Leaderboard

Hi, I fully agree with above. The main issue with the OEM BINs and their fuel values is the lacking synchronisation of the lambda (AFR) values between the 2 cylinders. If lambda is different between the cylinders at a given operating point the engine will not run as smoothly and efficient as it could in non-closed loop mode. If it's in closed loop the slow OEM lambda probe excerbates the discontent as differing lambda values are reported to the ECU from one combustion cycle to the next. It goes crazy trying to cancel out countermanding values. Evening out the lambda values between the cylinders at any given breakpoints will achieve 95% of what can reasonably be achieved. Everything else is cream on top. And as the time needed for either is inverse (5% getting the lambda synchronity right/95% to for the rest), Plus, this approach fits best to the OEM ignition values. I have no means of checking them, but guess/hope that Mandello knew better/had the required setup, to get these right. Cheers Meinolf

I went to MPH today, at their current location, and spoke to Mike; They are not going to relocate to Hempstead, and will continue to operate out of Park Row. @PJPR01

Plates should be ready in 2 or 3 weeks so things will be quiet for a while. Will update everyone once I have them.

I'm glad you *think* it will be quiet around here...

Hi, indeed the accel fuel map doesn't make a lot of sense. Consider the following. The accel function is only used if a TPS opening/closing treshold speed is exceeded. Quickly opening the throttle will lead to an main fuel value from the main fuel table which is larger than the one beginning with while the rpm remains unchanged for a a relatively long time. Which in turn means that the air mass (and its speed) moving to the combustion chamber will not change as rapidly. The result is an increased fuel injection time while the air mass remains largely unchanged. Ipso, the mixture will enrich w/o any support from the accel enrichment map. And the accel enrichment tapers out with increasing rpm anyway. Instead of meddling with the accel fuel enrichment changing the ignition values makes much more sense. A richer mixture needs less time to ignite, hence reducing the ignition advance while accelerating to move (or keep) the max. combustion pressure closer to TDC + ~12-15° is the way to go. Cheers Meinolf

Hi, Ok, some nitpicking from my side. The ADC does read smaller values. The way the correlation between TPS ADC values and TPS degree values works is that the ADC value is used to select a corresponding TPS degree value in the TPS Lookup Table, TPS ADC -> TPS degree. I assume that the lowest ADC values are not used in the TPS Lookup table (0 values) as they are reserved for the error detection of the TPS signal. Cheers Meinolf

Removing all the rest, including the two canisters and the cadmium plated bracket off the back of the engine sump, along with twenty feet (yep:20!) of heavy fuel line from the bike is a hassle, but sheds five pounds. And gives you your tool tray back. I distinctly recall the fastener for the lower bracket is in a hole contiguous with the oil sump. Oh, yeah, that oil will share itself with your garage floor in an exuberant fashion!

I do not disagree; I would like to complete my tires review. My plan is to check the Dunlop next year. Michelin is the only manufacturer to have a dual compound on both front and rear. The others only the rear.

Thank you @docc! It looks like that’s exactly what I have going on. Odd that they left the rest of the hardware though. They just yanked out the two pieces of hose at the T-fitting.

Thanks for the update here P6X! Much better for you !! I had the Scura out last weekend for a nice romp… very cool weather made for a comfortable ride! Winter riding should be much more enjoyable than the inferno of July and August!

I usually buy cheap gas for the car. Many times ethanol. For the bikes I'm a little more careful. Usually 100% gas / 91. I've only seen precipitous mileage drop on these two occasions. 91 in the Corvette from Buc-ees and 91 in Duc from Casey's. Anymore, I just run 87 in the Corvette, makes no difference how it runs.

Iirc,I read recently on this forum or another one idk? Apparently fuel distributors sell the primo higher quality gas from the top 1/2 or 2/3 of the huge gasoline storage tanks,to the big,brand name fuel companies. The bottom 1/2 or 1/3 is sold to the discount gas chain outlets;logically,it will contain more sediment & water. If storage tank maintenance or management is sub par,that fuel at the discount gas station might contain a lot more water & sediment. HHhhhmmm

Yup Greg Field's "Moto Guzzi Big Twins" is a fascinating deep dive into all things guzzi. Ironically,it's on the bathroom reading rotation right now Reading the fine details about Lino Tonti & Dr John Wittner;never grows old.

Casey advertized 100% gasoline 91 octane. The difference was nearly 4 mpg

Another aspect of Ethanol in gasoline is that while different pumps may dispense gasoline with Ethanol in it the percentage of Ethanol may vary considerably. In theory, it should contain no more then 10% Ethanol unless it is labeled E15, which can contain up to 15% Ethanol. But often gasoline contains less then the max Ethanol content. The less it contains, the better your fuel mileage tends to be. Funny enough, the other side to it is an engine can make more power burning gasoline with Ethanol in it if it is tuned to do so. Ethanol has less power for a given amount then gasoline does. But Ethanol contains oxygen, so more Ethanol can be burned then gasoline, offsetting the reduced power density. Fuel mileage will decline even further, but if you want power it is an easy way to make more. Sadly, most V11 engines don't adjust their fueling on their own (no O2 sensor), and they certainly don't adjust their fueling based on Ethanol content of the fuel. Flex fuel vehicles tend to do that, the tech is out there. But that is beyond Moto Guzzi and the V11. You could likely tune a V11 to run on higher Ethanol content fuel, but given the fuel tank has issues with E10 I am not sure it would be a good idea.

I guess "Stick this up yer arse you thieving Pommy scumbags!" was too long?

Here’s my tip. Don’t eliminate the 15RC ECU’s closed loop ability by disabling the O2 sensor. Do not disable the 15RC closed loop adjustability - just change the Guzzi factory installed O2 sensor which was found to be inadequate - with the Bosch improved LSH24 sensor upgrade. I strongly advise you do this before anything else. Years ago I too was frustrated & went searching on foreign sites for possibly overlooked solutions. I’ll leave this translation with you from what I originally tracked down on an Italian Guzzi forum. I can’t recall how many pages were laboriously translated (literally hundreds), but eventually found this gem discussing the root problem - acted on the advice as it was both a) inexpensive b) easy (what’s not to like?) & c) made the most succinct sense - & found I’d hit the jackpot. Hiccup free 100%. Perfect. Translating Anima Guzzista there was a highly respected Italian Guzzi mechanic (Ube) known as Motoube on Anima Guzzista forum who clearly stated the original root of the problem: “the probe used by Guzzi corresponds to a BOSH probe which has certain characteristics corresponding to the BOSH specification "LSH15", in jargon called the LSh15 calibration curve this probe was used on cars starting from 1992/93, it was immediately seen that its sensitivity and response speed were INADEQUATE TO THE REAL CONDITIONS OF USE OF THE VEHICLE. BOSCH ran for cover and created the probe with the LSH24 calibration curve. much much faster and much much more sensitive. realize that the LSH15 probe has such a slow response time to the variation of the exhaust gases that the control unit takes a thousand or more readings of the lambda value .... the LSH24 instead has a very good sensitivity and a response time equivalent to the reading interval of the ECU.”