GuzziMoto

I'm happy with my Griso 1100 but I feel I would be happier with a 1200. If some is good, more must be better. Actually, I am a little disappointed in the fact that my wifes V11 is stronger then my newer Griso1100. When the wifes bike is faster then mine, something is wrong.

Sorry, but I think you focused on the wrong aspects of my reply. I doubt you have ANY serious problem. These bikes WILL make bad sounding noises if you set the idle too low. Yes it will be more noticeable in a cold confined garage. Stock tachs are usually NOT very accurate on most bikes, not just Guzzis. Yamaha even got into trouble with its R6 a while back over its tach. Guzzi motors are very reliable mechanically. Don't jump to negative conclusions so fast. Start with the basics. Ste your idle, check your valve lash, etc. Then enjoy the ride.

Clutch hub splines or other transmission bits are a possibilty. Also a loose timing chain or weak timing chain tensioner spring. But if it's quiet above 1200 - 1400 rpm I would just set the idle there. (Remember the tach may be off by 200 rpm easily).

What rpm do you have it idling at? I don't think Guzzi motors like to idle lower then 1200 rpm. They get noisey below that. I would agree that if it is a rod knock it would probably not go away at slightly higher revs. What rpm does it knock at and what rpm does it go quiet?

When you put it that way it makes perfect sense.

Thanks Pete. Good to know.

Heck, I was getting over 70 mpg out of a stock Buell Blast. H-D's seem to have a much more effiecent combustion chamber then Guzzi does.

See, that's why I read stuff like this. If it weren't for reading this thread I wouldn't know that thermal mass and thermal inertia are unrelated, that putting a heat sink on a temp sensor increases its accuracy, that an air temp sensor is a better choice for measuring cylinder head temp then a water temp sensor, that a water temp sensorthat weighs less then a ounce or two has more thermal inertia then a cylinder head, and that the Easter Bunny is real. I take being insulted by RH as a good thing. It means I'm on the right side.

I certainly would not have put this much into "fixing" a problem that did not exist. But then , when I read things like; "Its considerable inherent property of thermal inertia means that the sensor body takes time to heat up and cool down.", "The temperature at the sensor body lags behind the temp of the cylinder head (in either direction) until heat can flow through the sensor probe (again in either direction) as it seeks equilibrium between head and sensor body.", "I beleive there are times when the head does cool faster than the OE sensor body,", "that being the heat flow problem and thermal inertia of the relatively high-mass OE sensor body", "(Again) taking measurements OVER TIME would be the entire thrust of my observation of the THERMAL INERTIA and lag-time problem with the sensor, as thoroughly presented and discussed in previous analysis." I tend to think that someone is saying that the problem with the OE sensor is that it has too much thermal inertia, and in this case, "too much" would imply that it has more then the cylinder head so that it cannot change temp as quickly as the cylinder head can.

That was funny. RH telling someone else that THEY have no concept or understanding of thermal dynamics and the RH goes on to explain how they original sensor has more thermal mass then the cylinder head and cannot react as rapidly as the cylinder head to changes in temp so it ends up running hotter then it should.

Take a look at DB Dawgs. http://www.dirtwerkz.com/Pages/products/exhaust/dB_Dawg.html They are geared towards dirtbikes but noise is noise.

I'm sorry, not everything I said was specifically to you. I was addressing some things you said and got into some side notes as well. Sorry. I do think that if you think everything on your Guzzi is that way for a good reason you will be wrong every now and then. Adding fuel at very high temps should not hurt mileage much if any. Why Guzzi chose to take fuel away I am not sure, but if I were to guess I'd say it was for emissions reasons, not because it worked better.

If you feel your bike runs better with less accurate ETS readings, I have no problem with that. I will point out that "the way it was designed" was to meet EPA standards and using a completely different formula of gasoline then most if not all of us have today. Things change. New gasoline that burns leaner/cleaner. The whole goo concept was to fix an issue that many of us had, poor fuel mileage. My wifes bike now gets upwards of 40-45 mpg. Not stellar but better then it was. If your bike gets good mileage already or you don't care about mileage then keep the gap, or better yet add a heat sink to your ETS. But please don't try to tell me that adding a heat sink to your ETS or running a gap between the ETS and the head increases accuracy. Your bike may run better with a low ETS reading but that is not the same as more accurate. For what it's worth, I like RHs idea of putting a variable resistor on the ETS signal. It is crude but cheap, and will give the user the ability to adjust the overall mixture on the fly. It is no substitute for a PC3 or TuneBoy, but it could be used as a cheaper less effective alternative or even in addition to a proper map to allow you to tune on the fly and adjust for poor fuel quality or what ever. As far as an advantage in not reading the "high temp spikes", that may be. But my wifes V11 has no issues with them. It would make more sense if the engineers had set it up to add MORE fuel when the temp got over a certain temp and not less, but I would submit that not everything they did when designing spec'ing and building these bikes made sense, was for the best , or was done for a good reason.

There's your problem. You can't use Ford parts on a Guzzi and expect it to work right.

