What an annoying problem. At least just one. Good luck getting it right!
/Anders

Andreas,

If that is definitely a Solex 34 CICF 141, then that lower photo of the new carburettor looks to have a sealing cap over the adjusting screw, which was correct to prevent tampering.  Dig out that sealing cap, and the screw should be buried down in side the flange, just like the old one, in the upper photo.

Roy

Hello all,

I recently asked Polybush U.K. to list the engine stabiliser bush kit on their website so that those in Europe (or anywhere really) could buy them directly from them.  They have kindly set up a webpage listed under Matra and there is a direct link (below) that will take you straight there, but there is a slight problem at this moment because the 49C kit also fits the front suspension of the Isuzu D-Max MkII, and the listing for the Murena simply picks up that kit and its details from the Isuzu listing!

Consequently, the photo has an arrow pointing to the front suspension and it names it the 'Front Shock Absorber Lower Bush', although the fitment diagram has it approximately in the correct relative position, and the wording above the Murena photo does also correctly state 'Stabiliser Bush For 2.2L Engine'.

https://www.polybush.co.uk/product-category/matra/murena/?v=7885444af42e

They will try to resolve the conflict but in the meantime, be assured that the 49C kit really will fit the Murena 2.2 engine stabiliser link and it is really good as I (and others here) can testify, having run them now for over a year.

So you only need one kit, which you can see is less than half what those original Metalastic bushes cost, and it is far superior and easier to fit too

Roy.

Back on the road.... but unfortunately not quite.

Today at 8am for the MOT and it went well until the emissions test. Unfortunately, the idle mixture setting is missing on the new carburettor..... As we don't have an exhaust gas tester, we agreed with the TÜV that we would just put everything together, roughly adjust the idle and do the rest on site.
But I'm still happy. The chassis, engine, brakes etc. were all classed as faultless. The TÜV manager tried everything to get the CO value below 4.5%, but we couldn't get any lower than 6.5%. Now I have to find out where the setting is on the new original carburettor. On the old carburettor it was on the driver's side towards the rear. On the new carburettor there is nothing to screw on.
Maybe you've already had this problem.

Greetings
Andreas

I maintain a list of todo items and on that list has for a while been an item about figuring out why the headlights solenoid did not activate when I turned on the headlights.

Another problem, not on the list, but which turned out to be related, was that I couldn't activate the high beam.

Now, since my car is under restoration, I do not actually have any headlights (or rear lamps for that matter) connected yet, if I had, I would have had more problems than what I saw.

The great thing about my todo-list is that I can pick from it when I have time, energy, or just a lust of solving some issue. And whatever I don't get solved, fixed or feel I need to work on later, I can put back on the list. So yesterday evening, I took my multimeter and started looking for issues. Here's what I found:

• There was a few hundre mV of measured directly on the solenoid when turning on the headlights
• Between battery - and the two diodes on the fuse PCB was 11.8V
• Also measured between the plus terminal to the solenoid and battery -, was 11.8V
• The ground circuit (110A) on the solenoid had about 5.5V

Ah, of course!  

The last bullet made me realize I had a ground issue.

And indeed I had. The ground wire runnig along with the brake pad wear sensor wire was not attached to it's designated tab on the inside of the LH front upright. I completely forgot about it!

The other grounds in the car were ok, so the car ran and dash worked.

Ground circuits are always separated in order to avoid creating ground loops. If you have worked on audio amplifiers or the like, you'll know that ground loops create a wealth of problems as small differences in potential across chassis ground points will cause currents to flow in strange places. The usual effect in an audio amplifier is hum. In a car, the problem will be corroding terminals, and probably more.

I forgot to take a picture of the terminal while I had the wheel off the car. If you're courious, I suggest you reach behind the left front wheel on your own car and find the terminal to feel it's there. It's on the plate holding the speedo cable in place.

If you're the adventurous type then I suggest you remove the terminal and note for yourself what happens. Failure modes are good to know, and chances are that this terminal might actually one day corrode or even fall off

Todays picture shows the three radiator covers installed. I bought new (old stocks) covers from Simon, but had to modify the two side covers with newly drilled holes 7 mm from the ones made on the factory to offset the covers a bit more forward to accomodate the new beefier radiator. This is a nice aluminum radiator with the correct ventilator attachments, also available from Simon. The silver colour of the covers is aluzinc coating, as on the headlight lifting rod. The chassis parts visible were cold galvanized some seven five years ago...  

/Anders

Hello Roy,
Thanks for your advice earlier regarding the symptoms I was having when I started this thread.
You really helped me and I didn't get chance to respond further at the time... Life and all!

To everyone that still loves espaces, there's a very active community of enthusiasts here in France and as time goes by I find people with rust free espaces everywhere, pushing 400k Kms.
I have sources for all the spares you could want and I'm happy to share, at  no personal benefit if anyone has need.

The UK, where I started with espaces 30years ago, is needlessly destructive to car, with the obligatory annual salt baths corroding matra's best attempts rapidly. Here is France I see cars without a blemish underneath.
The worst bit being the abs mounting brackets, curiously un galvanised!

Anyway, thanks Roy, it was the egr valve, as you said!
Good luck to anyone still running espaces!

Regards, Mark
1998 grand espace DT
2000 espace DT    
   
Re: 2.2DT Injectors?
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2023, 06:40:35 pm »    Reply with quote Modify Remove
Hello Roy,
Thanks for looking.
I'll email you tomorrow with a photo of my VIN plate.
My cars are all 2.2DT engines, so G8T71X engines - The one in question is a G8T716 motor and it's my best Espace mk3.

I have never owned a DCi - too scared!
I think it's the last of the pre-canbus DT's, with proper relays and fuses - It would be great if you can tell me more about it.7

Regards
Mark.

2.2DT Grand Espace 1998 RHD
2.2DT Espace 2000 LHD

So I thought I'd be interesting to see some actual performance documentation to start a discussion. This is a dyno run performed in 2009 with my Holbay cam on a stock unmodified head, twin Weber 40 DCOE carburettors, 4-in-1 stainless exhaust, and unmodified 2.2 Bosch distributor. It's many years ago, but I remember that we ran out of main jets or airs so we felt the top end could have been a bit better. My notes are not complete, but this is what I ran in the car until I started my restoration. I've only dynoed it this once so far:

Idle advance: 15 degrees
Venturi: 36
Idle jet 45F8
Main jet: 130
Emulsion tube: F9
Air corrector: 200

This was one reason for having the new Piper camshafts made from blank billets.  Not only do we get brand new cams with the latest materials and machining, plus modern case hardening, but the 8.3mm cam lift is with the base circle at the original diameter, so the rocker arm geometry remains good.  And I know from having driven many Murena with different engine setups, that two of those with the Piper 3777 cams are the best I've driven for fast road use, and how good they are for torque as well as power and fuel consumption.

I didn't want something for track work.  Piper knew that and produced a great cam for the purpose we wished.

However, they did require new valve springs because of the amount of lift.

Roy

The link didn't work directly for me, but selecting their cam shaft products and filtering on Matra provided the list in the screen shot attached...
EDIT: The link does work, just needed to scroll down further.

When I reground my 2.2 camshaft, it was extremely hard to get above 7.4mm of lift on the camshaft without losing rocker geometry, if we went beyond that, the rocker angle gets so awkward that most of the duration is lost in valve train losses.

I highly doubt they have such a wild profile with that much lift and being able to have that efficient.

As you only need 20% - 25% of the valve diameter for lift anyways, it is not needed to go much higher than 7.5mm of cam lift. (there was no camshaft back in the day that went higher than 7.5mm of cam lift, and with good reason.)