motoguzznix

I like this kind of discussion very much as I ride Guzzis since 83. When I bought the Lemans 2 the bike was one of the fastest around. But 2 years later came up the VFR and the FZ 750 and these bikes driven by an ambitious rider were too fast for the Guzzi... But I liked my Guzzi, why selling it just to be faster? So I'm still here and ride it - last year I had the opportunity to ride a new Breva 1100. It is not as fast as my V11, but despite the fact it passes the Euro 3 emission regulations, there is a lot of Guzzi feeling in the bike! It is not possible today to build a bike with the Lafranconi "silencers" from a Lemans 1975, which sound awful. But I am happy that this feeling or soul is available from a new bike. And I enjoy it most every spring when I start the bike for the first time in the year, and I can be sure that it will start and shake immediately after the first dip on the starter button. Unfortunately, the Piaggio owners won't make a real sports Guzzi even with a new engine concept. The Guzzi V concept could offer much more the the ability to make a touring bike work. BMW shows that, and a modern Guzzi could offer even more... I agree with Peter that it is hardly possible to get much more from this old engine. Noise and exhaust emissions are the main reasons for that, making 100 HP reliable would be possible I think. 120 definitely not. It is never a good idea to go over the top with tuning. My opinion is to stay conservative, as the engine mostly remains more enjoyable and drivable. Examples like ratchet told of are the result of people not knowing what they are doing. Did they get money for that?

David This theory is simply wrong. More open is better for high and low rpms. Every exhaust restriction is bad for a 4 stroke engine. This is supported by moto ones and my measurements. Apart from that is the tuning for resonances and shock wave tuning. This is an other story. In this direction should we be looking to cure the torque dip. My next dyno session will be soon. I'm looking forward.

ratchet Since i've noticed the moto one link of Dlaing I could find out that their dyno runs show very similar results to mine: the biggest gains of the stucchis occur from 4500 to 5500 rpm. This is slightly above the stock torque dip. But I am happy to see that our measurements seem to be serious too. In the meantime I further modified my cans for better flow characteristics and hope to get better results on the Dyno. They still are not too noisy. This will be accompanied by Lambda measurements and remapping the ECU. The final step with the stock cans could be to increase the diameter of the exit pipe from 30 to 40 mm, as this has not been done by myself till now. But this would supposedly increase the noise at a more noticible amount.

I agree that the standard crossover is not the worst solution. A have a Dyno graph of my 2000 V11 with the std and the Stucchi crossover. The mufflers were my modified stock cans (see the "unpacking the cans" thread) which caused a 3 HP gain. The stuchi is the upper red lines which only caused slight gains from 4500 upwards. The std crossover is the blue lines below. Torque below 4300 is much better. The black/green lines below is with std crossover/mufflers. The stepped power and torque curves from 4000 are typical for the standard mufflers. Note that this line ist not directly comparable to the lines above becuse of a CR of 9.6 : 1 instead of 9.15 std and a slightly advanced cam timing. The gains with the stucchi crossover might be greater with a more freeflowing muffler. In this configuration the stucchi ist not worth the money spent, especially for driving on the streeet. I did not swap back to the standard crossover because I will try a more freeflowing exhaust in the future.

Antonio No. It's the old five-speeder.

redguzziv10 When the lights work well try first the Micro switch on the clutch lever. This is more likely to fail than second the kill switch. Next step: reinstall the side stand switch - it is for your safety! So you can also check the faults the previous owner may has installed when bypassing it. Everything not in original condition is suspicious. Good luck Ernst

for what I understand, the heat difference occurs during driving, not when the engine is running at idle speed. Therefor throttle balancing should have a minor effect on the issue. Injectors with a difference in the flow rate could be the reason for this. Checking and cleaning them would be my first step. Installing a Lambde probe in both headers and taking some measurements could put some light on the issue. When there are big differences in the lambda measurements, an individual cylinder mapping would cure the bike. But that is expansive...... good luck

Hi Greg look here and scroll down...

I agree with Al and guzziowr concerning the valve stem hardness. When I dismounted my 2000 V11s heads with 9000 km on the clock last year, the valve stems had considerable wear. I could feel it with the finger nail. One valve guide had the bore for the valve stem excentric by approx.1 mm, not surprisingly the valve did not seal on that seat. Another valve guide had bronze residues from the machining in the area where the cylindric contour changes to conical. One valve seat showed rattling marks from the machining where it sould seal. I will replace valves and guides soon using carbon coated valves. Ratchet Your pals tuned V11 seems to be a disaster. I would suppose the tuning had not been performed by an expert mechanic. I hope you will measure the real compression ratio of the bike before you pull off the heads and keep us informed. And I would not be surprised when there would be a lot of things wrong inside that engine. Replacing the valves at the same time could be a good idea.

bigbiker If you are not sure whether the head was retightened or not during the 1st inspection by the dealer, I would check it! Loosen the nuts just 1/8 of one revolution (to overcome the breaking torque) and retighten it with 40 Nm. When you put a mark on every nut and bolt with a paint marker prior to start the work, you can check if the nut is tighter than before or not. Retighten first the 4 longer studs crosswise, then the 2 short ones. Loosen and retorque one nut after the other, do not loosen them all together! In the earlier days, the head gasket material made it more important to retighten the heads, on the V50/65 bikes you could be absolutely sure the head gasket would fail if not retorqued at the 1st service. Todays gaskets used in the current production are less sensitive in this respect. When you reassemble the engine with new aftermarket gaskets, it is absolutely necessary to retighten the heads as Pete stated before. I do it the same way.

okiedehn here is some information on the Z6 ME Z6

There ist nothing that can beat a good, broken in leather suit. In terms of protection - a mid class leather suit offers the same kind of abrasion protection like the most expansive textile ones. Was the conclusion of a comparison test in a german motorcycle journal last year. And when a leather suit fits to your body, the protection elements are always where they have to be. In terms of riding. A good leather suit makes you a better motorcycle rider. And you are sitting in a better riding position on your bike. And last but not least: I don't go to sleep with my motorcycle leathers. And I don't go riding my motorcycle with a pyjama! Don't take me too serious - but its my opinion. P.S.: There was a new Dainese leather suit underneath the christmas tree - I hope to have it broken in soon.

Hello My impressions on the Z6 are twice: On my 2000 V11 (160/60) the high speed weave experienced with the stock Pirellis appeared again. Above 150 km/h you must pull the handlebar very slightly and even then the feeling is not confidential. Handling was much better with the Bridgestone BT010 I replaced with it. The bike fell into turns very quick with low steering force. Also the high speed behavior was fine up to topspeed. The bike felt sensible but did not weave. On a 2003 V11 (180/55) of a friend of mine the Z6 was really wonderful: driving harmony was nearly perfect, the bike falls into a turn to the next with ease. Handling is not knife-sharp, but very confidence-inspirig. Much better than the stock BT020 I can compare to. The rubber sticks very good on the road - no complaints. My conclusion: The older 2000 chassis does not like the more round cross-section contour of a typical sports-touring tire - unlike the newer model which likes it. On my own bike, I will put on a sports-tire next time again. Michelin Pilot power is my favourite to time. May your tires always have good grip Ernst

Jim to bring your footpegs forward, you can use the Centauro items. If necessary, the shifting and brake lever can also be used. I use the verlicchi handlebars on my 2000 V11. I bought the lowest Sport bars which are only 20 - 30 mm higher than the stock ones. Together with the infinite adjustability of these bars, I got a very good riding position. I have to support very reduced weight with my arms now.

David I would'nt bother with the PC when you now are able to remap the original maps. And I would never mix the systems as you never can be sure in which manner these interfere. Throw it away and spend the money to remap your bike on a dyno that is operated by an experienced people. I think you can't get better value for money. How can the software show this? The tuning link shows you numbers that relate to the amount of fuel injected, but it cannot tell you how this fuel is burnt. Without exhaust gas analysis and dyno runs in addition it is difficult to adress the hints in the maps. Ernst

I had to connect to the coil minus and to the TPS signal wire. +- from the ignition switch is also requiered. That took some time as I installed a center plug to allow quick removing of the stuff. I actually welded threads onto both exhaust tubes to make measurements on both cylinders. Dave I would suggest you make yourself measurements as every bike is different. Conclusions from other bikes can cause major errors. Hubert My maps are unmodified till now - I am awaiting the ultimap software this weeek.

Ok, you wanted it. I have 2 part throttle A/F measurements from my bike: The rich condition at 3-4 % TP is at approx 1700 rpm in neutral at standstill. A graph does not make this clearer. I am looking forward to change this with Ultimap.

The engine pinged before I raised the CR, and it still pings in the same circumstances, maybe a bit more. I sometimes ride above 1000 m altitunde, but I can't say wether this affects the pinging or not. I hope I can cure this using the the ultimap software by remapping fuel and ignition timing. I will start with the fuel to make it richer around 3000. When the pinging is not gone then, I can retard the ignition. Tune boy ist not available here in Europe, as far as I know. Direct Link is available by a source in Germany, but expansive: Software 260 €, every key 325 €. Ultimap is expansive to aquire at 1200 €, but 2 keys and 2 megazone Eproms are included. Every further key or Megazone Eprom is at 89 €. Ultimap includes the diagnostic software, fault code reading and deleting, Idle adjustment, TP adjustment. With the megazone Eproms you can tune the older P8 and 1.6 Injection units. All this requieres no key. Only for remapping the 1.5 or U59 units a key is needed. And some support is available not too far away from my home. Should something go wrong......(hopefully not). The temperatures are around zero C here in Austria... don't like it. Ernst

Hello here are the torques that correspond to the power graph before: My engine was runnig as good as some stock engine runs; my main complaint on the bike was the really serious engine vibrations. Last winter the gearbox was undergoing a warranty repair, so the engine was out of the frame. This was the reason for me to fix the vibrations issue by balancing the crankshaft. When I then reassembled the engine, I wanted to get it all right: so I optimized the squish area of the combustion chamber by bringing the piston completely out of the bore, milled further 0.5 mm off the heads - stock CR was calculated to a modest 9.15!!, now I have 9.6. I further rectified the cam timing. This are adjustments I would do on every engine I complete on my workbench. I never intended to build a performance engine. If I wanted this, a new set of pistons would be necessary, to raise compression and much lighter in weight. A different crank balancing then would be necessary. But the stock pistons are heavy and stout items and since I did not want an all out performance engine, there is no reason to replace pistons in perfect condition. Tuning means to make the best of the parts you have. This is my way to go. It took a lot of time to do all this but I like this kind of work. And my engine is now as it sould have come from the Guzzi factory. Vorarlberg is approx. 650 km away from my home, the same distance as Mandello del Lario. Skeeve I disagree with you that the breathing of the head is the bottleneck of the V11 engine. The heads are good for 100 HP at the crank with an open intake and exhaust when well tuned. Bigger valves and ports would not help the engine in making power for a road going engine. But I think it would well respond to more valve lift for making power in a race engine which lacks of the goods in the lower rpm range. A camshaft design with shorter timing and more lift seems for me to be the route to go for the road. I am looking forward in this direction. This was now a lot away from the muffler theme. But the gain from building the engine to optimized specs and modifiing the mufflers was a good 5 HP at the rear wheels. With almost stock noise level. Next time I open my cans ,I will take some photo shoots.....

Hubert When the gas is unburnt, there are residues of CO in the exhaust, which the lambda probe can detect as rich mixture. So I think the mapping is lean in this area. But I will see how the engine responds to an enrichment at 3000 rpm. The bike ist almost stock except my modified mufflers - see my comment in "unpacking the cans" - and a CR slightly raised to 9.6. But all that did not affect the pinging. When I drive at a constant engine speed just below 3000 and then open the throttle to accelerate, the pinging arises immediately. More throttle more pinging. That smoothes out above 5 - 6000 rpm.

I applied a better picture . should work now. Ernst

Hello I am now through with this post - it took me 4 days to learn a lot. I'm very impressed about this discussion and the very high level of knowledge in the statements. Many owners of MY 2000 V11s are posting here and so I will add my Lambda-measurements performed 4 weeks ago with my bike. The mapping ist untouched by now. I used a Dynojet wideband controller and measurements were taken on the open road from the right cylinder. This is at full throttle. The very lean condition at 3000 ist accompanied by pinging when accelerating the hot engine at WOT. I would be interested, why Moto Guzzi applied a mapping like this. Next point is a very rich condition (10 - 10,5) at 3-4 % throttle opening. The engine runs on idle at 13 - 14 A/F (approx. 3 - 3,5 % CO) and when you slowly open the throttle this condition occurs. At throttle openings above that level, the A/F returns to 12,5 - 14. I suppose this could be the reason why my bike cannot be accelerated smoothly from the closed throttle. There is always a hickup that makes the ride less enjoyable. I won't bore you with the part throttle measurements - the readings are a little onthe lean side, but not that much like above. To cure all this, I orderd the Ultimate Software which hopefully will be usable in the next weeks. Our local Guzzi-Dealer Pepo Seewald owns a Dynojet-Dyno and the tuning will be done there. I hope I will get all well done. Ernst

Hello the green line is all stock the blue line is with the raised compression (stock pistons, 0,5 mm milled from the head gasket surface, 0,45 mm removed from the bottom of the cylinder to bring the pistons completely up in the bore), slightly changed cam timing (approx 3° advanced) and after a crankshaft balancing (my beauty suffered of severe engine vibrations which was the main reason for disassembling the engine). the pink line is like below with my modified mufflers as the only difference. The 3 HP gain ist caused by the mufflers. I think the gain would be the same without that engine work. The MY 2000 has no catalyst in the exhaust. The cans I modified were from a newer bike with catalyst. The cat is located in the first chamber when the gas flow enters the can. It does not matter if I modified a muffler with or without a catalyst, because I would remove the same piece of tube in the first chamber. Either a piece of tube or the catalyst. The result is the same. Everyone has to decide for himself if the work is worth the effort. I like it that way. I will keep you informed when I perform further modifications.

Hello you all A short introduction of myself: I am a 47 years old guzzist from Austria and I own 3 Guzzis: A V7Sport 73, LM2 80 and a 2000 V11 which I bought new 3 years ago. I am happy to discover this thread on a subject in that I investigated. I want to describe my modifications on the original exhaust cans of my V11. The result of my modifications was 3 HP more on the dyno in the higher rpms with an exhaust note almost stock. My mods: The idea was to let the gassses pass the muffler without changing the direction. Originally, the gas enters through to to chamber 3, turns back to 2, 1 and back out via the very long end tube. In the first chamber I cut' out 50 mm from the tube which enters from the collector. (On the mufflers I modified, there was the catalytic converter in that place). The 2nd chamber remained untouched. In the 3rd chamber I cut' out 50 mm from the upper tube which goes out. The 4th chamber with the steel wool remained untouched too. So the exhaust gas flow finds an open end in chamber 1, passes to chamber 2, 3 and can leave from there via the much shorter end tube. No change in direction. Additionnally I fitted the mufflers tighter to the bike and twisted them slightly upwards on the front end to increase the cornering clearace. I performed these mods during last winter. It was a very sweaty job, but I think the results are worth the effort. Unfortunately I have no pictures about this. My next step would be to eliminate the wall between 1st and 2nd chamber (drilling out the welding spots). The wall between chamber 2 and 3 has no spot welding. I leave approx. 50 mm of the tubes on both sides of that chamber wall. This will be welded into the can to divide the volume in now only two chambers of similar volumes. Chamber 4 remains untouched again. So the gasses enter chamber 1, pass via 4 tubes into chamber 2 and leave from there through the end tube. The gas flow passes now 2 chambers of a bigger volume and have more room to move. The backpressure will further decrease, the power will (hopefully) make another step upwards and the noise level will slightly increase. I intend to perform this during this winter. I hope my descriptions are clear, the pictures on the previous posts should help that. Attached is the power graph: completely stock, slight modifications on engine with CR +0,5, like above with my modified mufflers. All these modifications leave the mufflers completely stock from outside with all the informations the police likes to read on a muffler. Also the noise does not get too loud. And I like quiet mufflers. If you perform a long ride on the bike, you enjoy that smooth sound at the end of the day. Have a good day Ernst