al_roethlisberger

Sorry to hear you have hit a small bump in the road Cliff, but I'm sure you'll find someone you can work with. I bet you could get some Ducati guys interested later as well. Sounds like fun though! Too bad you aren't around here, or vice-versa! Let us know how it goes al

I would agree Dave... knowing how you ride your bike daily as a commuter, and that you seem quite satisfied with the power, reliability, and current character of the bike.... I would let it lie for a while. Introducing more variables such as airbox mods, etc... while fun, just increase the "tinker factor" and based upon your application doesn't seem like you want or need more tinkering, but in fact more riding al

....thanks John, yes... "brave or stupid" ... time will tell though I figure if the tank is ruined(I don't think so though. At worst I believe I could plug the hole.) I can always buy another. It's not like they are unobtanium *shrug* I'll be filling the tank tonight and leaving it on a stand in the driveway overnight. We'll see what happens But yes, I do have my "fingers crossed" al

Nice results! I'm sure you are pleased to have finally objectively measured the impact of tuning your exhaust with the discs for the most effective setup for your goal I know that's how I feel after tinkering, and finally getting a chance to really "dial-it-in" versus just assuming/hoping for the best Do you have a photo/scan of the dyno curve, before and after? I would be very interested in seeing how much your 2/1 system boosted midrange as you suspect It's interesting, although not surprising based upon your goal of improving low/mid power, that your peak HP/Torque are about the same as stock though. Any thoughts? al

Sorry to hear about the catch-22 via Ferraci, but it's not their fault(not to say that's what you meant ). This is very similar to the experience I had the Winter of 2002/03 during my "hot engine, won't idle" problem. Moto Italiano had the bike two different times for 3 or so months total, but couldn't get it to run. They swapped out the ECU per MGNA's "we give up, give it a new computer" theory, but that was about it. I had suggested double-checking valve lash(which is what it turned out to be), but Moto Italiano told me that they could only perform work that was preauthorized by MGNA because MGNA would only pay the shop for that work. If they tried to do any significant troubleshooting or investigative work on their own, MGNA would refuse to pay. And the big catch-22 here was that MGNA often would take a day or three to return the service call from their service contacts. So a repair that might take a day, might drag out for a week. I can see this from both the dealer(customer) and MGNA perspective in regards to controlling costs, and keeping warantee work performed via standard procedure, but sometimes.... Yes it is frustrating, and I think MGNA needs to revisit this policy so that in some cases there is an "appeal" process such that in the end the customer is served, and maybe even MGNA might save some $$(as in your case Jason). *sigh* al

Are you in Mike's "neck of the woods" such that you could get the bike over to his shop Jason? I don't know if he got his dyno though. I'll have to ask the next time I call to order parts. al

So that first post was copied almost verbatim from my post a couple days ago on Wildguzzi. The current status is that since I have removed my airbox, there is a nice flat area under the tank that could easily accept a fuel fitting for a return. I have since drilled the tank and installed a AN-6 bulkhead fitting, sealed it up, and it seems like it will work just fine. I was concerned about the durability of the tank, and still am , but have found that the material seems very very durable, and is no thinner where I pierced it than where the stock petcocks are located Anyway, we'll see over time. I'll be testing it for operation and integrity(leaks) today. al

I agree on both the points made above: 1) A "cooler" wouldn't really help unless it was optimally placed in the air-flow, and/or with active cooling, such as with a fan. And I believe we can "lick this" without that anyway 2) The lines are indeed part, maybe a large part, of the problem. This is clearly evidenced from my test above where recirculating fuel just got warmer and warmer. I've had my lines relocated further from the heat, and shielded for some time. And before my mod that made the situation worse, this seemed to work. The aluminized shielding reflects 95% of radiant heat, but of course can only do so much for temporal heat soak But I think I've got the problem licked.... well maybe. More testing is needed. See the following thread: Wasted Fuel Thread I'll keep you posted al

