GuzziMoto

505" RB with Holley dual quad EFI, A/C, cruise control, Hemi 4-speed with Passon aluminum case, Gear Vendors Overdrive, 3.55 gears for touring 4.10 for fighting. Torque converters are for construction equipment. Well said.....

I am an old fart and as such I like the old cast iron rotors and a more organic pad to go with them. But performance organic pads are hard to find nowadays. If you want pads that don't dirty up the wheels so bad, I would suggest ceramic pads. Whatever brand floats your boat, but ceramic pads don't make the wheels so dirty. Well, actually what they do is make the dirt they give off less nasty, cleaner dirt. They also tend to have a little less braking power, so keep that in mind. I do like the stock Brembo pads, it is hard to beat Brembo when it comes to brakes. But I have had good results with other brands, like EBC, Ferodo, SBS, etc. To some, brake pads are a major expense and they won't buy a set and throw them away when they decise they don't like them. Personally, if I don't like a set of brake pads I will replace them regardless of how much "life" is left in them. I am far more concerned about my "life" than the brake pads "life".

It isn't going to just bolt up, so if that is your expectation it won't fit. But with some work, possibly some cutting and / or welding I have no doubt it can be made to fit. The real question is why? What do you hope to gain? An easier proposition might be to take the V11 headers and crossover, get them to fit, and then fab up some mufflers for it. One common important consideration is what do you modify in such a project. My experience and preference is to modify the bolt on parts, in this case the exhaust system instead of modifying the bike itself, like the exhaust hangers and other mounting brackets. But which way you go can affect how easy or hard it is to do, as well as how easy or hard it is to undo.

I think it is funny, and ironic. Funny because it shows we, in spite of all our progress, haven't really progressed at all. Ironic because he was a Reagan guy, and Reagan was the king of deficit spending. Now we have another "Republican" in office and we are heading down the same road. The same road every Republican president of my adult life has taken us. To be fair, the Democrats suck as well, but they usually are more financially responsible. Yeah, I know, it is supposed to be the other way around. Everyone knows the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. But the numbers say otherwise.

Not to sound stupid, but I would recommend measuring the fork oil level before you drain the forks first, even if you only want to know where you started. I would also measure how much oil comes out in addition to the air gap / oil level. Usually the air gap / oil level is not really affected by the diameter of the forks too much. Forks that are larger in diameter might hold more oil, but the distance from the top of the oil level to the top of the forks is usually fairly consistent. It is also something you can tune by feel. If you start on the high side, you will probably find the forks are too harsh. From there, keep reducing the oil in the forks until you get the forks to feel good.

Don't listen to them Chuck, they are just jealous. That is an awesome bike, even with the red gaiters. Mine, however, lacks the red gaiters.

We have some warm temps right now, but there is still too much salt on our roads. So my girls (and the wife's boys) are still in the garage. I find that the trick is learning what it wants to start. I have had one bike that I need to turn off the petcock and let it run until it starts to die. Then turn it off. Then, after a few weeks, I turn the fuel on / kick once or twice with the choke on until it starts to fire / then chock off and kick and it fires right up. I do like that Honda, and for me to say I like a Honda is pretty rare.

Yes and no. You seem to be taking what I say and running with it. I am saying that the weight ratings are ranges. I am also saying that it is the brands themselves that test and rate their own oil. There is no entity that monitors and verifies the ratings. I am saying that they can and will rate an oil that could be one rating or the other based on what rating they think will sell better. And the example given was based on the manufacturers published tests. Were they "scientific measurements"? I don't know but I hope so. I think you are taking all this way too personally. Perhaps I am reading you wrong, if so I am sorry. But I feel unless things change, this is a waste of time and I am out.

I think people use the argument that the ratings don’t mean anything to further oil debates. Which means two things, either the statement that the rating don’t really mean much is false or... it really doesn’t matter which oil you use as low my as you have oil in the engine. I have enough wacky conspiracy theories that I subscribe to, I don’t need an oil one. And yes, it’s going to snow this weekend so I have nothing worthwhile to do. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I think you mis-understand what I said. I did not say oil weight ratings do not mean anything. They certainly do, and what they mean is important. What I said was that oil weight ratings don't always mean the exact same thing. There is a difference. One brand oil may not compare directly and exactly to another brand. There can be a difference between brands. The example I gave was from my own personal experience. That is not a conspiracy theory, I have no time for them. Even in the middle of winter.

Gotta do *something* to get through the Winter.. Yep, we have another cold snap coming with possible snow..... Fire it up! On the other hand, I could go skiing.....

Damn it Pete! Stop it! You are getting me all worked up and next thing you know I will end up buying one. You should sell them for a living, you are hitting all the right buttons with me. Tell me how stupid it is for me to buy it and I am there.......

