al_roethlisberger

Location of the relocated remote fuel-pressure regulator. It is mounted to my fabricated undertail fender, and was the most convenient location to get it away from heat, and where there was sufficient room. A little more info in the Wasted Fuel Thread .

Latest plumbing ... much of which is detailed in the Wasted Fuel thread mentioned above. If I can get the vapor lock issue knocked out with this setup, all future updates will be in that thread, as it's more appropriate since I am now focused on "Phase II" which is getting to that fuel isolated on the right side of the tank

Here is where the other end of the return fitting connects to, the relocated remote pressure regulator. It's made by the same folks that make our stock unit, Weber, and in fact I used the stock cartridge in this body. It's attached to my fabricated undertail fender extender, that adds some protection for the shock, battery, and various wiring. There's a thread with photos somewhere on the forum: Undertail Fender Thread .....but basically if one removes the rear hugger, the stock undertail fairing ends right before the battery, and leaves much exposed to debris and water Anyway, this location allowed a good bit of flexibility for me, and located the regulator away from heat. There wasn't any real room under the seat, and the ontly other useable location would be up in the fairing, but I didn't want to run more fuel lines past "heat central"

Here is a shot of the inlet inside the tank, taken through the neck. All that goop around it is some stuff from Peratex that is supposed to be used to seal stuff like this, and is "resistant to fuel" ...hence my testing for the last few days The place I pierced the tank was the most accessible, and relatively flat enough to get a good seal. In actuality, I don't even think I needed the "goop" so much, because if you ever remove the stock petcock/sensor base, you'll find that they're only sealed via a single o-ring, two bolts, and some similar non-curing "goop"... and my inlet is on much tighter ... again "knocking on wood" Also, the inlet is a very tight fit in the hole I drilled, and actually is threaded into it. So that should help sealing a little bit as well. What you also can't really see is that the inlet is reinforced by some extra wide stainless steel washers to reinforce against and distribute any undue force on the tank material. Hopefully this will prove sufficient over time. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the durability/toughness of the tank plastic when I was drilling and wrenching on it. So time will tell I guess... here's hoping And if I can manage to get a wrench in there(wow it's hard, the neck is so narrow), I also plan to put a 90-degree fitting on the inlet inside the tank so that the fuel doesn't shoot up, and run right down the fitting. I don't think it will make a huge difference in durability, but I'd rather not have fuel splashing right down on the location where the fitting is sealed piercing the tank. ...don't want to push my luck, and everything helps P.S. You can see on of the white vent/drain tubes inside the tank in the photo.

And closer yet ....just in case you missed it in the last two posts

A little closer, taking in both petcocks, and the fuel-return. The gold/black fitting is a self-sealing quick-connect Nothing like disconnecting a fitting and having all the fuel dump out!

....washing machine sprung a leak, so my progress has slowed a bit on this project, but all-in-all it may be a good thing For example, because of delays, I was able to leave the tank full of gas on a rack, sitting in the Sun, for two days.... to see if it would leak. "Knock on wood" but so far... not a drop But I was able to get a few things done: - Got the new tap installed under the tank(only possible if one has removed the airbox) including self-sealing quick-release - cleaned the tank - reinstalled manual petcocks, fuel level sensor - installed new heat-reflective barriers on tank(including above cylinders) - mocked-up fuel-line routing Some photos:

BTW, since you were asking what one looked like, here is a photo of one of the manual petcocks on my tank:

Here's a photo of the "touring" windscreen installed on my bike .....perhaps providing a bit more perspective for those considering it.

...sounds exactly what I did on my old FJ1200 fender

I have no idea, that's just the price I paid. Great to hear it's a better price in Houston I say give 'em a call, and see if they have it in stock

BTW, The part number I had for the last manual petcock I ordered was: 30-29105460 It is a direct bolt-on, and MI should know exactly what you are asking for. Again, it's a well known issue. I think I paid about $45 total for the part. al

This seems to be a fairly common problem with the Tekno bag nylon. Dunno why, but every photo I've seen of an "older" pair is a nice gray al

Ok, well this makes more sense. This is exactly how the earlier bikes are plumbed, a "tee" on each injector body, and a loop of line connecting them to and from the tank/pump. The only difference except of course is that there is an external fuel-pump/filter at one end prior to the injectors, and a fuel return/pressure-regulator at the other end on the older bikes like mine(2002 and earlier). It seems obvious that on the in-tank models there is an internal/integral fuel pump, filter, and pressure-regulator inside there, as the only lines are high pressure side lines for the EFI. Now how it's all serviced? I have no idea But from the photo, it looks like the whole in-tank assembly is a cartridge that is held in the bottom of the tank with a few bolts. If you are as adventurous as I, just take it apart I bet there's a filter cartridge of some sort up in there. I would, just for the sake of wondering how it comes apart But that's just me Still hoping someone that has run their 2003+ bike down to "reserve" can report on how well, if at all, these newer bikes handle getting to that 1.5ish gallons of fuel. Does the light just come on, and it's "no drama" where the bike just keeps sucking that last 1.5 gallons? ...or is there something the operator must do to make the bike start getting to that "reserve". For example, on my FJ, there was a switch you had to flip once you hit empty. And of course as previously mentioned, on the 2002 and earlier bikes, one has to YANK the bike over to the left HARD to slosh that "reserve" over Thanks for the info! al

....awesome another clueless dealer Apologies if I am starting to sound cynical, but jeezus, the things they tell customers when they don't know the right answer(including my dealer half the time ). Sorry, but they seem to be a bit confused Steve. Just tell your dealer to give you the "manual" petcock from a 2002 V11 Sport/LeMans. It looks just like the electric one you've got, except instead of wires, it has a knurled aluminum knob on the bottom for manually opening/closing the petcock when removing the tank. Let me see if I can answer your questions in-line: Well, first, there is no petcock at all for the in-tank system, just quick-disconnect fittings that close/seal when disconnected. Snap-on, snap-off So they are totally off-base here I don't know if you could rig the now broken electric petcock to fail open all the time reliably/consistently But if so, it is a non-issue operationally as the system is a looped fuel-injection system with a pressure regulator at the other end. So fuel will not continue to flow anywhere unless the pump is pumping up the EFI loop beyond the 3Bar limit that the regulator opens. And even if it did, it would only circulate back into the tank So having an open petcock on an EFI system is not a problem. BTW, this is exactly how the manual petcock works. It is on/open all the time, unless you are servicing the bike and removing the tank, and need to keep from spilling fuel everywhere ..then you crank it closed. Well, sorta.. maybe I should go out and snap a photo. But it's very similar to your electric unit, but instead it simply has a knob on the bottom that you screw clockwise to shut, and counter to open. You leave it open all the time, except for when removing the tank. It does not have any reserve function, nor do you need to operate it in between running and parking the bike like you may have had to do on older carb'd bikes. The EFI makes it impossible to leak down. Oh gosh... don't do that Steve IMHO jury rigging it is just asking for more unpredictable performance My suggestion: 1) Don't let them give you another electric petcock, warrantee or not. It *will* just fail again over time. 2) Call Moto International in Seattle, and tell them that you want the manual petcock for the V11 Sport/LeMans, as used on the 2002 bikes. They'll know exactly what you are talking about, especially if you tell the story about "why".... it's about $45USD, and if past experience serves, they'll have it to you in about a week This is a very common problem, and is why Guzzi ditched the electric petcock in 2001-ish. No dealer IMHO should be unaware of this, and if they are... well... sheesh Good luck! Hope that helps al

Yeah, the first time I ever removed my petcocks, there was quite a bit of the same white tank material caught in the screens. I've since flushed out my tank several times due to the various projects, so I hope I've gotten all this chaff out. Glad to hear your sensor is working again now that you've cleaned everything out. I'm sure that's a relief al

This is very interesting feedback, especially comparing the "faster turning" 2000/2001 bikes versus the longer wheelbased 2002+ bikes, such as the LeMans. This may account for many folks' discrepancies and differing opinions on how the application of certain model tires work with their bikes verus other's. I'd like to hear more about the Pirellis and the Avons especially on the later bikes, and also how well they hold up in mileage. As long as I can get 5-6k miles out of a set, I'm pretty happy. al

Excellent, thanks for checking into that and reporting Docc It seems that either/or 2003 and 2004 bikes, or USA/Euro/Aus bikes have slightly different setups with one or two fuel lines leaving the pump to the injectors. It would be good to sort this out more clearly(if possible with Moto Guzzi ) so we can update the FAQ for the newer bikes and how their fuel systems are plumbed. Now, I wonder if the in-tank bikes have a facility for grabbing fuel from both the right and left-hand sides. Since with the new bikes, it seems that the "orphaned" side is now reversed, the left ...since the pump assembly is on the right. I wonder if a flashlight and quick look down the neck could locate the pickup(s) for the pump and quickly answer this question? I'd really like to know how the new tanks handle this "1.5 gallon reserve" and the lack of a "balance tube" to get to both "saddlebags" and their fuel in the tank equally. Or maybe as the mechanic Mik spoke to, there is some special pickup/fuel-return that more evenly distributes and picks up the fuel in the new tanks? It'd be interesting to figure out finally al

... heh, well I actually did zip-tie mine to the frame by the filters as well, but gently clamped a short piece of 1/2" fuel-line over it to protect it from elements a bit. But, I'm liking the idea of the film cannister...hrmmm The sensor does seem fairly fragile, so I feel a bit nervous about leaving it out in the air unprotected, if at least only from my tools poking around al

I think Mike Stewart cut one from sheet aluminum as well. It shouldn't be too hard to build a basic setup. The only thing you may also want to add along with your fabricated mounting bracket is a sheet of plastic or aluminum to cover the hole in the bottom of the tail assembly that will be left once you remove the stock light/blinker subframe... if you ditch it. You really don't want to be slinging mud and water up in there, for the health of the electrics, if not for just cleanliness inside the rear carapace Good luck! Post some photos when you're done I'm not really satisfied with the inexpensive and simple commercial solutions currently out there, other than Paul's which of course while super nice(kudos Paul ), is not so simple and inexpensive So, one of you might have the next "hot thing" al

These are all good questions, but(again not to sound persnickety )... why don't you go ask Guzzi and let us know when they get back to you? Just pickin' at cha But seriously, Guzzi is about the most un-forthcoming about their engineering, standards(They change oil recommendations whenever one seems to ask ), or designs This is why Evoluzione gave up on their cold-air induction kit I wouldn't hold your breath for anyone from Guzzi, or especially MGNA, to get back with a straight answer... unfortunately. Other than a few good dealers such as TLM, Moto International, MPH... there are few that either know the answers, or are willing to wade through MGNA's or MG Corp's red-tape and waffling, and I can't blame them. We've asked/complained many times on this forum if anyone from Guzzi ever checks in.... we wish they did. But hey, maybe it's people like us that inspired them for the new tank design But back on topic .... I think I can answer your question about fuel-starvation and pump cooling/durability. You are correct that electric pumps of this type use the fluid to cool them, and potentially lubricate their mechanisms. But in this case, assuming MG took this into account for their tank design, it would be a valid point if the system was designed in such a way that the consumption of the fuel supply was cut off at some point to guarantee that fuel was still available to keep the pump lubricated/cooled. And to your point, I agree that it is no doubt "better" not to run the pump dry too often. But the very problem we describe indicates that in practice, the 2002 and earlier design operates in complete contrast to this... letting the engine potentially completely run out of gas(ergo starving the pump of fuel/coolant as you describe), but still have perfectly good fuel sitting unavailable on the other side of the tank That can't be "by design". Instead, I think they just didn't care about that extra gallon. Look, I'm sorry... I'm perfectly happy to attribute many great engineering qualities to MG products, and is why I own one But lately, Guzzi has been breaking a whole lot of things that didn't need fixing: 1) Fuzzy paint bubbling off 2) Hydraulic lifters/cams grenading 3) Single plate cruiser clutches frying ... etc And is why according to rumour why Ivano fired the lot of engineers responsible for many of such snafus. Is this particular issue of "wasted fuel" one of those snafus? I don't think so, but I do think the design was a bit short-sighted, perhaps "on purpose". Again, perhaps since the V11 was originally purely a "sport" design, range and fuel economy wasn't a big concern. But with the advent of the LeMans, and other folks trying to tour on the Sports, range and this "wasted fuel" has come up. Again, maybe this, along with the vapor lock issue, is why they finally introduced the in-tank pump as of 2003. I'd like to think so But somehow I doubt it But hey, it looks like you have a 2003, so I don't think any of this is a big issue for you though. I've not heard of any VL on any 2003+ bikes. But we still haven't heard from anyone about net fuel range on the newer bikes, so the question still remains about total range, and how the new bikes handle that "1.5 gallon reserve" the new bikes are shown to have. Maybe this "vortex" theory is correct for those newer tanks I have no idea, and is why I happily wait for someone with a newer tank to describe just how they function, and how well they utilize their available fuel supply Hope that helps al

...you are absolutely correct ....as I have pointed out in several threads... that much of what I do "to" my poor bike isn't necessary, and probably creates a good 80% of my "problems" Some of it is pure experimentation, for the simple reason that I think it is entertaining to tinker, or in a few cases it is to address a real problem But yes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" if you'd rather not As I counseled Dave Gross when he asked about further mods, I said that if one is satisfied with the performance of the bike, then don't tinker... just ride This is especially true if one is not of the tinkering "persuasion" But as I offered an "apology in advance" when I wrote my response... apologies again if my response came across as a criticism. I really don't think I'm closed minded, but in these cases I just wanted to "nip in the bud" a couple suggestions that had already been discussed so we don't revisit them ad-nauseum, or in the case of the Guzzi mechanic quickly clarify that... sorry... but I think he's either been misinformed, misunderstood the question, or just pulled this out of thin air As I said before, I hope it's not the latter But as I also offered, it IS possible that his experience was describing another type of tank, such as an EFI Guzzi cruiser bike, or maybe the 2003+ in-tank pump bikes... who knows Anyway, unfortunately my and others' actual riding experience with the 2002 and earlier bikes that do not have the in-tank pump seem to contradict the mechanic's description of how the fuel behaves in the tank When my fuel light comes on, and once the bike sputters... I can "yank" the bike to the left and slosh fuel over, and it will run again for a bit... just not long enough. In this case, I think I am not just tinkering for pure fun though, as with the stock setup on a 2002 and earlier bike, 120 miles is where the idiot light comes on, and it's a guess about the remaining fuel. As you mention, I too just want enough fuel/range for reasonably long tours, such as on Hwy 50, "The Lonliest Highway", so that I don't run out of gas... like I almost did in nowhere Utah In this case, I am trying to maximize the utility of the fuel I happen to already be carrying, at least to about 150 miles till "reserve" lights. Otherwise, it's a shame, especially if one get's inconvenienced by limping a bike home, that one can't get to all the fuel already there. And BTW, I'm not impugning all Guzzi mechanics.... as many as certainly quite good, but we've seen more than a fair share espoused here, to find out later that the dealer/mechanic was completely off-base. So I take a dealer/mechanic's explanation/recommendation with a grain of salt. Sorry, but personal experience hasn't done anything but reinforce this position for me And of course, you're welcome to take mine with one large chunk as well I'm not always right. But in this one case, I'm pretty sure I am mostly right.... just because I've been spending a lot of time on the issue, and others have confirmed my observations about the "trapped" fuel. I don't know what else to say. Sorry if I came across as anything but objectively/constructively critical al

I just sprayed down some similar nylon bags with Simple Green, then scrubbed them with a soft auto cleaning brush. Cleaned up like new! ...all nice and black again al

hrmm, gosh Mik, I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence with my reply... honestly , but I think the "Guzzi Mechanic" was drinking a little too much of the company kool-aid Seriously He either is completely clueless, or didn't understand the question. I'm hoping it's the latter If one looks into the V11 Tank, it's quite obvious that no degree of "swirling" will get the fuel from the right side over to the left once the fuel level has dropped low enough to "isolate" the fuel in the right hand side, the cavity is just too deep... and the fuel return is down at the very bottom of that crevasse I have to wonder if this fella has ever really looked into one ...or maybe he was thinking of an EV type tank(if they are much different in execution)? I hope so, because I'd hate to think he was that clueless. If this "vortex" theory was correct, we wouldn't have to "slosh" the fuel back over by slinging the bike to the left Maybe there's something to this for the in-tank pump models *shrug*, but for the previous, it sounds like he's not even taking the pressure regulator into account, which siginificantly slows the fuel flow from the pump, regardless of how powerful it is ...this other issue mentioned, tank suck, which has nothing to do with the issue we'be been discussing *shrug* .... is indeed caused by the pump in combination with inadequate venting of the tank via stuck tip-over valves exacerbated by the vapor recovery system sucking on the tank as well. Indeed the fuel-pump is the culprit, but not the cause. I don't know where he was going with this one... maybe just an aside? Anyway, regardless, this sounds like typical Guzzi subterfuge Apologies if that was a bit brusque al

...slight clarification/correction. I just went out and took a close look at the gas cap assembly, and thought I had better clarify something after re-reading my posts.... Looking down at the tank at the gas cap assembly from the riders position(to clarify right and left), the right vent has the raised black metal "turret" on the filler frame that was described earlier that the red(on my bike) rubber nipple up UNDER the gas cap fits into for the vapor recovery/vent function. These two parts work together to form a closed vapor recovery circuit for the emissions system when the lid is closed. I don't know if this was clear earlier. And the left is flush with the tank top for venting/draining of overflow as mentioned before. If you remove the rubber nipple from up under the cap, you increase the ability for the tank to vent very well in case one of the vent lines plug or in the case where the vapor recovery emissions crud is still active, protects from tank-suck by proving a backup pressure relief/equalization path through the left drain vent. Anyway, as described earlier, the functions are still the same as noted, but I just wanted to clarify the "black turret" versus "rubber nipple" description so that no one was confused. All in all, the left vent is the "catch all" vent/drain line. So if you had to pick one to plug, the right one would be the one, but you'd have to remove the rubber nipple from up under the cap to vent the tank. Hope that helps al