guzzipete

The shop I purchased my bike from said they serviced the bike as per the owners manual. The manual calls for 3.5 L, so 3.5 L went in. It went over the full mark on the dip stick by about 3/4". Once I started running it around I noticed it was blowing oil out the crankcase breather hose and into the air box, where overnight it subsequently dribbled its way out of the intake near the left hand throttle body and down over the starter motor. I removed enough oil to bring it back down to just below the full mark, and the problem went away. I read in a few threads that the full mark on the dip stick is low, but in this situation it seems spot on. What gives?! No, the oil pressure light has not come on since, and as an aside I've since replaced the intake pipe on both sides (figuring if oil could get out, unfiltered air could get in). Here I was ready to put 4 Quarts in at the next service. I'm sure various gaskets are glad I didn't. I've also since found out that my bike was involved in an accident ~4 years ago. I don't have the fuzzy engine paint that an '02 model should, so am thinking that I have an '03 or later engine. Would this make any difference?

... but then considering it as an out and out sport bike is just as absurd. Come on, it's a naked with clip ons, seriously. Even so, you'll find some in this list that are also considered serious sports bikes... V11 Sport wet weight - 247kg BMW K100RS wet weight - 249kg BMW K1100RS wet weight - 268kg Harley Davidson Dyna Glide Sport wet weight - 295kg Harley Davidson XR1200 wet weight - 263kg Honda CBR 900 Bol'dor wet weight - 260kg Honda CB 1300 Super 4 wet weight - 246kg Honda CX650TD Turbo wet weight - 260kg Kawasaki Z1 wet weight - 246kg Kawasaki ZX12R wet weight - 248kg Kawasaki Z1RTC Turbo wet weight - 253kg Kawasaki ZX750E1/2 Turbo wet weight - 320kg Kawasaki Z 1300 wet weight - 296kg Laverda RSG Corsa wet weight - 245kg Suzuki GSX1400 wet weight - 240kg Suzuki Bandit 1200S wet weight - 245kg Suzuki GS1000EZ wet weight - 256kg Suzuki GSX1100 Katana wet weight - 256kg Suzuki GSXR1100W wet weight - 242kg Suzuki XN85D Turbo wet weight - 247kg Triumph Bonneville wet weight - 264kg Yamaha XJR1300 wet weight - 245kg Yamaha XJ650 Seca Turbo wet weight - 257kg Guzzi figures look just fine in this admirable company...

We're only talking 30kg here, so chuck on one of those kids from the 125cc class. The rider weight difference will cancel that out.

That may be, but they produce similar power (a difference of just 0.0835 HP/Kg), and have similar standing quarters (12.3 versus 12.4). You see, weight is not the only variable you have to consider. P.S I don't know why anyone bothers with dry weights. It's impossible to ride a bike dry...

... those being pre-VVT!

My understanding is that either way you'll end up with ~1mm free play between the spring and boss. Perhaps someone with more experience with these things can qualify that.

You ask WTF? I'm sorry, but people comparing these bikes to modern technology really gets my goad. This forum was the last place I expected to find such comments. Your rationale..."they made them until mid this decade..." is...well...about the only thing they share in common with a modern sports bike. Using that line of reasoning I should go out and buy a brand new Triumph Bonneville T100, and then write into Road Rider magazine and whine that it doesn't go, stop, or handle as well as the latest gixxer. The Bear will laugh at me. A deep hearty laugh. Then call me an idiot. WTF indeed. Speaking of Harley's, the Guzzi is a sport classic motorcycle, so you'd be much fairer comparing it to say a Sportster XR1200. If the comparo really must be between Guzzi and Duke, then try the GT1000 hey, not an ST2! Yes, you're right, definitely WTF... Steve G. regarding the R1200GS, I've already qualified that I wasn't comparing it's on road ability at speed. It motored great along the F3, and left me feeling far more refreshed at the end of the day than my V11 ever does.

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement by saying that I had in mind the memory of pottering along a one lane road with ~500 other bikers! Needless to say we were moving at a snails pace. In these conditions I found the bimmer top heavy and cumbersome. Not to mention moving it around the garage was a real pain in the arse, and don't even get me started on trying to get it up on the centre stand! Well that's about as useful as comparing Marilyn Monroe (BMI 20.9) to Angelina Jolie (BMI 17.9). Different girls, different eras, both great for their time... Modern? What is modern about design technology that dates from the late sixties?! I'd hardly call it a fair comparison! You guys may as well start a thread comparing my A3 to a Gallardo. About all they share in common is some generic VW switch gear...

I really don't like these little stumpy exhausts that seem to be all the rage now...

