GuzziMoto

If it doesn't turn over fast enough to fire the plugs and injectors unless you lighten the load by pulling the plugs it sounds like either the battery is weak or the starter is weak. I would try the battery first, as it is easier to rule out. Just use a second battery to help try to start it. That should allow it to spin faster. If that works, you probably need to replace you battery. But to me, it sounds like you are saying that it fires the spark plugs and injectors if you try to start it with the plugs pulled, but with the plugs installed it can't spin the motor fast enough to trigger the spark plugs and injectors. That really can only be the battery and / or the starter in my opinion.

Yeah, I though you wanted the overflow vent line open to air. I seem to recall that some V11 gas caps vent in the cap, but I did not think the USA versions did that. So you need to have somewhere for air to get back into the tank as fuel is pumped out. It isn't just an overflow but a vent to allow air in to replace the fuel being used. I could be wrong, but that is common practice.

Nice try, no cigar. More elevation means richer mixture. In your normally aspirated airplane, you have to keep leaning the mixture as you climb. doooooh ! (it was early when I wrote that and I was contemplating taking off the bodywork on the Duc, I was totally distracted and not myself) (the dog ate my homework too) Ducati bodywork will do that to you. I am lucky, the only street Ducati I have to deal with nowadays is the wife's 1100 Monster. But I have had my share over the years.

Ours does, a barometric pressure sensor that is under the seat as I recall.

Yeah, sorry but Chuck is right. If you have less oxygen and the same amount of fuel you would have a richer mixture, not leaner. But, since the V11 is fuel injected and it has a air pressure sensor it should reduce the fuel to match the decrease in air density (which is where the less oxygen thing comes from) and so the fuel mixture should stay roughly the same. I say roughly because the FI on the wife's V11 is not very sophisticated and it is only guessing on how much fuel to remove. Now, if you run forced induction it all changes. Forced induction will maintain combustion pressures (within the limits of the system) so at altitude your octane requirement is not diminished.

Sorry, I have to agree that it was likely an issue with crap gas and not altitude that caused the issue. Unless you are saying that the increase elevation caused his motor to overheat I don't see how the increase in elevation would cause the detonation. My direct experience with riding / driving at higher elevations, along with the basic premise that increased elevation results in reduced cylinder pressures on non-forced induction motors, says that the elevation did not cause the detonation.

I would buy one. That is the kind of Guzzi I want. I would even pay fairly stupid money for it, and ignore that fact that I don't have local dealer support. I want one. And I would love to visit their shop. They seem like my kind of guys.

180? Dang. I need to keep off the throttle more... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The tank is what, 5 plus gallons? at 40 mpg (that is typically what she gets) she should be able to do 200 miles on a tank. But that might be pushing it (so to speak). Hers is not stock, it has pipes, a PC3, and head / cylinder work with better breathing and more compression. It isn't a slouch, and she doesn't ride it like one. But where and how you ride does play a large part in mpg. We are the type who try not to slow down for corners (slowing down means you have to burn more fuel to speed back up). But we are getting old and don't ride as aggressively as we used to.

Yeah, I would start with the bulb for the fuel light issue. You can also pull the fuel intake and fuel level sensor out. Make sure the fuel intake is clean, and you can test the fuel level widget while it is out. It is, as I understand it, a resistor that has high resistance as long as it is cooled by the fuel. That keeps the light from lighting up as the resistor won't flow enough current to light the light. But as the fuel level goes down the resistor is no longer submerged in the fuel and is thus not cooled down by it as much. That allows the resistor to warm up and its resistance goes down allowing it to flow more electricity and that lights the light. The wifes V11 is consistently ridden to around 140 miles on a tank or more. She often hits 180 miles on a tank. Having a range of 100 miles would suck.

That pretty much sums up my experience. In the end there was too much oil coming out. So the catch can would fill up too quickly, not to mention that oil ain't in the motor anymore. So I put it back to stock. I would like to figure out a way to allow for oil to return to the crankcase and yet pull a negative pressure in the crankcase (PCV type stuff). But so far it just ain't worth it. Reed valve. Yes, but where do you mount it in the system and how well does it work. I tried a few different configurations. One set up resulted in enough low pressure in the breather system to draw oil up from the sump (where it is supposed to be RETURNING to the sump) into the spine frame. That was the wrong way to do it for sure. Other options yeilded better results, but it never really seemed right. I think what you need is a system that separates the oil out better before it leaves the block. Then you can do what you want with one way valves and pressure. But trying to balance pressure with two paths to and from the block to the breather system makes for potential issues.

That pretty much sums up my experience. In the end there was too much oil coming out. So the catch can would fill up too quickly, not to mention that oil ain't in the motor anymore. So I put it back to stock. I would like to figure out a way to allow for oil to return to the crankcase and yet pull a negative pressure in the crankcase (PCV type stuff). But so far it just ain't worth it.

Yeah, bad gas can cause pinging. Elevation, as mentioned, actually reduces the need for higher octane. I have been out west in the mountains where the only two choices for octane were 85 and 87. But even with something that wants 91 octane or better I had no issues at that altitude. And running something that wants 87 octane I was able to run on 85 octane with no issues. But when you are above 8,000 feet your octane requirements seem to drop a fair bit.

That is odd with the detonation / pinging. I assume it was the heat, as generally increased elevation reduces the need for high octane and the detonation resistance of it.

While I do agree that you have to work with what you have, I disagree with the notion that you have to throw a lot of money at a Guzzi to make noticeable improvements in performance. I spent around a grand on motor work for the wife's V11, porting, along with cylinder and head machining, and the results were nice. It would be hard with a better, more modern, engine to get as much improvement for the same amount of money. I have said it before and I will say it again, as long as your expectations are realistic (you are never going to turn a Guzzi into a Hayabusa eater) Guzzi's are a great candidate for motor work as there is so much unrealized potential. You will get more performance increase for your dollar modifying your Guzzi motor than you would get throwing that money at a Hayabusa. Sure, if you have the money you can double the power output of a Hayabusa. But it will cost you massive amounts of money. On a per dollar spent ratio the Guzzi lump is a good return on investment when it comes to head work and other performance mods. Or you can enjoy it as it is. But I just ain't like that.

That sounds like a decent plan. Sometimes it is better to do less than risk doing too much. I would add that I am a fan of cleaning up and matching the various bits, making sure that the intake manifold matches the port in the head, and making sure the valve seat is blended to the port. Those are simple things to do that on a lump as primitive as a Guzzi can make a decent difference. Sometimes just making sure you are not adding any more turbulence to the flow then you have to is going to help. Another area of concern is how you deal with the valve guide. It sticks out into the port at a bad spot, as I recall right before the port turns toward the valve. So improvements there can help a lot.

The issues I have heard of associated to the V11 ports are things like poor layout with a bad bend at the end, issues with the port getting to large in cross section down near the bend, slowing the flow, and the port not having the right flow angle compared to the valve angle. The port can be either enlarged everywhere to match the large area, which will increase flow but reduce velocity. Or it can have the large are filled to make it more consistent. But the bend at the end and the angle of the flow at the valve can't easily be corrected. But, I still believe there is plenty of room for improvement and at least a few people have shown they can get a fair bit more power out of a V11 lump by porting the heads.

We ran twin spark conversions on our Ducati 750 racebikes. I think that is a good idea, especially when you start to increase the compression ratio. The newer CARC 2 valve motors use them from the factory.

The cam in the V11 seems to be a really good cam for street use, and likely as hot or hotter than the MC9 cam. If you want more, you are going to likely have to give up some street manners. My wifes V11 has the stock cam, but has been ported and the heads / cylinders have been machined to set deck height and improve the squish (stock there is no squish). Perhaps a better route to the machining I did is to get a set of Mike Rich pistons that create a squish band without the machining. But they seem to be available only some of the time. If you can get a set that would be a good way to go. Slightly more compression but because of improved squish they are less prone to detonation. I was able to achieve the same basic thing by having the heads and cylinders machined, more compression but less detonation because of improved squish. I always say that I think the Guzzi motor is a great candidate for hot rodding as there is so much room for improvement, unlike so many other bikes out there that are already sqeezing every last ounce of power out. But be realistic about your expectations, you can get it to make more power, but it will never be as fast as a more modern motor. But there is a joy for some that comes from making things better than they were. And the Guzzi lump is a good candidate for that. There is room for improvement.

