al_roethlisberger

...well, I dunno about color-coordination, as my bike is Champagne and my "nipple" was red Anyway, both vents are connected to identical tubes that run through the tank. If you look into the tank through the neck, you can see them. They are white plastic tubes on either side of the neck. BTW, I mentioned earlier that both of these tubes look quite fragile, and in my case I can clearly see the brass fittings through one of mine, and it seems kinda scary. So be careful around them. You wouldn't want to knick or compromise one, as you'd dump your tank of fuel. The manufacturer of the tank really should have routed them differently to protect them Anyway, to answer your question, no the right side doesn't vent/dump into the tank if you remove the rubber nipple. It dumps directly into the right hand side vent tube. Both vents/drains are identical, and are just tubes that terminate flush with the top of the tank, with threaded brass fittings on either end. The tank actually vents through the cap(but not to the atmosphere normally), which is why there originally is that red/black nipple to create a circuit for the fumes to go up through the cap(when closed) then back over and down the vent tube. Keep in mind that originally this vent tube is connected to the manifold vacuum via the EPA cannisters, as it's a "sealed system" sucking said fumes back into the circuit for combustion. This is why if you have removed the EPA gunk, and vacuum lines from the throttle bodies, it's irrelevant which vent/drain line is used if the rubber nipple is removed. If the rubber nipple is not removed, you need both as the right will still be venting the tank, and left will be the drain/vent. If the nipple is removed, either drain/vent can vent/drain the neck/filler area. Again, a lot of people remove the nipple to combat tank-suck, as apparently this helps to some degree, but I'm not sold on it. al

Wow, that is really interesting Dave.... it seems that Guzzi once again has multiple solutions in just a couple years *sigh* Not surprising I wonder why some bikes like Randy's had more than one fuel line coming out? Odd. al

Sorry Ian, thanks for the suggestion, and it's been mentioned before..... but this won't quite work... a bit... but not to the extent that I was looking for. A couple issues. First, there is no internal "return hose" to make longer. The fuel-pressure regulator just dumps into the right side via a flush hole in the tank. Since it is under some degree of pressure/velocity as it exits the regulator, trying to affix a hose would prove problematic. However it could be done with a bit of ingenuity if one could affix a hose to the outlet of the regulator, but it might be dicey. But more importantly, dumping some or even all of the fuel into the left side still wouldn't solve the problem. It might be an improvement for sure, but still would leave fuel isolated in the right side initially. Think about it... even if there were no outlet on the right hand side as opposed to the fuel return dumping into the right, when the tank was filled initially, fuel would still be "trapped" in that right "saddlebag" once the fuel level was low enough. The only time that fuel might get back over to the left is if via the "slosh" method mentioned before. I will agree that with your suggested method, as long as one didn't "slosh" the fuel back over to the right, at least one of my concerns regarding recirculating fuel dumping right back into the isolated right side would be alleviated This is why we need an outlet or balance tube connecting the two isolated halves... which become isolated once the tank is about 2/3 empty. Regardless of where the fuel dumps, right or left(although right makes it worse to some degree) the end result is the same. But that being said, your suggestion is not without merit It could make for a slightly less "automatically" effective solution, but would still create a real "reserve" that one could have by simply "sloshing" it over... a bit more manual, but workable for sure Again, the trick at that point would be to affix a tube to the regulator outlet that is durable, and to be able to get such a "bent" tube into the little hole while reattaching the regulator Maybe someone can come up with this alternative as a simpler and less drastic modification, to get at least part of the benefits of my more extreme surgery? al

Hrmm, I do know that technically the tank got a bit larger because of the removal of the "chin pad", but I'd really like someone like Mike Stewart who has both models to measure both tanks to know for sure (..or perhaps you have, which would be great! Results please ) It's not that I doubt your report, but the info from MG is sooo sketchy, that at this point I tend to want some purely objective quantitative volume and dimensional data on the tank differences. This could realy matter if one wanted to change over from a 2002 and earlier tank, to a newer tank.... as a physically larger tank might require a new fairing, which means a lot more expense. As I mentioned, I do know that MG shortened the fairing a bit as of 2003, to provide more leg room, and less bashed knees ...but have no idea if the width or height of the tank changed, as I don't think it's possible that the length could have much. There just isn't much room, without changing the frame. This would be a great bit of data to verify and publish, 2002 and earlier gross capacity/dimensions versus 2003+ tanks, and also to know how the in-tank pumps addresses access to that "wasted" fuel, if at all Perhaps someone with both tanks can check this out for us one day. al