ROFLAMO. That's GOLD!

I think some of y'all need to hit the gym. I've never found my V11 Sport a heavy bike, either stationary or out on the road. IMO I think those that find it heavy through the corners rely more on lean rather than counter steer. Hell it's much easier to ride than the BMW R1200GS I had for the BAM2 ride. That thing was a beast to handle!

4 years later and they are still making them. Pricey though, $1295 a pair. Gotta love old threads.

http://www.mgcycle.com/product_info.php?products_id=139 Updated spring from Guzzi. Has an ID of 17mm so it wont foul on the boss.

Any good quality automotive gasket replacement sealant will be fine, but I personally use Loctite ® RTV Silicone 587™ Loctite ® RTV Silicone 587™ forms tough, flexible gaskets directly on the flange. Sensor-safe, low odor, and non-corrosive. Excellent oil resistance and joint movement values. Resists shrinking, cracking, and migrating. Eight times more flexible than cork/composite gaskets; three times more oil resistant than conventional silicones. Temperature range -75 °F to 500 °F intermittent; resists auto and shop fluids.

The same could be said for your opinion of the stock system. However, there is no need to be childish, so I'll disregard your last paragraph other than to say that, no, I don't believe you said something derogatory of the Staintune product (and it wouldn't matter if you did); I thought I was simply having a debate with you over the merits of aftermarket vs stock. Staintune warrant the workmanship and construction of their product for an unlimited period, and it meets ADR requirements, so your argument in that regard is void. If you want to keep it Italian, Agostini also meets Euro 3 homologation and as such are fitted with a catalyzer and "dB killer" both of which are removable for race track use. For the UK, Quill Exhausts are MOT approved and carry a lifetime warranty, so once again product legality and longevity is not the issue you make it to be. Offering life time warranties, which I might point out MG does not, I'd dare say these manufacturers also are "averse to paying for warranty replacements for some vehicle left outside in a salty, wet environment for its entire lifespan, and [thus] make an exhaust system that is worthy of Timex...". Finally, I thought the pre-Piaggio bikes had mild steel exhausts. My bad.

The only "point" to any standard component on a motorcycle is that it performs a given function at a given economic cost. Cost of development, cost of manufacture, and cost expressed as a percentage of the total value of the machine. I'd dare say the bean counters at Guzzi know full well that most customers will end up swapping out the exhaust anyway (as others here have said it is a very personal choice), so why spend any more than is minimally necessary in developing and manufacturing the component? Your stock exhaust is built like a "tank" simply because it is cheaper, quicker, and requires less effort and accuracy to do so. It's obvious from the woeful noise and weight that all Guzzi is concerned about is that it meets EPA and DOT requirements. Like I said, given function, given economic cost. It does it's job, that's all that matters - to the lay person - but we're enthusiasts here, aren't we?! I'm perplexed that you've suggested that part longevity is determined by the weight of the materials used. Lets look at mild steel vs titanium. In strength of any type including tensile, and hardness, steel wins by a long shot, but in resistance to temperature (very high melt point gives titanium a high ceiling of 'temper'), tolerance of vibration, certain types of torsion stress, strength to weight, and corrosion resistance, titanium wins. With regard to stainless steel, AISI Type 304 stainless steel to be exact, this type of steel provides for an exhaust that is stronger and more heat resistant than the stock one, while also being considerably lighter. Simplistically, the gross mass of a component has nothing to do with how long it will last, other than the fact that added weight in any form ultimately results poorer fuel consumption, poorer performance, and greater stress on frame and suspension components. Which email address are you using?

According to Staintune the meticulous hand welds, hand polishing, the use of stainless steel and a packing material that never blows out or needs servicing, gives them a huge advantage over all others. There was a most interesting quote from one of the largest exhaust manufacturers at a recent trade show, "I wish we could do that to our systems, but it's just too time consuming". It's not what they could be doing that is of interest, it's what they don't do that makes STAINTUNE an instantly superior product. The effort alone it takes to polish raw stainless steel to a jewellers grade finish, in no less than a seven stage process, is testament to the lengths STAINTUNE goes to set itself apart from the rest. The materials used have the potential to outlast the expected life of the vehicle. Fair enough that sounds like the usual factory fluff, but looking at the quality of the workmanship I don't doubt it to be true. Staintune guarantee that all of their exhausts do not require modifications to the bike in any manner, such as jetting, chipping or any other change at all. I can certify that this statement was correct in relation to my '02 V11 sport.