They are trying to remove the debris from the oil return before it gets back to the sump. Better than relying on the sump screen or having the rusty dust like particles go through the sump screen, scour the pump housing before being captured by the filter. Ciao ...I get that. I'm just wondering if we're over-thinking this. The sump is designed to be where dirty oil is collected, then sent through the pump to the filter. The pump isn't a precision assembly, like say a bearing, and that dirty sump oil is pumped to the filter to get cleaned. Would even significant amounts of debris in the oil harm the pump? I agree it would be better to have cleaner oil returned from the frame/breather if possible, but is it really a problem worth engineering another filter or catch can that could introduce unintended issues such as lack of flow as discussed above, leaks, other? Just posing the question... If one is really concerned about debris in the breather/frame, perhaps do we think the suggestions about cleaning it as well as possible might be the best and simplest approach. Then just use the stock configuration? I do think they are over-thinking this. My experience was that it was a waste of time. I over thought it and went in circles for a little while. Then I put it back to stock and it worked flawlessly. I get the concern over flushing the spine out after a massive engine failure. But beyond that I think it is a waste of time. But just as I wasted a bunch of my time on the same thing, please feel free to do the same. I enjoy trying to make things better than they were, and I would not fault someone else for trying to do the same. And yes, a large tank could be fitted to do the same as the spine does, separating out the oil from the air. But after that, it makes sense to return the oil back to the sump vs having to drain it out every time it fills the tank up. Not to mention the effect on oil level in the sump (although small, there would be an effect). But where would you put such a tank? The spine is already there and a decent size for the purpose.

I tried that with my Daytona (same basic set up). It did not work out well, there was too much oil loss. I wanted it to work as I had issues with the spine frame leaking oil due to poor welding. So I wanted to be able to vent the motor to a catch can like a typical roadrace bike. It did not work out well due to the high amount of oil that was in the air being pumped out. I think it has the whole oil separator set up in the spine frame because it needs a way of separating out the oil from the air. Other big block Guzzi motors have also used a system that separates the oil from the air in a tank. You just need something of sufficient volume. You can also use a media like stainless steel wool to help. But you still have to provide a path for the oil to flow back into the sump. I actually like the Guzzi system, except when the frame is not welded properly and leaks / drips oil. Perhaps your results will be different.

Absolutely. It is my favorite motorcycle ever. It amazed me the first time I rode it. It is a keeper. Perhaps one day I will actually get all the little issues it has resolved. Until then, I will enjoy it as is.

Yeah, but $10.5 K isn't even enough to buy the Guzzi V85 from what I heard.

Since we are now discussing the frame as part of the breather system, I will add this. My Daytona frame was poorly welded and the area that is used for the breather system leaks. I tried a variety of things to resolve it. It would drip every now and then from the underside of the round tube at the end of the square frame section. It seems that where the square frame section is welded to the round tube at the swing arm side of the frame was not welded properly and the weld leaks. I eventually got it to stop leaking by using gas tank sealer epoxy on the inside of the frame section that acts as the breather catch tank. That stopped the slow leak / drip.

$10.5k? Do you think the V85 will be less? Heck, Kawasaki made big news by dropping the price of their 600 Ninja to just under $10k. But it is true that KTMs aren't the cheap option. But my experience is they use quality components so that you get good value for your dollar. Sadly, I think the last new streetbike I bought for less than $10 K was the wife's V11 sport, some 19 years ago. But to be clear, I was trying to separate the 790 Duke from exotics like the "new" Norton Commado, and the Motus. ;-)

Right, just under 100 hp at the rear wheel, that is likely 120 Guzzi hp at the crank ;-) . And a wet weight just over 400 lbs (dry weight aka Guzzi spec weight around 372 lbs). That thing sounds like an absolute blast to ride. The motor itself is incredibly tightly packaged, and yet it has two balance shafts, to help balance the 75 degree offset crank. If we could get those engineers to help Guzzi design motors that could be awesome. There are a few things that are not quite what I would want in a motorcycle, but all in all it is one of the coolest bikes out there for a reasonable amount of money (as in, aside from the Norton Commando's and the like). I am glad Guzzi has a new motor out. It sounds like it is a step in the right direction. But it is still pretty far behind some of the other brands out there. Lucky for Guzzi they do most everything else different than the other brands and that lets them stand out even though their motor design is a bit outdated.