Very true ...I however just couldn't deal with the HUGE fender as stock I don't mind a small and hopefully functional fender perhaps, that big wing-thing was just a bit much for my tastes al

Al, your comments intriged me, so I whipped off the tank for a looksee. There is only one fuel connection to the tank (not some sort of fancy coaxial dual fitting), that is connected to a Y-junction, and then to the injectors. The only other pipe connecting to the tank is a breather right in the center. Certainly cleans up the plumbing compared with other models I own(ed). But this investigation is now making me wonder where my fuel filter is hiding? Now this has me confused... Does your setup look like Randy's photo above? I ask because the one on Randy's bike(and other 2003's I've seen, but not looked closely) clearly have two fuel lines going into the tank via quick-connectors. Are you saying that there is only one line on your version? Also, can you(and Randy, or other 2003+ owners) confirm that there is or is not a fuel line also running from one injector to the other(connecting them together) as on the 2002 and earlier bikes. If so, along with a second line going into the tank, this would create the fuel loop. If there is not a connection between the injectors, and either: 1) Two lines exit the tank and each terminate at each injector or 2) One line exits the tank, and has a "Y" fittig splitting output to each injector ...then there is no external fuel loop, and fuel pressure is being regulated and returned to the tank internally. In this case, I suppose it is possible that the injectors don't have to have fuel flowing past them in a loop, and instead have a pressure regulator in-line before them(in this case in the tank) maintaining the correct pressure. The only risk here in my opinion is still the issue of fuel heating. Although I've heard of no VL issues on the new bikes, so maybe it's a non-issue This really isn't a big deal, but I'm just curious how the 2003+ bikes are setup, AND if in typical Guzzi fashion, even these bikes don't have consistently identical implementations al

Yeah, pretty funny on the various specs eh? My fuel fittings from Summit came in today, so I'll be draining the tank and hooking it all up this evening. I'll then run the tank down to the local gas station for a more accurate fill-up from bone dry. So at least for a 2002 V11 Sport/LeMans, we can know for sure what the normal gross capacity is. I'm hoping that with my mods, the net capacity(what one can really use) will be much closer now. In regard to range.... I don't think the V11 is too bad. For me, any bike that can get 180-200 miles from a tank is fine. My friend's '98 VFR can push almost 300 on a good day on the super-slab, but that's pretty extreme. And as we've mentioned, I don't mind stopping every 150 or so miles to stretch the legs. My concern though is when range falls below 150 miles, especially for long tours out in BFE And with the "wasted fuel" issue, I was concerned that the tank didn't give me much insurance past the 120 mile mark when the fuel light lit. In comparison, my very thirsty FJ1200(various performance mods made it no fuel economy champ ) read empty at about 160 miles, but still had a good 40-50 miles left under ideal conditions. But on a positive note, on one of my longer multi-day trips, I got around 43mpg with the LeMans, and saw very good range with the bike... approaching 190 miles before I got nervous. So, with this mod, if all goes well, I think I'll be very satisfied with the range of the bike, and the extra "insurance" the mod will provide. Keep in mind, if the low fuel light glows bright, I'll still probably stop. I'm not trying to maximize distance between fill-ups, just keep them reasonable... 150-180 miles. I'm thinking this is very do-able, even with our tank al

I wouldn't worry too much about cutting the rear fender and entering a "point of no return" There are puhlenty of removed rear mudguards out there you could buy, or get for free, that have been discarded for various fender elimination kits... kinda like finding original exhausts.... easy ...it's not like you drilled a hole in your gas tank Anyway, why don't you ask around to see if someone has a rear fender they no longer want, and cut that one up? That's what I did with an airbox a while back. It's much more relaxing knowing you have a spare or two al

Just to be clear, neither the left nor right is "just a water drain". While it is true that both vent/drain lines are outside the filler neck/cap periphery, and water "could" drain through them... it is also possible, especially for the left vent/drain(since it doesn't have that rubber nipple/turret ever) for overfilled gas to drain as well So both should have lines, be "tee'd" off, or one or the other plugged, but only plugged under circumstances where the emissions are removed, as one wouldn't want to exacerbate tank suck. BTW, I'm not advocating plugging either vent nipple necessarily, just advocating not leaving either unterminated such that fuel could dump on a hot engine if one spills gasoline around the neck during filling. al

Al, I'm not 100% sure about this but here's my take. Both lines opened to ground is desirable. The one (I think left) is a drain line for any fluids that might end up around the filler neck. On my bike that would be rain water that seeped under the gas cap and into the filler neck area and then drained into the tank when I opened it to fill up because the left drain line was blocked. And the other line would be the line that relieves pressure internal to the tank. I'm doing the lefts and rights from memory. My bike is currently in the shop for recall work. Well, not to be contradictory ... but since I've had my tank complete apart, upside down, drilled a hole through it, hooked and unhooked innumerable times, in my living room with wrenches and fittings stuck into it... If you look actually in the tank, you will see that they both come up through the tank identically, and terminate at brass fittings flush with the neck in similar locations..... both drain vent/lines are essentially exactly the same It is true that in their stock configuration, one is acting as the "vent" and one is the "overflow", but in most post-stock configurations that people perform to combat vapor lock or tank suck, these vents no longer perform these distinct functions. So the application and significance of their function is directly related to whether or not one has the emissions crud still attached, and/or has the red nipple still attached to the "vent" side. As stock, the only difference is that one is "plugged" from the factory with a red rubber nipple inside the neck to vent through the cap(right hand side), where the other is open and flush to the neck to vent fumes and overflow fluid. But on many bikes this red nipple is removed to combat "tank suck", as well as having the emissions lines and carbon cannisters removed. So at that point the dual vent/drain lines are redundant, and in fact the left "drain" is acting as a much more effective vent. Rain water is also drained through a hole in the tank under the pad at the nose of the tank(pre 2003 bikes). If you have the red rubber nipple removed already on the right(original "vent") you could conceivably plug either vent/drain line, but the left is the more effective to leave open I believe. Or you could just do as Docc suggests, and just "tee" both drains/vents together and have one line. Bottom line, you should have both vents either draining under the bike via a line, or plug one... not leave the nipple under the tank open to potentially dump fuel on the engine al

.... I don't know what Washington/Seattle area police are like on this issue, but in California the police tend to give grief to the riders around here that "hide" their plate up in front of the rear wheel Just something to be aware of if you don't want to increase your chances of police "scrutiny" So just be sure it indeed is easily seen from behind. As always, YMMV of course al

From the photo above, there are two lines on the late-model in-tank bikes, but since I haven't looked closely at one, I can only assume that there is still a fuel "loop" on these bikes. It's easy enough to check. Just look the injectors, and if they have a "tee" fitting with one end going to the tank(pump) and the other end is connected to the other injector via fuel line, then you do indeed have a "return" line to the tank. It's just one of the two in the photo. But I suspect there is indeed a fuel "loop" on the newer models as well, as otherwise the fuel would sit in the lines and heat up... potentially causting vapor lock problems. And yes, since there's not one externally, it appears that the pressure regulator is somehow integrated with the in-tank pump. But to your question, and to my comment above... although there may be a pressure regulation/pump system that could do what you describe, I'm not sure that there would be much of a benefit, plus it would keep the fuel static in the lines, increasing the risk of overheating and vapor lock. al

....aww now, be nice........ I actually like the OEM tail-light Honestly, I do al

Let me take your questions in order Yep, you've identified everything correctly! And the "fuel return unit" is your fuel pressure regulator that returns fuel from the EFI loop to the tank. Also correct. If your bike still had it's evaporative cannister emissions system(sounds like it's long gone ) you would need both of these vents. But with that system gone, only one is required for venting and/or overflow. That being said, you should cap the unused nipple, or run a drain line from it down under the block... one or the other. Otherwise if you overfill your tank, or for some reason slosh gas up out of the neck of the tank, that open nipple will happily dump the fuel right on top of your hot engine from under the tank Yep, this is a well known problem on the early V11 Sports. I believe Guzzi stopped using the electric petcocks sometime around late 2001, as the 2002 models all come with the old manual petcocks. As you describe, due to whatever forces end up fatigueing them, the wires on the electric petcock tend to work themselves loose, and often short out.... causing intermittent fuel starvation. The solution? ....replace it with the Guzzi manual petcock. Just give Moto International in Seattle a call. For whatever reason they've seemed to always have had one of these in stock when I've called, and they got it to me within a week. I think the cost was about $45. This is just one of those variables one should cheaply, and easily, remove from the mix by replacing the part. It will put your mind at ease once this is done, so I heartily recommend this modification al

As of 2003(late 2002 Europe) the fuel pump/regulator was incorporated into the tank on the V11 Sport varieties. So yes, on your bike, a 2004, you do not have the older style external petcock and pressure regulator that is apparently illustrated in the technical documentation you are referencing. The photo of the connections you provided are indeed the quick connects Guzzi is now using with the newer in-tank fuel-pump kit As an aside, if it were my bike, I'd be a bit concerned about the unprotected wires as they pass into the pump plate/assembly in your photo. I would put some sort of protection around them to ward off any insulation failure due to vibration/abrasion Hope that helps al

Well, the question was posed regarding total tank capacity on the 2002 and earlier bikes. I'll actually go empty the tank and use a calibrated pump to get this more accurate later in the week, but I can confirm that my aforementioned jerry-can was full, and was a 5 US gallon can when I topped the tank out this weekend. So far I think we can say that Guzzi was being a bit optimistic al

Good question I have no idea, but mine consistently comes on at 120 miles(before any mods to the tank) for whatever that means. If you figure out your total average range, you can probably pretty closely guesstimate available range over time based on this. Of course, once you've one this, the fuel-light is really redundant to just watching mileage Look under your bike on the left side, locate the petcock. Note the sensor/wire mounted to the tank directy in front of this petcock. This is the fuel level sensor. Well, not really It pretty consistently reads the fuel level for the left side of the tank, which is the "side that matters" since we can't draw fuel from the right side Could be.... did it ever do this again? It could have been a number of things, but yes certainly could have been the fuel problem you describe as well. Sometimes it's hard to tell especially if an intermittent problem. Here's hoping it was just a low fuel issue al

Hrmm, I don't know about that... could be, but the frame didn't change AFAIK, and there's not much room for a longer tank if not Maybe Mike Stewart will see this thread and can measure his 2000 versus 2003 tank. I do know that the fairings on the 2003+ bikes were changed/shortened to alleviate some rider complaints regarding leg/knee-room, so this may give the illusion of a longer tank?? Based on your fueling measurement, it sounds like the total capacity of the 2003+ tank is similar to earlier ones. I just wonder why in the 2003+ specs, Guzzi is listing this 1.5 gallons as "reserve"? To list it as such, one has to assume that there is a way to get to that last bit. On 2003+ bikes, the question still remains whether or not the in-tank pump bikes have this wasted fuel problem or not. Can anyone with a newer bike confirm how the 2003+ bikes handle this? It's sounding like, and I hope, that the new bikes have the warning light go full-on, meaning you have that last ~gallon left. Now we just wonder if at this point, if the 2003+ bikes can utilize that complete "reserve" unlike the earlier bikes. al

Yep Dave, Since you have a 2002, you DID have an extra GALLON sitting on the right side, unused, with the fuel warning light glowing full-on At this point, the float/sensor on the left side would read empty(which the left side is), the bike would quit running, and on the right side would still be a nice pool of unavailable fuel.... as mentioned, nearly a gallon. Of course you could just lean the bike left a bit to get some(but never all) of the fuel to slosh over(at which point your fuel light might dim a bit), and you could probably tool along for a few more minutes, but not very long. As the EFI circuit would quickly reisolate that gallon of fuel on the right side And 120 miles before the fuel-light starts to glow seems pretty consistent for around town riding. That has been my experience. I agree that every 150 or so miles, it's nice to get off and stretch and take in the scenery. But then again, when out on the open road... it's nice to know you have that extra mileage so you don't get stranded. I've seen more than a couple cases where the distance between gas stations was a wee bit further than what I felt comfortable pushing my luck upon So I'd like to maximize the available mileage, especially if I am already carrying the fuel So far the tank is holding tight, keep your fingers crossed for me al