So, for those of us that own V11 Sport based bikes such as the LeMans, Scura, RM.... and of course the Sport itself .... you may be aware(if not, you are now ) that due to the design of the tank, lack of a "balance tube", the spine frame, and our bikes being EFI versus gravity-fed carb'd(one petcock), the execution of the fuel injection loop causes the right side of the tank to retain fuel that the petcock, ergo the injection system, cannot get to.... This is at least true of the 2002 and earlier bikes without the in-tank fuel pump. I have no idea how the new bikes are plumbed internally to tank, so it may be an non-issue with them... But for the older bikes that have an external fuel pump, the only current solution is to "slosh" the bike violently to the left while riding whence one begins to see the low fuel light begin to burn. However, this is just a brief respite, as the fuel pressure regulator, located where a right-hand side petcock normally would reside, is happily dumping its fuel outlet right back into the right "saddlebag" So, if you've been following my adventures in the "relocated fuel pump" and "vapor lock" threads... you've seen that I've been trying to rig a "balance tube" for our tanks. Of course, this should seem simple enough, after all, motorcycle manufacturers have been doing this forever... right? Unfortunately, due to the neato plastic tank, a lack of good places for a fuel return, and various other gotchas due to having EFI... it's actually been difficult to rig a kit that works in practice. Recently I thought I had it licked, but because I wasn't getting enough fresh fuel from the tank, and "old" fuel from the EFI circuit back into the cool "pool" of tank fuel... I rapidly experienced vapor lock over about 70 degrees F once the engine area was heat-soaked. Not really a surprise, as I had suspected it might happen, but worth trying. Anyway, more on that in the Relocated Fuel Pump Thread if you are interested. But that was "background" on the impetus of this post... here is the primary reason. As I tinkered with this project, I realized that no one(that I know of) including myself, had really measured whether this was worth doing... that is, is there enough fuel actually trapped on the right-hand-side for all this effort?? OK OK, I know that sounds stupid, but keep in mind that half the things I do to(note: "to" not "for" ...as in, is necessary ) my bike are for pure tinkering's sake So Friday night I decided to accurately measure how much fuel is actually "trapped" on that right side once the left is drained, which basically is equivalent to one's running out of gas. Several of us have estimated the amount of trapped fuel from the stated capacity of the tank minus how much we filled-up, etc.... but I took a graduated cylinder to it last night, draining through my retrofitted right petcock and the results were: 110 ounces Honestly, nearly a US GALLON! SHEESH! That's a big deal, at least to me anyway. On a steady speed super-slab ride(which I hate, but does happen) that's a good 40+ miles. Around town, it's probably another good 10+ miles before the danger light looms Now, perhaps in the real world, this might be a bit less, but even 20 or 30 more miles range can make all the difference. So, I guess I'll soldier on to figure out how to get this "balance tube" thing to work. If I had found out that there were only 20 or 30 ounces of fuel available, I might have just said it wasn't worth it. But 100+ ounces... well, goodness. So, I'm off to my local speed shop to look for more fittings(I have quite a collection now if anyone needs a spare ). As an aside, while thinking about this and looking inside my tank with a flashlight... I noticed that the plastic tubing and "resin" covering the brass nipples that come up through the tank bottom for the vents was very very thin on one of them.... so thin I could see through it. This would be a very bad thing to eventually vibrate and wear through, or to hit with a fuel pump nozzle. I never stick the pump nozzle into my tank, but for anyone so inclined, this would be another good reason not to. If either one of these vent hosed got knicked, your fuel tank would instantly start dumping all of its fuel under the bike... Anyway, just some interesting info... that's a lot of fuel put to waste trapped in the right side after all. A poor design IMHO, but then again maybe MG never initially thought or intended these bikes to be long distance machines?? Who knows al P.S. Here is the thread on Wildguzzi

Here's some more discussion on the subject we had on the Wildguzzi forum while our old standby was laid-up sick Wildguzzi My15 Thread ...synopsis though, you'll need to map it with Cliff's software in combo with a dyno/gas-analyzer, and a donor Marelli M15. I'll be very interested to watch how it works out for Carl. And once the unit supports two 02 sensors, and tune for each cylinder, that will be even more attractive Great work Cliff al

Hrmm, just to double-check, are you sure yours is actually a Stucchi crossover then?? I only ask because the Mistral "H" crossover has the same two different diameter pipes at the "H" cross-bar as you describe. If you are interested in double-checking, you can go to the Forum homepage and click on our sponsor Mistral link, and under V11 products, they have a photo of their crossover. In regard to the Guzzi ECU.... I can't put it on my bike "without adjustment". Not with all of my modifications. That's the problem, and why the PCIII is so attractive for many. Now, if the ECU were "closed loop" then it would certainly be much less of an issue, and the ECU would be much more "plug and play" as theoretically it could adjust automatically for changes in the intake and exhaust system through it's O2 sensor. But alas, our system is open loop, and the ECU has no idea what is happening with the actual engine and fuel mixture other than atmospheric ambient temp, and head temperature. Beyond that, it relies on it's static fuel/air map, and assumes nothing has changed on the bike it was programmed/mapped for. Of course, this is also true of the PCIII, and why it needs a tuning center with a dyno and gas analyzer... it not really an issue of "superiority" but more an issue of convenience and applicability. Look, in the end.... the ECU and PCIII are probably both "equal" if one has access to a tuner than can have access to the actual bike and is adept at "dialing in" either well. And in that regard, if I could get the degree of fine tuning on the ECU for my bike as I can with a PCIII, I probably would just use the 15M by itself as you suggest... after all, that is a simpler solution, and I am an advocate of the KISS principle But for now, for many of us, we don't have access to such a tuner adept at tweaking the ECU, so the PCIII is our only alternative for now. al

Well, The story get's more interesting as I test and research more and more into this At first I was really frustrated with this whole affair, but I think I now know what's going on, although I have to admit it's still a bit frustrating as even understanding the problem doesn't allow me to ultimately do what I want.... yet So, keep in mind that this is tied closely to the Forum Vapor Lock Thread Let's recap. First, or "Phase I" ... to reduce the chance of heat induced vapor lock, I relocated the fuel pump up on top of the spine in-line with the fuel-filter, along with heat-shielding the whole system. This was successful, and I went on several near-100 degree F rides with no problem. If this had been my only goal, I could have stopped here. With that success in my hip-pocket, I moved to the next "phase" which was to enable a "balance tube" between both sides of the tank to allow more even access to the right side where quite a bit of fuel is trapped as the fuel level drops. This is the side from which the fuel-pressure regulator hangs. Upon setting up this solution using a newly fitted second petcock, and remotely locating an external pressure-regulator(detailed earlier in the thread), a ride in 80-ish degree weather induced vapor lock .... DRAT! This was very surprising, and I thought that perhaps my location for the regulator above the right cylinder was the culprit(although I suspected a secondary possibility.. more on that next ). Well, over the last day I relocated the pressure regulator somewhere extremely remote to the whole engine.... But as I ran the engine up to temp, and felt the regulator housing, I noticed that it was quite warm. And soon enough, yep... vaporized fuel! cough cough... dead. DOUBLE DRAT!! At this point, my secondary theory... yet unmentioned... seemed more likely *sigh* I hate to leave you in suspense.... but.... So in the meantime, I've been reading online and researching various products used by hot-rodders and racers to combat vapor lock. It usually consists of "coolers" which are of course just small radiators, and cooling bottles/jugs, which are liquid filled containers with a submerged radiator. But bottom line, there is some facility for the fuel to get cooled before reentering the pressurized circuit. My "balance tube" solution couldn't allow for this, as we are limited to two fuel inlet/outlets on the tank. So what I had worried about from the start, but only in the back of my mind, and now seemed to have come to fruition... is that by not having the fuel cycle all the way back to the tank via my modification, a significant proportion of the already warm fuel was recirculating around and around, just getting hotter and hotter... instead of squirting up into the fuel tank, mixing with cooler fuel before getting sucked/pumped back into the system. This is the curse of only having two taps into the tank I guess So, I'm going to replumb the circuit tonight so that the fuel can go back into the tank to confirm this suspicion. If the bike runs fine back in that configuration, it should support my conclusion. So, what does this mean in regard to making a "balance tube" ?? I don't know for sure I suppose one could still potentially pierce the tank and add two new fittings and a tube, but I wouldn't feel confident about that with the nylon? tank. Long term reliability would make me nervous. Fuel leaks are baaaad But here are two possibilites for a new/third tank access for a fuel return?? 1) Ditch the fuel-level indicator/sensor and use that as a fuel return: One could certainly do this, but the obvious tradeoff is loss of the low-fuel indicator, plus who knows if one could even match a fitting to the outlet 2) Use the tank overflow nipple under the tank on the right: OK, I have no idea on this one. Perhaps impossible?? I'd have to look into whether the overflow actually drains right back into the tank directly, or via the cap. If it is via the cap, this would probably be a bad idea = fumes, splash, etc. I'm also not sure if it could even flow enough fuel. So, any thoughts? If not, I'll probably just put the the system back to "Phase I", put the pressure-regulator return back into the right hand side of the tank, and give up on a balance tube for now Too bad if so.... al

Cliff's My16M unfortunately is still "officially" only a 16M ECU replacement, and that's not what is used on our V11 bikes..... although he is working with Carl Allison for applying the My16M ECU to our 15M bikes. One of the big hurdles was finding the special application connector on the 15M. We have tried to source it from AMP, etc... but it had been difficult. I think Cliff did end up a with a few and was trying to get it adapted. He checks in this forum so maybe he or Carl can chime-in on that status. Another advantage is that the My16M can run closed-loop. Of course to really dial it in, one would still need a gaz-analyzer and dyno. In regard to the PCIII, I don't think anyone has maintained that it is a brainiac But for many people, it has proven very effective, and in the end that's what matters al

