dlaing Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Just to distract you all even further, Dr. John told me the most satisfying motor he had built was a combo of the mid-valve cruiser engine with the larger fuel-injection throttle bodies of the Sport engines . . . 79733[/snapback] And silly me, I was going to suggest that rather than ratchet go to smaller valves, he should go to smaller throttle bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Just to distract you all even further, Dr. John told me the most satisfying motor he had built was a combo of the mid-valve cruiser engine with the larger fuel-injection throttle bodies of the Sport engines . . . Great feedback, Greg. Thanks. It's humbling to learn that my read on this is supported by Dr. John with the words "most satisfying motor". I'll go for this kind of a motor over the one with the highest peaks on the dyno chart every time. I wouldn't want to presume to speak for the esteemed Mr. Roper here, but I've read enough of his stuff to highly suspect that he's got a similar take too, his lack of inclination toward and/or experience with EFI notwithstanding.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Polebridge - I finally got around to scanning the parts list and dyno chart. I am getting 40 mpg when cruising at 85mph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete roper Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 OK, I hadn't followed this at all so I'll chime in now with my .02c worth. Firstly I'd like to ask people how much reliability they are prepared to sacrifice? The Guzzi donk is essentially unchanged in it's oveall architechture since it's inception in 1967. It is, in all real ways, a horrible, antedeluvian bit of shit that should of been put out to pasture at the very latest by 1985 but it still keeps soldiering on. Why? Well basically because it is a profoundly GOOD design, punching far above it's weight and delivering a magnificence of true *ROAD* performance. No, it doesn't make 100BHP. No it's BMEP figures compared to anything *modern* are pitiable. Who really gives a fat, flying f*ck? If you want endless power go out and buy something that will give it to you straight out of the crate! Why even bother with THINKING about a Guzzi? The Current V11, or subsequent Griso/Breva engine is taken about as far as you can take the design and still hope to have any semblance of reliability. The cam fitted to the V11 is very similar to the old P3/SS cam and when we were fitting these in the eighties it was accepted that there was a trade off in terms of engine component longevity. You can fit much wilder cams, (a 620 x 8 from Megacycle for example.) but you start running into all sorts of problems, not just with reliability but also with simple clearances. Nobody seems to think about the engine architecture and the fact that as the camshaft spins the cam lobes approach the rods. This is one of the main limiting factors. Clearance! The reason why Guzzi rods were changed with the advent of the V11 was that the longer stroke and larger cam meant that if the old, dimensionally identical, rods were fitted the cam lobes biffed the tops of the rod bolts! you don't have to be a Mensa member to realize that this wouldn't be a good thing . Yes, you can drag over 100BHP out of a V11 engine. BUT it will be a touchy, cantankerous pig with virtually no enjoyment to be had anywhere but on a race track. If you ride on the track? Fine, but expect race track sized maintenance bills too!!!! The old saw of valve sizes is also one of the crustiest chestnuts in the book. Guzzi downszed the valves in the V11 motor from those in the 'Big Valve' LeMans for two main reasons. 1.) they could reduce the weight of the pistons a motza and b.) it gave a much cleaner combustion chamber shape allowing a better flame path and less places for end gas to get trapped. While any 'High Compression' piston will probably be a lot lighter than stock, (the FBF items are Wisecos, a good piston but I can get similar items forged here that weigh less.) a larger dome will, once again, compromise the combustion chamber shape and offer a greater chance fo the retention of detonation inducing end gasses to remain to contaminate the new charge. Cylinder fill, where it matters, in the midrange, is greatly assisted by smaller valves. That's the reason why with Phil's Mk IV LeMans based racebike we are going to be running mid-valve heads, not the big valvers it came with! Big valve are a pox on a slow reving 2 valve hemi like a Guzzi! Also, look at the fuel you're burning! It's crap, and it ain't gunna get any better! As for the bloke who gets his missus to follow him around in a van with special petrol???? Sorry, but I just don't know what to say. Are you bonkers? buying a really goo shock for the back and getting your suspension set up by an aknowledged expert will give you far more performance AND pleasure than running race fuel and you won't have a significant other who doubts your sanity into the bargain! No I'm not saying that keeping it standard is *best*, (Although it's certainly the easiest way of going about things.) but be sensible or expect