potential benefits:

- Performance (if tuned!)
- Tuning options (and mess-up-options!)
- Easier cold start (if tuned for that!!!)
- Economy (if tuned for that!!!)

« Last Edit: December 06, 2006, 04:31:46 pm by Anders Dinsen » Logged

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



« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2006, 06:05:55 pm »

The inlet manifold from a pug 505 turbo, bolts straight on to the murena head, and with a little fiddeling the AFM can also be squized in there.
You will need both an electric "low pressure" fuelpump, a surge tank, and a high pressure fuelpump to feed the injectors.... this should be easy.
The distributer from the 505 turbo also fits the murena engine and has a hall sensor for the ecu... other then that its just to fit the water temp sensor etc etc, and then find an aftermarket engine management system and have it run in by a professional.

Alternativley I have also heard that some 924 parts can be used..or perhaps the entire injection can be taken from an opel rekord 2.2I and fitted with a custom manifold?
i, myself intend go with the 505 method but with a custom made manifold and a "wolf 3d" ECU.

Advantages... well..... it seems that I take the opposite stand then  Anders on almost every topic. Grin. he loves carburettors.. I would have nothing else then injection.. its easier in every day use, faults are much easier to spot (though there seldom are any).. economy...performance..in short.. I find injection superior to carbs on ALL points!!.. except ease of tuning.. you really have to go to an expert to have your ecu reprogramed... unless you REALLY know what you are doing!!.. carbs you can mess around with yourself..
Sure you can get decent power and economy from a carb (twin cabs only give decent power...belive me...!! they are thirsty!!).. but only if you know what you are doing..... same goes for the injection conversion though.... if you just throw something together and hope for the best... chances are your better off with carbs   

Prices.... well.. if you are gonna do it right its gonna cost you.. cars arnt a cheap hobby..
Expect in the area of 6000dkr and up! for the engine management + another 2-3000 to run it in properly
The cost of the rest Depends on what parts you can find used,or cheap on E-bay for instance, and how much of the fitting and fiddeling you are able to do yourself. 


  
« Last Edit: December 06, 2006, 06:25:42 pm by krede » Logged
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2823



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2006, 06:58:54 pm »

Advantages... well..... it seems that I take the opposite stand then  Anders on almost every topic. Grin

Haha! In fact I've got nothing against electronic fuel injection, being a computer engineer I acutally like the idea very much, which is probably because I feel I understand the technology, besides fuel injection is kind of an exact science, where a good carburettor tuner probably needs that sixth sense to make things right. That said, however, the carburettor is just a mechanical computer. Nothing more.

And I have been convinced, that the advantages of the fuel injection over a similar carburettor setup when compared one-on-one are few. If we look at performance, there's no big advantage really, unless we go to extremes and fit multiple injectors to our carefully constructed inlet manifold - but this is professional racing technology, not something we amateurs have a budget for.

Ignition is where the big advantage is with computer control, provided the system has advanced mapping capabilities.

Besides, I know from experience the number of fault sources in an EFI system, and there are MANY. The biggest problem is that most of them cause a complete breakdown, whereas with a carburettor, you can normally always keep running somehow.

All that said, however, since my car is an original Prep 142 I tend to feel that eventually I should bring it back to a state similar to what it was converted to (with the twin side draught solex'es). And for THAT I would pick a pair of DCOE compatible dual throttle bodies with one or two injectors for each throttle, integrated fuel rails, etc. This is a direct bolt-on to the S-style inlet manifold, and can also be fitted with the original airbox or something similar, so it can be made to breathe good fresh air.

MegaSquirt would probably be my choice of ECU unless I could get Ole Buhl Racing to build me something Cheesy MegaSquirt is great for a software-hacker like myself, and it does ignition too... a bit crude, unfortunately, but by the time I get around this project, it has probably improved a lot! Cheesy

That would be an upgrade to the original Prep 142 spec (as the Holbay cam I have is too), and therefore more original. Plus: I would be able to push my NA engine to the limit.

But for now, there's plenty of driveability (user friendlyness) AND fun in the single Solex 34CIC setup that Roy has fitted my car with. I AM VERY SATISFIED with this, and I intend to prove the quality of this setup on a rolling road eventually when I get the time.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2006, 07:03:00 pm by Anders Dinsen » Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
hru
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 171


Murena Lover :-)


« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2006, 10:24:18 pm »

The reason for asking is that I definately prefer a car with injection systems. Much easier to deal with. I also think the fuel consumption is lower and lots more of horsepower present.
My old toyota 1.6 had 116 HP - the murena 2.2 just 118.

So as I can read the conversion to EFI is possible, but the part must be custom made - eventually come from a diferent car

A toyota 2.0 EFI could be modified ?
Transfer electronic ignition, computer and inlets, lambda sonde.

Krede: I found this link in bilbasen
http://bilbasen.dk/biler/private/showpics.asp?id=1075898&page=1

It's 505 gti with 105.000 km on the clock.

And with automatic gear - weeeeee - wouldn't that be something for the murena Grin
Logged

Matra Murena 2.2
hru
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 171


Murena Lover :-)


« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2006, 10:30:31 pm »

Hey - it just came to my mind - I could even buy it myself!!
My toyota lost the life last week, a defect transmission axle.
I need a number one car for the winter..........
Logged

Matra Murena 2.2
krede
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1166



« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2006, 07:19:47 am »

Quote
It's 505 gti with 105.000 km on the clock.

And with automatic gear - weeeeee - wouldn't that be something for the murena 

No not really... the pug 505 gti(grand tourer injection) engine has nothing in common with the pug 505 ti(TURBO Injection) and require alot of modification to fit.

Quote
My old toyota 1.6 had 116 HP - the murena 2.2 just 118.
sure... but look at the torque!!.. I bet the murena has a good 40-50 nm more!
« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 07:21:57 am by krede » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to: