Guest SoCalDon Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Talk amoungst ya selfs... Griso Engine: 90º V-Twin, 4 stroke Cooling system: Air cooled Displacement: 1064 cc Bore and stroke: 92 mm x 80 mm Compression ratio: 9.8:1 Valves & operation: 2 overhead valves with light alloy push-rods Maximum power: 88 hp @ 8000 rpm Maximum torque: 70 ft/lbs @ 5400 rpm V11 Le Mans Engine: 90º V-Twin, 4 stroke Cylinders: Aluminum alloy with Gilnisil treatment Pistons: Forged, 2 compression & 1 oil control ring Cooling system: Air cooled Displacement: 1064 cc Bore and stroke: 92 mm x 80 mm Compression ratio: 9.8:1 Valves & operation: 2 overhead valves with light alloy push-rods Maximum power: 91 hp @7800 rpm Maximum torque: 70 ft/lbs @ 6000 rpm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guzzirider Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I like the Griso but I suspect it would be no competition when it comes to comparing motors- still a nice motor I am sure but the Breva 1100 I rode was nowhere near as rorty as my V11, so if the Griso is similar I would suspect that a V11 would leave it for dead. I am willing to put this to the test if any Griso owners fancy a burn up at Santa Pod. Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aironepony Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Can we all come and watch please? .......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anton Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Guzzirider. What's that on your avatar? Are you racing a V11? Anton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripletango Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I rode both back to back and the V11 engine has more top end than the 1100 Breva. I then bought the Cafe Sport and rode it 1100 miles home in 16 hours stopping only for gas and all things natural! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guzzirider Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Guzzirider.What's that on your avatar? Are you racing a V11? Anton 82541[/snapback] Hi Anton Not racing- I'm just wobbling around on a track day. Pic was taken at Croft circuit in Sept 2004. Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anton Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 hm.. Nice picture though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan M Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 One wonders what the powers that be at Moto Guzzi are thinking. I'd imagine they'd snag more sales if their bikes were getting more powerful not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 One wonders what the powers that be at Moto Guzzi are thinking. I'd imagine they'd snag more sales if their bikes were getting more powerful not less. True, but then there's the long-term corporate bean-counter/marketing committee studies and resulting product roll-out strategy, whereby maximum sales revenues are carefully calculated, plotted and projected over time. New model introductions are typically offered accordingly - initially substantially de-tuned - providing room for a calculated, step-wise, phased performance improvement plan over the intended model lifespan... 'Nother words, the bean-counters won't allow published performance numbers that can't be credibly shown to be improved upon to boost sales as is typically mandatory in future years... It seems the marketing types have long ago figured out that the majority of the buying public in their most important target markets pay lots more attention to the raw power and torque numbers than they do to the RPM at which the numbers are taken... To exploit this most efficiently, one devious bit of slight-of-hand tactics typically used is to juggle published performance numbers to fit the long-term corporate plan by selectively rating torque and power at non-peak RPMs. This way, you can manipulate things to fit a nice progression of output numbers on paper over time - without incuring re-tooling costs of actual changes to the "product"... This seems to give the bike-rag "journalists" all the justification they're looking for to get all excited the maximum number of times... To compete, ya gots to give the largest number of 'em what they wants.... - Just one of the many reasons I personally find it damned near entirely useless to chase peaks on charts. Even more misleading and useless IMHO, is chasing published "peaks" OFF charts... BAA, TJM, & YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 The Griso has more potential for hot rodding, the twin plugging has already been taken care of, and I suspect it is less prone to pinging, so there may be more room for higher compression. A hotter cam will give all you ricky racers what you are jonesing for. Still, I think Guzzi has to introduce a model with just less than 100HP at the crank, wait a couple years give it 100HP at the crank, wait a couple more years and give it true 100HP rear wheel in classic bean counter strategy. Once the bike has 100RWHP they can keep it that way for the next hundred years, evolving towards lighter, greener, more reliable, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan M Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 - Just a few of the many reasons I personally find it damned near entirely useless to chase peaks on charts. Even more misleading IMHO, are published "peaks" OFF charts... <_> BAA, TJM, & YMMV 82551[/snapback] I agree. Many look at peak horsepower alone which is silly, not to mention manufacturer's claims are usually exaggerated. I think most of us Guzzi types don't chase peak power charts or 1/4 mile times. If that were the case we'd all be on a different brand. Seems though, if MG wants to market an aggressively styled bike, It would at least have a little more zip than what it is replacing. Like dlaing said 100hp would be in the ball park. 100hp with a strong, flat torque curve would suit me just fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 It's funny how we think about this stuff with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. When I was a kid on my single-Amal '69 A65 BSA, I remember thinking about the "bigger, better, faster" trends of the day, and imagining what a "reasonable" max horsepower would ever be. At that time, I couldn't imagine ever needing (or wanting) more than about 60 bhp. The T-bolt was rated at 42 bhp at the time...that woulda been nearly 50% more power... D'ya think in about 5 years, when somebody introduces a new performance benchmark for sportbikes at 200 bhp, that even then you'd consider 100 bhp adequate - even with a nice, broad, flat torque curve? Enquiring minds just gotta know... With the mods I've done to my Sport, I don't know what the modified torque and power outputs are, but I don't spend much time thinking about it, and I may in fact never know, since it seems to be more'n adequate as is for garden-varitey Road Geez purposes... BAA, TJM, & YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Barrett Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Enquiring minds just gotta know... 82579[/snapback] I came down from an FJ1200 110 real BHP and 75 ftxlbs, I don't really miss the extra but I don't think I could drop down to Thruxton levels 70 Bhp and 53 ftxlbs even though I'm normally within it's performance envelope. Though I think it's also a bit twee for a fat old bugger like myself. There's no way I could fold up enough for a Ducati Sport Classic. There are the odd occasions when the old bus runs out of puff but I'm glad of the imposed limitation because on these occasions I'm not sure where I'd stop left to my own devices I don't have very much won't power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan M Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 D'ya think in about 5 years, when somebody introduces a new performance benchmark for sportbikes at 200 bhp, that even then you'd consider 100 bhp adequate - even with a nice, broad, flat torque curve? Enquiring minds just gotta know... BAA, TJM, & YMMV 82579[/snapback] Absolutely. Like Martin, I too had a FJ1200. At that time stock was not enough and with a little work it was blistering fast (for me) So much so that I knew I would either get in trouble or get dead. I couldn't even ride to work without triple digit speeds. After a couple of four cylinder bikes and a Valkyrie, I have gravitated (back) toward the power characteristics of a twin. All of my current bikes are twins and the MG is easily the fastest. I don't need 150 horsepower on a 400 pound bike. Like I said before If that is what I needed it is there to be had with different brands. I ride different bikes with different expectations, If my "sporting" mount is going to tip the scales in the 500 lb range, a torquey 100 hp motor is plenty. As I near the half century mark I'd imagine my horsepower needs will decrease not increase, regardless of what is offered. Certianly you wanted more out of your V11 or you would not have modified it. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guzzirider Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 I had an FJ1200 too when I was 21- I enjoyed thrashing it at the time but there were no speed cameras and less traffic. Having a fast 4 cylinder bike would get me banned these days- I would like Guzzi to make more powerful motors though. Guy 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