Goo is most likely to "cause issues" if there is something wrong with your bike to begin with (loose valves, TPS issues,etc). Many have added goo without adjusting the map including myself and had no issues. The ETS signal being sent to the ECU is more accurate when the signal more closely reflects the actual temp of the head. What the ECU does after that has NOTHING to do with accuracy of the ETS. Anything you do to make the ETS heat up and cooldown in sync with the head will increase that accuracy. If your motor runs better with an inaccurate signal then it does with an accurate signal then either something is wrong with the map or something is wrong with your bike. As many V11s have had the goo applied and only a few have had issues afterward you decide for yourself where the problem lies. I have. If you chose to alter the ETS signal as a cheap way of adjusting the fueling, fine. But it has limited control and can only move the whole range up or down. It is not without promise or usefulness, but please call it what it is and don't pretend it is anything more. As far as valves and guides, the stock valves tend to be soft and can wear funny which then wears out the guides funny. If this is the case with yours (sounds like it is) expect to replace the valves and guides. Tuning the bike until you have done so is a waste of time.

Why did you replace the plastic holder with the brass one? Some bikes have fuel mileage issues (low fuel mileage) and they benefit from adding some sort of heat transfer goo between the sensor and the copper tip of the holder. This gives a more accurate temp reading to the ECU. If your bikes runs perfect the the ETS reading a little low and you add heat transfer goo or replace the plastic holder with a brass holder the more accurate temp reading may make the bike run lean. You can then adjust your map accordingly or put the platic holder back on. Alternately, you could add a variable resistor as RH did and give yourself manual control over the temp reading. If it does not run better with the plastic holder back on then you have other issues.

I prefer Redline Shockproof in the gearbox and CARC. I have heard that the newer Guzzis do better with 10/60w but I run 20/50w. Brands are a touchy subject but I suggest either bike oil or diesel oil, no car oil.

I would agree with you there. Same tires with different tread patterns practically.

Okay, this is pretty simple stuff. ANYTHING you do to increase heat transfer between the cylinder head and the ETS will also increase heat transfer the other way, from the ETS to the cylinder head in the off chance that the ETS finds it self in the position of being hotter then the cylinder head. Its a two way street. AHYTHING you do to increase heat transfer between the two parts will increase the accuracy of the ETS. ANYTHING you do that decreases the heat transfer or adds cooling to the ETS will decrease the accuracy of the ETS. The table is not a chart of values that Guzzi engineers came up with after running the engine to heat it up to certain temps and then measured the output of the sensor at that temp and wrote it down. It is based off a spec sheet for the sensor giving sensor outputs at given sensor tip temps. There will be NO consideration in that chart for deviations caused by lack of heat transfer or anything else. The biggest flaw in most of RH's theory (and yours) is that most of the V11's do not have these temp related issues. If the stock setup was flawed and/or made worse by adding goo then all the bikes that have done so would be running worse, not just a few. If your still not sure, please reread the first two parts.

Sorry, but RH will have to try harder if he is going to convince me (or any one else with two brain cells to rub together) that the sensor has more thermal inertia then the cylinder head and that the large chunk of aluminum we call the cylinder head can heat up and cool down faster then the little piece of copper and brass that is the ETS. And if you add thermal goo or a brass holder, that will only increase the heat flow between the two making them even closer to the same temp. And no the cylinder head temp does not change as rapidly as RH believes. The engine is a large chunk of aluminum and is not prone to sudden changes of temp. In fact a liquid cooled motor will heat up and cool down faster, although once heated up it will tend to be more stable then the air cooled motor. And how is it that the airflow that RH says suddenly cools down the cylinder does not cool off the ETS. I guess it does not transfer any heat to the air unless you give it a heat sink? The engine is the source of heat and the ETS measures it. The ETS will not heat up higher then the engine and being much smaller it can change temp faster then the engine can. Edit; 38, I can almost taste it.

Move along Pete, nothing for you to see here.

It may have been a defective tire, or even installed slightly off. But it also could have been a mismatch between the front and the rear if I understood you correctly. It sounded like you replaced only the rear with a Conti. Now I know most of the time two different tires will play nicely, but they tell you not to do that for a reason. Every now and then two tires will not work well together at all. I have experienced that both on a bike and in a car. If you want a low cost tire that perfoms almost as well as the topshelf tires, the Contis are a good choice. If you can afford topshelf tires they are better.

The purpose of the ETS is to tell the ECU when the motor is cold so it will add more fuel. That is what it does. Anything you do to improve it accuracy will give the ECU better more acurate info on the temp of the engine. Screwing with that in a way that feeds the ECU inaccurate info is not or will it ever be defined as improving the accuracy of the sensor. It will alter the fueling but it is not improving the accuracy. You cannot put a heatsink on the sensor and then say it is improving the heat flow to the sensor by drawing heat into the sensor. It is doing one thing and one thing only, it is cooling off the sensor causing it to read lower then it should. Call it what you like but it is doing what it does. Heatsinks shed heat cooling off the device they are attached to.

My wifes V11 has goo in the stock holder. Anything you do that improves heat transfer from the motor to the sensor will improve its accuracy. Improving the sensors accuracy does not mean your bike will run better automatically, but it is a step in the right direction. But if your bike was border line lean at some rpm or throttle position then improving the accuracy of the ETS may make it run worse at that point instead of better. But many bikes, and V11s for sure, are a little lean at lower rpms and throttle openings and too rich at higher rpms and throttle openings. Therefore bodging the ETS to richen up the mix at idle will improve the way the bike runs there but since the motor was already too rich elsewhere it will only be worse there. Improving the accuracy of the sensor is not the same as "making the bike run hot". If it is too lean it will run a little hot, but the sensor itself does not cause this. It just measures it.