Ahh, you have an "H" pipe version.... hrmm, very interesting as I didn't realize Stucchi made an "H" version. Generally I see this design on the cruiser applications. As to which is best.... "X" or "H"... good question Based upon the Mistral(H) and Stucchi(X) crossover performance and anecdotal feedback we've seen, I can only speculate on the two Stucchi models... Mistral(H) = Improved top end, sacrifices some low/mid range Stucci(X) = Improved mid-range, potentially small top-end loss Forum Mistral Stucchi Thread But many people have either, and are very happy. Perhaps you are thinking more of the old PCII?? If you talk to someone like Todd Eagan at www.guzzitech.com you'll find that the PCIII can do more than you think. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but all I can say is that there are many Guzzi owners(and other makes/models) on this forum and elsewhere that have used the PCIII with excellent results ....even after having their ECU "optimized" via the very reputable dealers like Moto International, et al This is certainly my experience. As I mentioned, I am very pleased to hear that you have someone local that can tune the 15M well. That's great Unfortunately though, I just don't see how he(or anyone else for that matter) could effectively tune the ECU without the rest of the bike present, and on a dyno with gas analyzer If I sent him just my ECU, I don't see how he could take into account my various modifications such as head porting, dual sparkplugs, crossover, exhaust, etc... he would just have to "guess". Anyway, I'm simply saying that sending the ECU to your tuner wouldn't for me seem to be a very effective solution, and hence would prefer someone local. But not having someone local that is an expert in tuning the 15M(which many of us do not), using a PCIII is a great alternative as there are lots of DynoJet Certified Tuning Centers that can put the whole bike on a dyno with a gas analyzer to tune the fuel mixture. As always YMMV, but the PCIII has worked well for me and many others al

Well, take care with that combo Mal. In a recent Sport-Touring.net thread on the subject, someone mentioned that they contacted Bridgestone about mixing the 010 and 020, and they said as long as the 020 was on the back, it was safe. They however did not recommend the mix the other way around. I have no idea why, although I guess since the possibility of washing out the front would be increased(with greater grip in the rear), this would be a concern. I don't think their profiles differ though. As an aside, as I've been following these threads on ST.net, I've noticed a lot of people with bikes of similar power and weight as ours run 010s up to 5-6k miles with no problem. So it's possible that unless one is looking for a 8-isk K mile tire, going 010 front and back is reasonable. I haven't heard much on the Avons either... al

... "old one with two little pipes"?? Can you explain, or post a link to photos showing the difference? I've not seen different Stucchi x-over models for the V11 Sport/LeMans and would be very interested to see the difference, and hear why any change was made?? Well, a couple of points... First, in many respects you are correct. At some point, like most things in life.... many of the modifications at some point offer diminishing returns for the money invested... at that point becoming more of a "tinker factor" offering more hobbyist fun beyond performance "bang for the buck". For most folks, your mods: - Exhaust/x-over - High flow filter - ECU fuel-mixture remap ...are good enough to liven-up the bike without spending too much. But for those that don't have access to a good dealer or specialty shop that can tune the ECU, or for those that just want to tinker further... there may be more that makes sense for them to do based upon their goals. For example, if they're goal is 90+ RWHP, then your mods won't get them there. Also, unfortunately many of us around the rest of the world do not have access to a shop that can adequately map the stock ECU. It sounds like you do, and that's fantastic But even the "better" shops here in the USA usually only have a 4-gas analyzer, but no dyno, so their tuning is limited. Plus even fewer have the ability to adjust anything beyond fuel mixture, such as timing(although admittedly the PCIII can't do that either for our bikes ). Anyway... for this reason, many owners opt for the PCIII as there are however quite a few DynoJet Certified Tuning Centers, and the PCIII is quite flexible and has a proven track record of efficacy. As always, YMMV(your mileage may vary)... but as we've discussed here several times, and ad nauseum on other forums... the degree of "reasonalble" modifications are very subjective, and dependent upon one's goals ....glad to hear yours have met your needs, whilst not breaking the bank! al