Two things about oil weight ratings. First, their is no oil weight rating police. It is a self tested, self administered rating. There is no agency, government or otherwise, that tests oils to make sure they meet their rating. Couple that with the range allowed, and you can end up with a 20w50 oil that flows better at low temps then a 10w40 oil, for example. The oil companies themselves do their testing and decide what rating to put on the bottle. In certain situations, like the aforementioned 20w50, they chose to give it that rating because they felt it would sell better than if they labeled it a 10w50 oil. And they are probably right. It really is something like tire sizes. You can have a 34 x 10.5 - 17 tire for my Jeep that is shorter than a 33 x 12.5 - 17 tire from another brand. Just throwing another log on the oil debate fire.....

Yeah, a TV4 is a Tuono V4. I would love one, but I am not sure I am grown up enough to behave properly on one. The first Tuono's were based on the RSV twin. When they made the RSV4, they started making the V4 version of the Tuono. It is seriously cool.

Another interesting aspect for discussion. Everyone tends to focus on the second number, like the 40 in 10w40. But the first number is the base oil. A 10w40 oil is 10 weight oil that has visocity modifiers in it to make it act like a 40 oil at high temps (I think the standard is at 100 degrees C). A 15w40 is made with a slightly thicker base stock oil than a 10w40 oil. Another interesting aspect is that oil viscosity is not highly regulated, and one brands oil may be thicker or thinner than another brands oil.

Of course I would have assumed the standards would be for minimums and not maximums. But that's why we have these discussions. So when the label says "extra anti-wear protection (zinc)" what that means is that is has extra compared to... I hate marketing people. They need a nutritional label so we know what goes into each oil. Wouldn't that be fun? That would put an end to oil discussions on forums. Right? Grade Zinc, Phos SM MAX 800 SL/SJ 1000-1400 SH 1000-1400 SG 1000-1400 SF 1000-1400 SE 1000-1200 SD 1000-1200 SC 1000-1200 SB 1000 SA 0 https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=printthread&Board=1&main=73571&type=thread Oh, look, same range for SG and SL for zinc. On the one hand, I love your suggestion for a "nutritional label" showing additives. That would be awesome. But then, I fear, we would only argue even more..... I have no issues with people who run quality car oil, or quality diesel oil. Rotella is well known and regarded as an option for motorcycles. I try to avoid naming specific brands of oil as "what I run". While it might slip out once in a blue moon, that is not what I try to convey in an oil debate. I am interested in talking about differences between various oils, and what types of oils suit our chosen steed. That is not directed at anyone naming their chosen brand, just expressing my interest in not getting into a "my oil can beat up your oil" debate.

I agree with Pete, it was for a long time the sportiest bike Guzzi made. Previous Guzzi sporty bikes were the various V11 sports and LeMans, which was not the LeMans I was comparing the Griso to, unbunch your panties ;-) , and the original LeMans. I would call the Griso more of a GT bike, a sporty bike I can ride all day. That is something I would also say about the V11 based bikes. As soon as you start calling them sportbikes you invoke all kinds of comparisons, most of them a Guzzi ain't gonna' win. But that doesn't mean I would not take the Guzzi over most any "sportbike".