to pay huge dollars in upkeep. I'll certainly be modifying my Griso but I'll also be realistic about what i can achieve and what I think that is is more to do with freeing up what it already has rather than chasing some Quixotic fantasy! Finally, then I'll shut up, the windage trays I have made are more an aid to the prevention of oil loss and the baffling of the sump to prevent exposure of the oil pick-up during acceleration than a power boosting device. A real *race* type windage plate would have scrapers to remove oil from the crank webs and a lattice of screens to collect particulate oil matter not only to reduce oil expulsion but to lower the resistance to the crank's spinning. Now while if you were going for a world speed record that might be worthwhile on a road bike it is, in my opinion, a pointless wank. Your opinion may differ. As Mr Pepperoni said, it's surprising how good the basic package is with a few simple mods and an understanding that it's never going to beat something like a CBR600 in a straight line. Hit a big bump mid corner though and you may well find that that extra weight and slower steering geometry that you've been cursing may just stop you from ending up as a tree ornament. It might not win you a race but it might save your life in a real world road situation. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 OK, I hadn't followed this at all so I'll chime in now with my .02c worth... It might not win you a race but it might save your life in a real world road situation. Pete 82947[/snapback] Peter, Gimme .25c worth of your thoughts for my next experiment. I'll be starting with a 2003 stock LeMans and I plan to add a QuatD exhaust, smaller valves, port the head, PC3, and bigger air filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I'll also be realistic about what i can achieve and what I think that is is more to do with freeing up what it already has rather than chasing some Quixotic fantasy! Well said, Pete! I may be a bit of a crusty old Road Geez, but I'm afraid that what we have here is yet another woods full o' knight-errant Men of La Mancha with perpetual windmills on their minds. They bought Guzzi's, but spend all their energies trying to make 'em into something they ain't - instead of enjoying 'em for what they are and riding 'em... Might be a good thing they're always around, though - otherwise, once all the old war birds 're gone, how can we be assured of future availability of spares from the ever-growing Mountains o' Munt - as I believe you're also somewhat familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Well said, Pete! I may be a bit of a crusty old Road Geez... as I believe you're also somewhat familiar? 83133[/snapback] Come on guys, think it through... the people that buy Guzzi's know what they are getting - reliable rolling art! I spent $2K, and got a very smooth riding bike. It feels slow, so it is easier to ride than the stock bike. I was zipping by cars before I realized I was cruising at 110. I am only going 80 when I get that same comfortable feeling on the stock bike. Is the performance/comfort worth the $2K? I haven't decided, so I still have all of the original parts. Anyway... I posted cost and performance data for folks to do with as they please. Perhaps my response to Peter was too abrupt. I did not mention that I appreciated his well written thoughts. It was not my intention to stifle or attack... I went cheap with the words, and bottom-lined it to get feedback on my next mod. I really like the look of the QuatD and I would like more torque. When all is said and done, I blame Polebridge, and the next Polebridge that comes into the forum and asks about performance mods. Wait.. that was my first question to the forum. I am still geting it answered, and I am sharing back what I can. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete roper Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Perhaps my response to Peter was too abrupt. I did not mention that I appreciated his well written thoughts. It was not my intention to stifle or attack... I went cheap with the words, and bottom-lined it to get feedback on my next mod. I really like the look of the QuatD and I would like more torque. Cheers! 83139[/snapback] I was being attacked? Time to up my geritol so I notice next time . Honestly though I'm more than happy for people to disagree with me on most issues as long as they aren't barmy, ignorant or dangerous. I find people who claim that they can get a munty old Guzzi motor to poduce 120BHP RELIABLY a bit tiresome. I'm sure that if you got everything absolutely RIGHT you can get 120hp out of the two valver, at the crank! But I'd also think that a motor in that sort of state of tune would last only a very, very short space of time before it needed major work. It would also be an absolute PIG to try and ride, wouldn't idle and I'd think it would probably have huge fueling issues, especially with the standard pump and injectors but I'm no expert here. Actually your suggestion of smaller valvesis, IMHO a good one. The smaller the valve head the smaller the rocking motion imparted to the valve by the rocker, well, not quite but it's moment is lessened as the C of M of the valve is further up the stem. So you end up with better cylinder fill where it matters, (especially if you get the valve back shape right.) AND less wear on the valve guides. Win-Win situation! Freeing up the airbox is also a fine idea, that pair of weedy little intakes just behind the headers on V11's are awful. The Quat-D does nothing for me but that's just my likes and dislikes. I'm told they work great, Paul would know I'm sure. There are plenty of ways of carressing more enjoyment out of a Guzzi. Brutalising it by taking the Big Stick approach to the engine is, IMHO, one of the more fruitless and frustrating ways of going about it. YOMV. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Come on guys, think it through... the people that buy Guzzi's know what they are getting - reliable rolling art! Anthony, your charts are indeed impressive. I'm immediately drawn to what looks like a walloping 15 ft-lb. delta at 3700 RPM between the bottom of the stock torque "hole" and that nice, broad hump in the curve left in it's place after the mods!!! I'd consider this a HUGE improvement - right where it's the most likely to be most fully appreciated and actually used! What's strange to me is the RPM range of the stock torque "dip", which is usually found at about 4500 RPM?! Makes me wonder about the state of tune prior to the mods.... Just chattin' around the ol' campfire stuff, but since I seem to've elected myself campfire curmudgeon here, now that Pete has so masterfully pointed out some of the "real world" considerations of "performance" mod's, I might as well finish my job of throwin' cold water on all the chirpy enthusiasm myself... There's a Brit posting on Wildguzzi today who just had his extensively modified Guzzi serviced. He was obviously thrown for a loop by the damages. I'm not making a direct comparison between his mods and yours - but I think the principle behind the cost of maintenance of a modified bike applies - and I think it's an indicator that guys who buy Guzzi's (modified or not) don't always fully understand what they're gettin' into... His bill evidently looked like this: £ 1885.59 inc VAT @ 17.5% Labour - 18 hours at £41.12, £740.16 Parts - £1145. In dollars that comes out at about £2940.95 or 2437.55 euros! RE: your statement above, though there are no doubt lots and lots of notable exceptions, I suspect this kind of thing might be pretty common. I'm not just thinkin' about novices here, who naturally don't have much of a knowledge base to work from. My aforementioned Pal with the '00 Sport that was modified to essentially the same level as the "Eraldo" mods in the article ref'd by Polebridge in the opening post of this thread has been repeatedly and considerably surprised by what he's got when he looks at the dealer's bill also - and he's a veteran of dozens of moto's. I think he's got 3-4 bikes now, including 2 Italian Stallions... The fact that his Sport is now 6 years old and doesn't have enough miles on it to have been fully broken in yet, and the fact that it was sold off by the PO, who had just evidently completed a full list of expensive mods (similar to yours I think?) before dumping it would be another indicator that the PO didn't quite know what he was gettin' into either....though it sure does look nice - and it could certainly be considered "rolling art"! I've got a Pal with a '04 LeMans, who's a great guy and a superb rider. But he hasn't got much more'n the faintest clue about the care n' feeding, or the mechanical principles and functional operation of his Guzzi. Like many others I've observed, he spends a fair amount of time waxing eloquent about what he likes about his Guzzi - the way the light plays across the sensual curves of that fairing and tail section. The way the cylinder heads protrude at "just the right angle" from under the tank... He's the first to admit that the FIRST reason he bought the bike is THE WAY IT LOOKED to him on the showroom floor. Sometimes I wonder if he thinks that the reason they stuck those cylinders in there the way they did was an arbitrary styling statement! Now how can you fault this kind of enthusiasm? He can't very well express his appreciation for engine design, or handling and power delivery attributes that he has no comprehension of. He's enthusiastic about what he perceives - not that there's anything WRONG with that! IMHO, there are many (myself included) who appreciate the "beauty" of our machines in altogether different ways. Many of us don't think of our Guzzi's so much as "rolling art". After all, the appreciation of art is entirely subjective. I shudder to think that the boys at OCC build their *gag me* abominations with ONLY "art" in mind - (are velvet paintings of Elvis really "art"? ) but to them, the way it looks trumps everything else! Now here's the common trait between the OCC monstrosities and the heavily, but unwisely modified Guzzi - neither one is rideable for more than short distances, and consequently (to my perception anyway) a large percentage of both kinds of bikes quickly wind up unused and/or sold off at a horrendous loss. OTOH, some