Guest Gavin Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'm very happy with my '01 Rosso Mandello.....however I would like it to be a bit more crisp/responsive around the 4000 rpm mark, a common problem apparantly. I don't want to change or modify my silencers (I like the look of the originals and don't want any more noise) so the question is is it worth re-chipping the ECU on its own and if so whos? Also I don't want to go down the re-mapping and dyno route - lazy I know but I'm hoping for a quick and easy fix!! My first V11 had been chipped by 'Raceco' but also had loud pipes and a modded airbox - it went better but the intake and exhaust noise was a bit too much. Any thoughts out there??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil_P Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Have a word with Will Creedon. I can't think of anyone better to give you a qualified answer to this one. My own experience of having my Sporti remapped after various mods, was that there were such enormous changes to standard fuelling, I find it impossible to believe that the changes were required solely as a result of the mods, and that in order to get the best out of a stock motor you need to make quite substantial to stock fuelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianG Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It seems unreasonable to presume that a manufacturer would send a product out into a highly competitive market place with a less-than-best-effort release. While there are some fuel-mapping issues related to EPA considerations, they are mostly in the idle-to-low-RPM range. These issues may affect drivability, especially when flow restrictions have been reduced, but mostly they are not apparent in stock configuration. The infamous V-11 mid-range flat-spot is beginning to be revealed as something other than a fueling issue, if we are to believe recent revelations of our members on this forum. The upshot of all this is that there is likely little to be gained by simply revising the fueling map in the ECU of an otherwise stock bike. Owning a MG has never been a lazy-mans gambit anyway... If you want a toaster, buy a Honda! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John in Leeds Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Any thoughts out there??? Try Cliff http://jefferies-au.org/MyECU/index.htm When I have the readies this is the way I will go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil_P Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It seems unreasonable to presume that a manufacturer would send a product out into a highly competitive market place with a less-than-best-effort release. While there are some fuel-mapping issues related to EPA considerations, they are mostly in the idle-to-low-RPM range. These issues may affect drivability, especially when flow restrictions have been reduced, but mostly they are not apparent in stock configuration. The infamous V-11 mid-range flat-spot is beginning to be revealed as something other than a fueling issue, if we are to believe recent revelations of our members on this forum. The upshot of all this is that there is likely little to be gained by simply revising the fueling map in the ECU of an otherwise stock bike. Owning a MG has never been a lazy-mans gambit anyway... If you want a toaster, buy a Honda! All I can go by is the size of the percentage fuelling changes that my Sporti needed when I was having a custom map cut for my Power Commander. Large areas of the map required fuelling changes of in excess of plus 40%, with a peak change of plus 86%. Now whilst I accept that I have substantial changes to stock, ie pod filters, after market x-over and Leo Vinci cans, I really don't believe that even THESE mods would require such massive changes to stock fuelling. If you truly believe that Guzzi wouldn't market a sub-optimally tuned bike, I think you are very wide of the mark. I also don't think you recognize the sacrifices that have been made in terms of stoichometric fuel ratios in order to comply with various US and worldwide EPA restrictions. Anyone who has had a custom map done for their bike will be well aware of how much more rideable the bike is afterwards. Although Will Creedon may not produce alternative chips for the later bikes, I still think that his knowledge of things fuelling related is worth taking on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 A Stucchi crossover should get rid of most of the lack of power at 4000. A Mistral crossover will get rid of all of the dip and give you more power at 4000. (EDIT but probably less at high rpm) These crossovers appear to work better with free flowing exhausts. Removing the airbox lid will give you a big bang for the buck, while sacrificing filter media protection and silence. If you get aftermarket exhaust of intake bits, changing the fuel mixture is essential, IMHO. A PCIII will help optimize the power and mixture and it is easy to obtain maps or you dynotune. Re-mapping would be better than re-chipping by Raceco or similar, and potentially better than the PCIII IMHO. TuneBoy and Direct Link are the leading products for that. Cliff Jeffries' ECU is a great option with lots of support for helping you improve the map. Search the forum. Some of the work done by Motoguzznix has been very revealing as have many other dyno charts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan M Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 A Stucchi crossover should get rid of most of the lack of power at 4000.A Mistral crossover will get rid of all of the dip and give you more power at 4000. These crossovers appear to work better with free flowing exhausts. Removing the airbox lid will give you a big bang for the buck, while sacrificing filter media protection and silence. If you get aftermarket exhaust of intake bits, changing the fuel mixture is essential, IMHO. A PCIII will help optimize the power and mixture and it is easy to obtain maps or you dynotune. Re-mapping would be better than re-chipping by Raceco or similar, and potentially better than the PCIII IMHO. TuneBoy and Direct Link are the leading products for that. Cliff Jeffries' ECU is a great option with lots of support for helping you improve the map. Search the forum. Some of the work done by Motoguzznix has been very revealing as have many other dyno charts. Perfectly put Dave. As discussed in similar threads, these things are not feedback systems. Hence, to meet EPA regulations they are delivered running pretty lean and getting the mixture right be it with stock intake & exhaust or otherwise, covers many drivability evils. Obtaining proper mix throughout the rev range isn't that easy but they