You said that SL will also meet earlier specification. One could infer that this means that SL is >= SG. But then you say that SL ≠ SG. Whereas Moto Guzzi says to use an oil that is >= to SG. I agree that SL is not exactly the same as SG, but do we agree that SL meets the same specifications as SG and in some areas exceeds it? I don't think you understood what I said. I am sorry, I will try to be clearer. OIl specs like SG, SL, an SM, are not simply a case of an oil that meets the newer standard truly meets the older standard. The standards aren't minimum specs for things in the oil, they are mostly (at least in regard to what we care about) maximum specs for what is in the oil. And the newer standards don't have higher maximums, they have lower maximums. That is to help vehicles with catalytic converters meet emissions standards and not foul up the cat. So, an oil that is only SG rated can have more good things in the oil then an oil that meets SG and SL standards. Does that mean that an SG oil automatically has more good things in it then an oil that is both SG and SL rated? No. But it likely does as if the SG only oil could have been rated SL as well it would have been rated SL as well. That is how you have oils that are rated for more than one standard. So, an oil that meets an older standard may also meet the newer standard, but only if the levels of certain additives was low enough that it doesn't exceed the newer standard limits. So, while an oil that meets the newer standards typically "meets" the older standard, that is only if you look at it backwards and normally an oil that is designed from the ground up to meet a newer standard won't be listed as also meeting the older standard. Usually, when you see an oil that is labeled as meeting more than one standard it is an oil that was originally certified as meeting the older standard and when the newer standard came out it happened to also meet that standard. That would be because it was not at or near the additive level limits of the older standard. If it had as much of the various limited additives as the older standard allowed it would not have meet the newer standard. But most oils tend to be we within the limits. So it is not that unusual for an oil to meet more than one standard. But an oil that only meets the old standard, like SG, but has too much of the various limited additives in it won't meet the newer standards. If you look at the oil standards backwards, they make more sense. The oil rating standards are, as it concerns us, setting lower and lower maximum limits for things we want in our oil. Newer standards have lower maximum limits for those additives. An oil that meets only the SG standard, which is usually the oldest standard we care about, and the standard of oil our Guzzi motors were built to run, may meet newer standards if it was not pushing the limits of what the SG standard allowed. But a newer oil that technically meets both standards, or simply an oil that only meets the newer standard, has to comply with lower limits on the good additives that we want. So an older spec SG oil can have more anti-wear additives than an oil that only meets or also meets the newer standards. So, no. An oil that meets SL specs is not equal to or greater than an oil that only meets SG specs. The SL oil might also be SG rated, but the fact that it is SL rated means it meets the lower maximum limit standards for various anti-wear additives of the SL spec. If it were only SG rated it would only have to meet the higher maximum limits for anti-wear additives of SG. I hope that helped explain my point of view. Typically an oil that is only SG rated will only meet the older standard which means it will have more good additives in it, like ZDDP and other anti-wear additives. Those things are bad for catalytic converters so the newer oil specs reduce the amount of those oil can have. But flat tappets really like those anti-wear additives. Will your motor blow up because you used an oil that was SL rated? probably not. But it is possible that your motor will have higher wear rates and may not last quite as long. But in the end, it is up to you, I don't have a dog in the fight. Use whatever oil you want. Change it as often as you want. I can't see it from my house. SG oil is fairly easy to get. There are a few brands that offer it. It may cost a little more than, say, Mobil 1 from Wally World. But I love my Guzzi's and don't have an issue paying a few dollars more every oil change to use the oil they were designed to run.

Yes, congrats on the new ride. I was an early fan of the Griso and don't understand how Guzzi doesn't still make a version. It is the modern day LeMans.

https://www.rymax-lubricants.com/news/api-specification-this-is-how-it-works/ Also from the V11 Sport owners manual: "Good engine offer special features.Only use oils with high detergent power, certified as equivalent or superior to SE, SF or SG duty (this is marked on the container)." SL is superior to SG, thus should be acceptable. That is not exactly how oil ratings work. They are backwards, in that an oil that is SL rated will also meet earlier specification. But that doesn't mean the oil is the same as an oil that meets the older specification. The ratings on oil don't specify a minimum of various additives as much as they specify a maximum. And the newer specifications typically have lower maximum limits for various additives. That does not mean an oil that was SG rated CAN'T meet a newer specification, it may not have been at the limits allowed by the older specification. But an oil that was at the limits under the old specification will not be able to meet the newer specification, I agree with consensus, given the choice I would pick an oil that only meets the older specification and not an oil that meets the newer specification. I like Mobil 1 oil, for example, but I would not use it as my first choice in a Guzzi. I don't think your Guzzi will blow up because you used Mobil 1, but I think I will happily spend an extra few dollars on a better oil for my Guzzi as I think that is a small price to pay for such a cool motorcycle.

Mmmmmm, oil..........

I have those, on my Griso 1100. Mine have the letters in white, so it is even more in your face. It actually looks good that way on the Griso, the Griso is not a subtle motorcycle.

I have front forks with a DLC coating, and at some point I need to get DLC buckets for my Aprilia XV motor. They also use DLC on shock shafts, but I don't have that as far as I know. It is cool stuff, but it seems to be debatable as to whether it is suited to lifters. As I mentioned, it is the hot ticket for XV buckets. The non-DLC buckets fail.

I agree, roller tappets are not a clever solution. The roller tappets use a different cam. If they don't use a different cam the valve timing will be very different. Cams, as it sounds like you know, are either made for roller tappets or flat tappets. As to all flat tappet motors failing, I am only repeating what Pete Roper says. I thought the switch to roller tappets was a step backwards and I don't understand why they didn't just properly fix the flat tappet motor. But they don't listen to me.

One of my other Guzzi's is a Lario. That and the Daytona are the two I will never sell. They aren't perfect examples of engineering prowess, but they are cool. And something might be wrong with my Lario as it has not broken its valve train yet. Although I have probably jinxed it now....

I know that the V11 valve covers will fit a 2 valve CARC motor, like a Griso 1100. So I would think a CARC 1100 valve cover would fit a V11 motor. In fact, I think someone has already done it. It looks different, but it should fit.