Quote
---------
the underside of the new synchro ring and the gear was 0,7 mm
===============================================
It is in range, but barely.
That is what the problem is about.
The gear where the synchro rest on is not good enough.
New synchro should have given 1mm
Not to be negative, but let's hope it will last.
I will give this extra attention in my rebuild.
Well Oetker, your fears were well founded. Now that the synchro ring and gear has seated, I sometimes grind the 2.nd gear If I shift a little bit fast from 1. to 2. or from 3. to 2.
My guess is that the cone on the gear wheel has worn. Perhaps it is nor hardened enough.
I'm sure it was not a hardness factor. I think they were simply machined too small in the first place. When I stripped the gearbox that is in Anders car, you can see from the photo he posted, that the cone had not been touching in a long while - it was dark where it should have been highly polished. If it had been worn owing to poor hardness, the surface would have been rough, and there would have been lots of swarf in the 'box. There was no more debris inside than in a normal gearbox of that age and mileage.
Citroen would have realised the problem and had the machining corrected, and maybe even had a recall at the time, and certainly done some repairs under warranty, but since the Murena had such a short life, with these being a bought in component, and many cars possibly not doing a great enough mileage for the problem to show up during the period, I doubt many were complained of or done under warranty in the Murena's case.
The later gearboxes had the 1st and 2nd gears, bearings and synchromesh all modified and you have to replace everything since they fitted a radial thrust bearing too, which was not in the early ones. So the components changed dimensions to leave room for this bearing. When mods. like this come out, the early parts become no longer made or available, and you have to upgrade. When I repaired the gearbox in Anders car, the only parts I could get were the newer ones, and I had to upgrade everything. Of course it is now a better 'box!
I am going to have to take it apart again.
Which is exactly why I told Anders that it was necessary - if I had fitted just a new synchro cone, I knew it would not be long before it would not be synchronising again - not a fault of the cone, but the undersize gear. I only wish I had bought two complete kits of new parts now, as I think it might be difficult to get them now. I just hope my gearbox stays good - fortunately I never had a problem with the second gear, so I'm hoping the one in my car was machined correctly! :-)
It does not look like the original parts ever fit properly together. I imagine that several early Murena owners ran into this problem, so I wonder if Talbot solved the problem on later year Murenas. Does any of you know?
This was not Talbots problem. It was a Citroen gearbox. If Talbot had enough feedback during the short time the Murena was available, they might have made some call on Citroen to correct the ones they had purchased but my guess is they wouldn't have had enough evidence of the problem in time to do anything about it.
An other question. Is the ratio of the 2. gear the same on a 1.6 and a 2.2 Murena?
I ask because we have an extra 1.6 gear box lying around, that I could salvage the gear from.
Yes the 1.6 and 2.2 are the same gearbox. It is only the differential that was a different ratio. However, there are different versions of the gearbox from early to late, with things like different synchromesh units and other minor modifications that happen during the life of a product, but these would have been the same in 1.6 and 2.2
However, it is always worth checking the parts in another gearbox as the gear cone may be correct rather than undersize. Since I have never found any numbers on the gearboxes, you can't easily tell which is which gearbox. The only real way is to strip and inspect. :-(
Roy