belfastguzzi Posted July 30, 2010 Author Share Posted July 30, 2010 . I think this question is rather an academic one - just the right stuff for this section of the forum Academic, yes, but it is also a question about the future customers of Moto Guzzi, if the factory is to continue to sell bikes. Of course, maybe they should just jump straight to battery power. At least we are used to big, heavy, lumpy, motive plants: so it wouldn't look so wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belfastguzzi Posted July 30, 2010 Author Share Posted July 30, 2010 And also that every driver should have to exilian the basics of an engine to qualify for a license. Not advanced theory on cam profiles..just a basic working knowledge. That would take care of a large fraction of nonsensical complaints. So, what do you expect!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luhbo Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Well, 'seems you really are an artist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luhbo Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Academic, yes, but it is also a question about the future customers of Moto Guzzi, if the factory is to continue to sell bikes. .... What I wanted to point out is: if they manage to build Guzzies in the future they will be able to sell them. Water cooled or not water cooled, is this the real question? I say not. Who knows, maybe the next generation even will already be luiquid cooled. Under emission aspects this is long overdue. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Field Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 I'm not against a water-cooled Guzzi. I am against a water-cooled Guzzi with a transverse-V twin engine. If they're going to water-cool it, they should start from scratch and make a new engine with an engine architecture that does not create so many other packaging problems that result from the V7 architecture. I love the Guzzi transvers-V engine, but reality is that Guzzi has been essentially bankrupt ever since its introduction. It has not brought success for the company. Why stick with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docc Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 I'm not against a water-cooled Guzzi. I am against a water-cooled Guzzi with a transverse-V twin engine. If they're going to water-cool it, they should start from scratch and make a new engine with an engine architecture that does not create so many other packaging problems that result from the V7 architecture. I love the Guzzi transvers-V engine, but reality is that Guzzi has been essentially bankrupt ever since its introduction. It has not brought success for the company. Why stick with it? So, after 40 years with this engine architecture, it has never been successful? I'm not sure Moto Guzzi hasn't been "essentially bankrupt" since their inception in 1921. That they haven't disappeared or been "resurrected' is a phenomenon indeed; quite apart form engine architecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldini Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 .... I love the Guzzi transvers-V engine, but reality is that Guzzi has been essentially bankrupt ever since its introduction. It has not brought success for the company. Why stick with it? Lack of commercial success may (or may not be) co-incidental with the Transverse-V engine but it doesn't follow that it must be because of it. Haphazard R&D, poor quality control, & lack of dealer/customer support are legend, & in my view far more pertinent. It's not a matter of building this bike or that bike, water cooling or not. It's attitude. It's the way Moto Guzzi presents itself to, & is perceived by the market. Unlike say Ducati, there is no coherent, consistent design or marketing policy. I think the transverse V twin is a beautiful thing, I like the way it sits in a bike. Guzzi history is littered with other formats; from singles to the V8, tho the transverse V & the flat single are, to me, the two that say Guzzi more than any other. Triumph has capitalised on it's marque history whilst producing a range of formats - the Daytona 675 & Rocket 3 are wildly different machines but both are clearly Triumph. Until Guzzi gain the same sort of corporate vision, focus & committment that Triumph & Ducati have shown for their brands, it will continue to be a half-arsed outfit teetering on the edge of extinction. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Field Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Those sideways cylinders get in the way of a lot of things and only make sense if they need to be out in the breeze for cooling. If it were a successful and advantageous engine architecture, some other manufacturer would have used it in modern times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom M Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Those sideways cylinders get in the way of a lot of things and only make sense if they need to be out in the breeze for cooling. If it were a successful and advantageous engine architecture, some other manufacturer would have used it in modern times. Do the Honda ST1100 and 1300 engines count as modern? Yes they are 4 cylinders but a twin seems feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScuRoo Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Piaggio attitude to Guzzi owner frustration? Here's the solution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luhbo Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Yeah, but I don't know whether the common public advice could make things a lot better Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Field Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Those sideways cylinders get in the way of a lot of things and only make sense if they need to be out in the breeze for cooling. If it were a successful and advantageous engine architecture, some other manufacturer would have used it in modern times. Do the Honda ST1100 and 1300 engines count as modern? Yes they are 4 cylinders but a twin seems feasible. Modern, yes, but as you say it's a four. With a four, you can use a shorter stroke than on an equal-displacement twin, which reduces how far up and out the cylinders stick, making packaging much easier than with a twin. If Guzzi's water-cooled motor turns out to be a four, fine. If a twin, there are better packages they should use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeBenGuzzi Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 F that, make it the V8, why the F not? make it more like the rocket 3 tho so its not super impossible to work on but a real small V8 would be TITS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuzziMoto Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 I'm sorry, but while a transverse V twin cylinder engine may not be the perfect engine package it is better then Ducati's L twin package. And look how successful that has been. The pro's and con's of Guzzi engine layout have little to do with the fact that Guzzi has been trying to go out of business since 1921. That is a much larger issue with causes that predate the transverse V layout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScuRoo Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Shucks Hubert Those Alaskan's are just so niice and purty lounging back on their woolly bear rug's... heck, they could even be mistook for Canadian's!!! 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