of us tend to think of our Guzzi's rather as functional vehicles with admirable road manners FIRST, that also happen to be pleasing to the eye - they get lots of miles on 'em, and they're far more than things to look at! Sorry for the ramble, just a coupla observations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polebridge Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 Wow...I really must be more cautious when posting a question on this board! Now I am being blamed for opening a whole can of worms? OK, I'll take the blame (since it does belong to me after all). Actually I really appreciate everyone's feedback. It seems the conventional wisdom here is to not get to crazy with the engine mods and I believe I will follow this wisdom. The Coppa Italia came with some really nice Ti pipes (they are really light) and a matching ECU. I like these very much but the problem is they are high mounts. My wife likes to ride shotgun quite frequently and I don't believe the raised foot pegs will be much to her liking. For this reason I am thinking about some low mount pipes such as FBF carbons and a power commander. I notice that a lot of guys are going with an X pipe like Stucchi's so I may consider that also. I am not sure if it is really needed given the fact that this bike has a stock cross pipe up front. I am also going in to have the suspensions static sag set up this spring. Bottom line is I love this bike so far. I am not looking for huge horsepower numbers, just a boost to that lovely torque will do quite nicely. I'll keep you posted on my progress (probably won't do too much before May/June timeframe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeeve Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 No I'm not saying that keeping it standard is *best*, (Although it's certainly the easiest way of going about things.) but be sensible or expect to pay huge dollars in upkeep. I'll certainly be modifying my Griso but I'll also be realistic about what i can achieve and what I think that is is more to do with freeing up what it already has rather than chasing some Quixotic fantasy! Speaking of the Griso & longer rods & all; how hard would it be to swap in the lower deck-ht. pistons &longer rods of the Breva/Griso engine into a v11? Granted that doing that isn't going to affect the v11's lack of dual-plugging, but how significant is the rod-ratio to the overall efficiency of the engine? Just speculating here... Finally, then I'll shut up, the windage trays I have made are more an aid to the prevention of oil loss and the baffling of the sump to prevent exposure of the oil pick-up during acceleration than a power boosting device. A real *race* type windage plate would have scrapers to remove oil from the crank webs and a lattice of screens to collect particulate oil matter not only to reduce oil expulsion but to lower the resistance to the crank's spinning. 82947[/snapback] Excellent point, & it goes a long way toward 'splainin' the incredible complexity of the Dr. John-leftover windage tray I saw on eBay recently. Is there a printable pattern for your windage tray so that I can print it, glue it to a handy piece of sheetmetal & cut it out myself? Thanks for all the "wrench eye view" reports & congrats on your Griso! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve_W Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 The Coppa Italia came with some really nice Ti pipes (they are really light) and a matching ECU. I like these very much but the problem is they are high mounts. My wife likes to ride shotgun quite frequently and I don't believe the raised foot pegs will be much to her liking. IIRC, the only difference between the Ti pipe mounts and the others you mention is the brackets that attach them to the bike. Use the stock brackets and they end up in the same position as the stock mufflers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Great feedback, Greg. Thanks. It's humbling to learn that my read on this is supported by Dr. John with the words "most satisfying motor". I'll go for this kind of a motor over the one with the highest peaks on the dyno chart every time. 79793[/snapback] It seems to me that larger throttle bodies would produce more peak power. Assuming Dr. John is putting them on a V11California engine, I agree it is a good move, but only because it is presumably making the California more power above 4000 rpms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 . No, it doesn't make 100BHP. No it's BMEP figures compared to anything *modern* are pitiable. Who really gives a fat, flying f*ck? 82947[/snapback] Sure most of the current Guzzi owners know that there is more to life than HP, otherwise we would not be riding Guzzis, but Guzzi's future market gives a fat, flying f*ck. If they hit the 100HP and have models like the MGS01, Norge, and Griso, they will sell at twice the rate of the current Griso and Norge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Anthony, your charts are indeed impressive. So, you still recommend that your buddy pull the FBF pistons and drop in the stock pistons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now