Check out our forum Tail-light/Fender Eliminator FAQ There are several options, including the aluminum job I got from Kelly Baker Performance. I don't know if he is still making them, but he was 18 months ago, and was converting future models to carbon fiber. If you are interested, give him a call. He's a great fella, and offers fantastic customer service

The marketing says 5.5 gallons for a 2002 and earlier bikes. That might be correct, or close. I know I just dumped a solid 5ish gallons from a jerry-can into a bone-dry tank for my leak test, and that was right up to the neck. I can double check tomorrow. For the 2003 specs, MG lists the following: Fuel capacity: 5.46 gallons (20.7 liters) Reserve: 1.32 gallons (5 liters) But I have no idea what this means... that is, do they mean 1.32 of the 5.46 gallons is "reserve", or that there is an additional 1.32 gallons on top of the 5.46? I'm relatively certain it is the former though, as with the new internal fuel-pump, and the tank remaining about the same size... I can't see it GAINING another 1+ gallon in capacity But in either case, I don't know what 1.32gallon "reserve" means on the newer bikes?? Anyone know? On my old FJ, I had an electric switch/petcock that I had to flip to get to the reserve once I hit "empty" on the fuel-gauge. Do the new(2003+) bikes have such a function? I'm very curious about this, and if the newer bikes avoid the "trapped fuel" issue via the internal pump and it's requisite plumbing.... hrmmm As an aside, if I do manage to ruin my tank, I'll probably spring for the new tank with internal pump and just paint it al

It depends on how long the bike sat, but no.... I'd say that merely over the Winter(since November), you don't HAVE to change the fluids. Most modern fluids, even gas, are relatively stable for quite a while... especially if you "Winterized" it. Now that being said, it's never a bad thing to go ahead and give it some fresh oil and gas I would... might as well as part of your overall pre-riding inspection for Spring al

Well, I wouldn't say "Moto Guzzi knows nothing" , but then again I wouldn't put it beyond them to acquiesce to the current fashion and performance a big tire suggests by putting an extra wide tire on the newer bikes for "show". After all, the engine really hasn't changed that much since the late 80s, and HP and torque are about the same... and those "old" bikes did just fine on much narrower rubber I believe it is perfectly likely, especially based on almost the unanimous reports from many riders that have tried it, that a narrower tire indeed turns in faster on these bikes. Does that make it a required change, or that with the stock tire the bike is an ill handler?? ...I wouldn't say that, but I think this offers yet another tuning option available to the owner, and that's a good thing It all depends on your goals and riding style al

Excellent and interesting news on the rear wheel/tire combo I'll probably drop mine a size in width as well. BTW, just a suggestion... I wouldn't recommend soldering any connections on a vibrating machine. The problem, and reason why the manufacturer uses crimps and connectors versus solder, is that a solder connection will tend to have two issues: 1) It is very rigid, and will cause two concentrated points of flex where the solder joint ends. Unless you can cinch this section of wire to something to keep it from bending, as the wire vibrates these two points will rapidly become brittle and fail/break. 2) To get the wire hot enough to take the solder, the heat tends to travel up the wire and melt/soften the insulation, causing future shorting failures. It can also anneal the wire causing an exacerbation of issue #1 above. I would recommend installing some good weather-tite AMP connectors from Summit Racing(there's a thread here somewhere that has the part numbers) or quality crimp connectors in combination with dielectric grease. Good luck al

...cool, glad to hear you've achieved the goal you had set The dyno results will be very interesting to see for sure If you've managed to achieve anything close to a "table flat" torque curve, then that would be a real plus for sure. In regards to your electrical problem, I haven't replied because I really don't have any idea.... other than the obvious checking of connectors, etc All I can say is that since the "new variable" was your modified blinkers, just recheck your wiring and the weather tightness of your connections I think I recall your mentioning somewhere that you discovered that the stock tail wiring was a tangle of short sections, bullet connectors, and splices... until you ripped it all out. So I would just think about checking all of that again. It's possible that the water certainly could have created a short somewhere, leaching current to ground. I tend to use dielectric grease, vinyl dip, replace bullet connectors with AMP weather-tites, and heat-shrink to an extreme in this regard, for this very reason But as our resident "electrical expert" on the Guzzi, I was waiting for Carl Allison to chime-in on your thread al