|
|
|
|
krede
YaBB God
    
Posts: 1172

Email
|
 |
« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2007, 10:27:07 pm » |
|
My car is way more prone to "under" rather then oversteer.. especially in the wet. As for the reason for any "patch up" technical solutions.. well.... oversteer is supposed to be a really hard to manage in midengined cars.... I for one am not brave enough to find out, so I can only theorize as to how the murena behaves on the limit... the few times mine has had the tail out.. I've been sufficiently scared to make an effort to avoid it the best I can. So maybe Matra went out of their way to build in some understeer to make the car safer for inexperienced drivers?
Another reason might be the weight distribution of the car.. witch... frankly is far from perfect.. 40-60 at best....and 35-65 is more likely for a 2.2 with a full tank of fuel and a case or two of (warm) beer in the trunk.... and thats rather bad.. I had my 2.2 on the brake tester a few weeks ago, and it actually said roughly 300/700kg!!.. of cause these figures are a very rough estimate as the tester is meant mostly for trucks.. but still... Now.. I know this will probably be a red cloth in front of some enthusiasts, but I suspect that as far as handling is concerned the mid engine is NOT an asset for this car. Weight distribution aside, I still find the murena "heavy" rather then light at the controls... witch should have been another advantage of having the engine at the rear. The only REAL advantage the murena got from the mid engine layout is the possibillity of having a very low nose and thus a low drag coefficient.
Of cause you could argue that the murena was intended for a lighter engine, that would have improved weight distribution, and that a front engine would have effected the aerodynamics, and that the propeller shaft tunnel would have made the 3 abrest seating impossible..but in my mind the mid engine in the murena is much more "show" then "go"... Dont get me wrong... I love the mid engine configuration... the low nose and to some exte.... no!.. Id really rather just have had a 2 seater.. But as I was saying.. the things I have mentioned are what makes the murena so special, and I wouldnt have it any other way.. but as performance goes... well....
Also.. keep in mind that the murena is much more of an "upgraded" Bagheera then a new design... and (as far as i know) the Bag was an attempt at an affordable every mans "sportscar", rather then at a serious racer or gt. Surely with a front suspension dating back to the first simca 1100's and an engine that can be traced just as far back a super car was never intended, But all its flaws aside, Id still say Matra did a very good job on the murena.. to quote a Danish motoring magazine... "the murena is everyting the Bagheera should have been".. written, I guess, with mostly engine power, and rust problems in mind. Only thing that went wrong, was the high price, that put it in a class of cars where it didnt belong...AT THE TIME!! (Today, I'd choose a 2.2 murena over a 924 ANY time)
|
|
« Last Edit: July 01, 2007, 10:34:40 pm by krede »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roy4matra
YaBB God
    
Posts: 1236

Email
|
 |
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2007, 07:11:19 pm » |
|
Only thing that went wrong, was the high price, that put it in a class of cars where it didnt belong...AT THE TIME!! (Today, I'd choose a 2.2 murena over a 924 ANY time)
I'm sorry but you are definitely wrong here. The Murena in 1983 was an incredibly cheap car! Most people who saw my new Murena thought it cost twice what it actually did. I bought mine new in 1983 and couldn't believe my luck. A Lotus Esprit (also a GRP mid-engined 2.2 with galvanised chassis) was over twice the price. My Murena 2.2 was £6900 all taxes paid and an Esprit was £15,000. And that 924 was £8500, and if you consider the spec. it was no contest - steel wheels, 70 profile tyres, drum rear brakes, wind up windows... to name just a few things. I know since I had checked out all the competition before buying the Murena. The Murena was only around the price of a plain Ford Cortina! It was a bargain. The Bagheera was over priced and being prone to corrosion, not as well made, and then the Murena went the other way, being more powerful, more modern, and galvanised and only just over £1000 more. Whilst a Bagheera was more costly than even more powerful sportcars like an E-type, the Murena was cheaper than just about any other sportscar at the time.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
roy4matra
YaBB God
    
Posts: 1236

Email
|
 |
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2007, 07:40:00 pm » |
|
The subject of tyre pressures has arisen in several threads and recommendations of 1.6 front and 2.5 rear have been mentioned...
Such a difference in pressures indicates to me a fundamental imbalance in the front/rear grip.
I have always run 1.8 bar front and 2.5 bar rear, which is the factory spec. for a 2.2 Murena running at motorway speeds. Since the Murena can get up to 110 kph quite easily and quickly, I see no point in the low speed recommendations. PLEASE NOTE: early handbooks had the wrong (low) pressures and a sticker was released with the correct ones. From my experience over twenty five years of very fast driving of Murena 2.2, I know that anything less than 2.2 bar at the rear noticeably increases the oversteer tendancies of the car, so I always keep mine at 2.5 bar and have never had problems with grip or tyre wear in the centre (which would be the case if these pressures were too high). As Anders has pointed out, I also found many years ago that 55 profile tyres at the front improve the car more than the small change would suggest. I wish to keep the unique original wheels on my Murena so that limits the tyres available. However, 185/55x14 front at 1.8 bar and 195/60x14 rear at 2.5 bar appear to give the optimum in ride handling and grip for a close to original spec. Obviously if you don't mind changing to non-original wheels then you have a much wider choice, but bear in mind that the main reason why there is this disparity in front and rear tyre pressures is weight. The Murena 2.2 has a 41/59 front/rear weight distribution, and when loaded with a full tank and some luggage can even approach 35/65 I would guess. So you need the higher rear pressures no matter what wheel/tyres you use.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|