do run good when done properly. I chose the PCIII and am always tweaking. It does what I need it to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RacerX Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The 1.5M "chip" is in/onboard and not replaceable or easily reflashable. The old chip burn guys won't be of much help with the 1.5M. I recommend two options: 1. PCIII; http://www.guzzitech.com/PCIII.html 2. Or or if you have plenty of time and money to tinker, you can always go the Direct-Link route; http://www.guzzitech.com/store/TR-DirectLink.html I have no maps per se for the Direct Link, whereas I have over a hundred for the PCIIIs. Feel free to e-mail me direct for any additional questions; Todd>at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianG Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 All I can go by is the size of the percentage fuelling changes that my Sporti needed when I was having a custom map cut for my Power Commander. Large areas of the map required fuelling changes of in excess of plus 40%, with a peak change of plus 86%. Now whilst I accept that I have substantial changes to stock, ie pod filters, after market x-over and Leo Vinci cans, I really don't believe that even THESE mods would require such massive changes to stock fuelling. If you truly believe that Guzzi wouldn't market a sub-optimally tuned bike, I think you are very wide of the mark. I also don't think you recognize the sacrifices that have been made in terms of stoichometric fuel ratios in order to comply with various US and worldwide EPA restrictions. Anyone who has had a custom map done for their bike will be well aware of how much more rideable the bike is afterwards. Although Will Creedon may not produce alternative chips for the later bikes, I still think that his knowledge of things fuelling related is worth taking on board. All I have to go by is my own personal experience with a coupled PC III / DynoTech dyno session. With my unmodified 2000 V-11 Sport the auto-mapping demonstrated a desire to enrichen things only below 3000 RPM and most significantly only below 2000 RPM. With a modded air-box and Mistral mufflers it wanted to change the fueling all across the RPM range, curiously not always wanting enrichment. These flow modifications raised the torque output across the majority of the RPM range and fattened the infamous mid-range flat spot somewhat although a lesser flat spot did persist. The peak torque number was not much altered. Dirvability was remarkably improved in spite the relatively minor torque curve shift. If this real world experience leaves me "wide of the mark" compared to theoretical pontification, so be it......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil_P Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Brian, I have never sought to belittle your experiences, so I wonder why you find the need to describe my empirical observations as 'theoretical pontification' whereas your own observations are completely acceptable. I have always tried to qualify remarks I have made as being relevant to my specific bike, ie an 1100 Sporti, and I know that it is quite a bit different from the later V11.While it would seem you think there is insufficient crossover for my experiences to be of any value, there are ways to say the same thing without appearing insulting. Oh, and there are plenty of examples of Guzzi putting a bike on the market without fully sorting problems, and if you read my last post properly, you would actually understand the significance of my 'wide of the mark comment'. Hydraulic tappets anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 If you truly believe that Guzzi wouldn't market a sub-optimally tuned bike, I think you are very wide of the mark. I think you threw Brian off with the double negative. (technically not double negative, but it could have been phrased more clearly...are you a lawyer? ...just kidding.) I am pretty sure we all agree that Guzzi produces sub-optimally tuned bikes, or am I wide of the mark? Telling someone they are wide of the mark if they don't agree with you is kind of aggressive, not that I would not not not use such words. Brian (and I) should have read carefully the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gavin Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Thanks for all the info guys, also had a chat with 'Raceco' and their advice was not to do it - little noticable gain with possible changes that I might not like in other areas of the performance curve. So my decision is...................................do nothing as I'm very happy with the way it drives and its overall performance, I'm just being picky about the lack of pickup at the 4000 mark. As for the joy of fiddling and modding I'll leave that for my Supermoto and my Alfa Romeo, its kinda nice having an apparantly reliable Guzzi compared to my last jinxed one (now desperately touching all the wood I can find!!!!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianG Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Brian, I have never sought to belittle your experiences, so I wonder why you find the need to describe my empirical observations as 'theoretical pontification' whereas your own observations are completely acceptable. I have always tried to qualify remarks I have made as being relevant to my specific bike, ie an 1100 Sporti, and I know that it is quite a bit different from the later V11.While it would seem you think there is insufficient crossover for my experiences to be of any value, there are ways to say the same thing without appearing insulting. Oh, and there are plenty of examples of Guzzi putting a bike on the market without fully sorting problems, and if you read my last post properly, you would actually understand the significance of my 'wide of the mark comment'. Hydraulic tappets anyone? Phil, let me offer the olive branch here. My use of "theoretical pontification" was meant to reference the typical intellectual meanderings found on internet forums. It was definitely not aimed at your empirical observations. One of the unfortunate realities of the internet is that inflection and tone are poorly transmitted in these short bursts of text. No disrespect was intended. And I'm no big fan of Italian motorcycle transmission design, myself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil_P Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 More than happy to accept your clarification Brian. Life's too short for aggravation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuzziMoto Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Sorry for the hi-jack. Gavin, what kind of SuMo? 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