Posting a photo is easy. Just upload it to the forum by clicking on the "Browse" button for file attachements below when posting a message, and you can upload a photo from your PC. uh oh, gosh I don't want to upset the apple cart, but if accurate... this is disturbing... as it seems that your dealer/Guzzi has given you the wrong cases?? I would pursue this with your dealer if they've given you the 2003+ smooth satin black finish cases. MGNA here in the USA isn't doing this AFAIK. Globally I'm not sure what Guzzi is doing though. The replaced cases we've seen here in the USA are a similar "fuzzy" finish as the original problematic cases, but with a slightly different black tone, and slightly different texture... but close enough. Unless Guzzi isn't supplying "fuzzy" cases anymore, it sounds like a mistake has been made. Please let us know what your dealer says. Good that they caught that at least al P.S. Perhaps I missed it, but please let us know your location

Ahh thanks Ian, but I didn't forget the spring issue. I omitted it as it has since showed up on some post 2002 bikes ...so that's not a failure we can nail-down to one model year unfortunately. al

That is true Paul, we often see various models showing up in Europe a few months before in North America, and sometimes noted as the previous year. For example the LeMans in Europe may have been called a 2001 here and there, and I know for sure that the "2003 with front crossover" definitely showed up in Europe in several places as a late 2002 But as of 2001/2002 there was no "V11 Sport" any longer officially, instead being called the "V11 Naked" (at least here in the USA) as soon as the LeMans was released. al

...good lord. I don't know what one does with that kind of HP on a bike, honestly... other than bragging rights Neat though. al

Randy, ...ahh, I didn't realize Guzzi started putting the hollow axle on the Marz forks for 2004. Maybe they have been reading this forum after all But if so, yes the axle is different. However, on a brighter note, that nut doesn't really hold the axle on/in(OK, well sure it does ) as much as the cinch bolts on the fork legs pinch the axle. The nut is something of a safety, and also draws the legs together tightly against the bearings/spacer. That's not to say the nut isn't important ....but even if it had come off, it probably wouldn't have been catastrophic for quite some time. Glad to hear you have it figured out! All my fasteners are loc-tite'd al

I had excellent results, and really appreciated the "tunability" of the PCIII. But yes, having a "Certified Tuning Center" available for a custom map is certainly ideal for generating the best results. However, someone like Todd Eagan at www.guzzitech.com can often get it "close" once one supplies him with the modifications to take into account. al

Chris, Contact Todd Eagan at www.guzzitech.com Todd is more-or-less Moto Guzzi's unofficial emissary to DynoTech, and is usually the only one that has the Guzzi specific PCIIIusb in stock, although other vendors will list them. Todd works very closely with the DynoTech staff to develop new PCIII applications for the Guzzi models, and is the best source for the hardware, and appropriate maps. Also, Todd has an extensive archive of custom maps, and is very experienced with tweaking maps for one's own modifications. He can usually tweak a map very close to ideal, and send it preloaded on your PCIII... only of course being beaten by a custom map generated at a certified Dyno Tuning Center. al

There are no pre-02 V11 LeMans as 2002 was the first year. 00 and 01 bikes are unfaired and are simply V11 Sports(except for the limited edition 2001 Rosso Mandello which has a fly-screen) and other than colors was the only model offered for those years. After 2002, non faired V11 LeMans were referred to/renamed as the V11 Naked, and of course there were a variety of special/limited edition Naked and LeMans models, primarily including a varying combination of special paint schemes, raised bars, and premium suspension. To your question though, the 2002 seems to be the most "problematic" of the LeMans/Sport years but only in regard to some relays(easy fix), the bubbling paint, and the historical(00->02 models) sporadic "vapor lock" issue some people rarely experience. But most specifically, the only standout issue is probably the engine case paint on the '02, and considering that Guzzi is actually covering this under warantee, the deal one can now get on a discounted new 2002 might be enough to offset those concerns. Most 02 owners are perfectly happy with their bikes al

Well, unfortunately we don't really have enough info to go on to diagnose your idling issue from what you've provided... there are just too many variables But I will offer this... when I had the shop work on my bike last year, it was delivered to me in a state where it would not idle once hot at all, and the symptoms sound similar to yours. The solution/problem turned out to be that the valve lash was insufficent, and once heated up, was binding up the valve-train. Once the lash was loosened and set to Raceco specs, it's idled fine ever since. So you may want to put checking valve-lash on your list of issues to consider. In regard to your engine finish concern, my question: Did your dealer provide you with a case with the 2003 smooth "satin" black finish? I ask because we've had an owner or two that have had the swap performed post photos, and although the color/texture of the new replaced black "fuzzy" cases was slightly different, it didn't seem obvious or a problem. Could you post a photo? al