A lot of people seem to go for the Mistrals ( ) ... though the ones in this vid sound tame compared to my Staintunes (even with the baffles in)! Another favourite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWB1f3bWrO8)

Avoid Paull's Mowers and Motorcycles at Richmond. Although they are an authorised Guzzi service agent your bike will be worked on by an old fella who usually spends his days tinkering with mowers. No bashing, just fact. My best mate used to be a mechanic for them, and said despite being a service agent they didn't see a lot of Guzzi's out there.

Not having had to take either wheel off (yet), I just use one of these when working on the bike. Roll on, roll off. Nice and easy.

My '02 V11 Sport

Did you try: - Exert a pressure on the internal piston in order to expell all the fluid (or air) contained in the cap. ?? Good luck with it.

No worries Coz, glad to be of help. It's just occurred to me though (whilst searching for info in another thread) that whilst it's great for someone to post a link to the answer, it's not so great when you discover (years down the track) that the answer is "404 Error - File Not Found". So in the interests of maintaining the forum integrity for years to come, I'll re-post the most pertinent information here for future reference.... (1) For the uninitiated, specifications for this pump are essentially the same for all 1993 - 2003 models: nominal voltage is 12 volts, system pressure is 3.0 bar (43.5 psi), delivery quantity is 100 liters per hour (l/h), and power consumption is less than 6 amps at system pressure. Included in the design (and all fuel pumps) is a check valve, and this one has as well an overpressure valve which shot circuits if pressure rises above 5 bar. The pump's inlet nipple is a nominal 12mm and the outlet nipple measures a nominal 7mm; buying a pump with different size inlet/outlet as a stop-gap emergency repair starts a domino-effect of changing fuel line size, thus pressure ...not desirable. (2) A subsequent search confirmed that Pierburg, a German firm [well known in Europe but relatively unknown in the U.S.] was in fact producing the Weber pump with the exact specifications I needed (sold currently as the Pierburg #7.21565.70.0 and formerly numbered #7.21565.50.0 and #7.21565.52.0). A call to Pierburg's U.S. importer (Mr. Craig Wolfe, Peachtree, George; 1-770-631-7500) promised the pump's availability from an auto import shop in north Chicago, but a call to that shop revealed they did not have the pump in stock. (3) By now it was Tuesday, and hoping for a more local (and cheaper) source, other tantalizing clues emerged from the net; Volvo autos (with years and models!) linked to Pierburg numbers were found...and a local Guzzi owner with a '99 EV visited - his pump was mounted on the frame beneath the left side cover and the number was barely visible: Bosch #0580464048. A call next morning to a local Volkswagen shop and the Bosch was ordered with a promised next day delivery (indeed, it arrived on Thursday). (4) After ordering the Bosch pump, I also called NAPA with the Bosch number in hand, and NAPA was immediately able to cross reference it to their proprietary "Carter/Federal #P72018" for $174.73, and a call to Auto-Zone revealed their proprietary "Master #E7334" (with a lifetime guarantee for $189.99) was also an exact replacement for the Bosch. [Can you say "1991 BMW 318 IC automobile w/1.8 L 4 fuel injected engine"?] (4) The Bosch pump was installed, and the opportunity also used to replace the 8mm fuel line with fuel injection hose (Gates brand #SAE 30R9) which has a formula much more impervious to effects of heat and gasoline solvent breakdown than standard fuel line; I highly recommend it or a similar spec brand. Fuel line clamps were also used instead of U.S. style standard hose clamps, so as to avert line damage and provide more uniform connections. The gas filter was due for replacement, and was replaced as well (Bosch #F5005; other applicable fuel filters are: NAPA #3564; Car-Quest #86564; and NAPA #3008, which is slightly longer than the NAPA #3564). There, now if the MGNOC web page goes down the information will be here to help the next generation of Guzzi owners...

The answer is in your VIN number: (example) ZGUKR0000XM111111 Numbers 1,2,3: Code WMI (World Manufactures’ Identifier) Numbers 4,5: Type of vehicle Numbers 6,7: Model Numbers 8,9: Version Number 10: Year of manufacturing, for example: X = 1999 Y = 2000 1=2001 2=2002 3=2003 and so on Number 11: Manufacturing plant (M = Mandello del Lario) Numbers 12,13,14,15,16,17: Chassis number (no.111111 refers to the first vehicle built) The little port at the base of the fuel regulator that looks like it should have a line on it, doesn't have a line on it (i.e it vents to the atmosphere) Only North American (and Singapore) market bikes are fitted with a fuel vapour purification and recirculation system. My Aussie bike functions just nicely without it, so yes you can rip it out. Keep in mind though you will no longer meet your state's emissions regulations.

They are in this article... http://www.mgnoc.com/article_external_guzzi_fuel_pumps.html Hope that helps! Cheers.