GuzziMoto

I have been using those silicone valve cover gaskets for many years on two different Guzzi's with no issues. The only "trick" to them is proper torque, they don't use the same torque values as the paper gaskets. Many people seem to like the new paper gaskets, I find the silicone ones work better for me. But everyone is different, to each their own. One thing I do know is that other than tears, imperfections in the mating surface, or improper torque, if you have a persistent oil leak form anywhere that is not (or should not be) pressurized you should make sure your crank case breather system is working correctly. Things like valve cover gaskets should have an easy life. Oil should not be bound and determined to leak from them. They should be simply there to keep oil from leaking out by suggesting that the oil doesn't leak. They should not have to fight the oil about it. If the oil is determined to leak from there; A ) The oil will leak from there, and B ) There is too much pressure forcing the oil to leak.

Splicing them together would create a short. Using them to power an LED or other type of light is an interesting idea.

My first ride on a Guzzi was riding the Daytona I now own. At the time, back in the '90s, my friend had just bought it new. He let me take his new Guzzi for a spin, and after I got off I told him right then and there if he ever decides to sell it I will buy it. 20 years later I bought it from him. Guzzi's either speak to you or they don't. As to cruising speeds, generally I do in the 80 - 90 mph range on the highways. There was one year on the Griso when my wife (on her V11) and I were heading back from Indy and we were in a hurry, we did much of the trip north of 100 mph. We were rolling..... I never had an issue with wind on the Griso. The small screen plus the slight forward lean meant I had no issues with wind at speed. Not everyone feels the same way, some people need large fairings to block the wind or they get tired of holding their head up.I don't get that, but for some people that is the way it is. Personally I don't own any motorcycles that have anything more than a small fly screen type windshield. I do tend to ride pretty fast, I am one of those people who views the posted speed as a minimum speed. I normally go 10 to 15 over that if traffic allows. I don't have issue with speed, other than the fear of a ticket.

There is a thermostatic valve listed in the parts list. It is on the block of aluminum down in the sump and it looks like it would control oil flow to the cooler. I would check the oil supply to the heads if there is doubt about oil pressure. If the oil filter comes loose you will lose oil pressure. That can result in serious engine damage. Low or no oil pressure is not something to take lightly in a Guzzi. They are plain bearing engines and plain bearings only work with adequate oil flow.

While my Griso is not my favorite bike that I own, I can't really fault the Griso for that. I also own a Guzzi Daytona and the wife has a V11, both of which are just that little bit more interesting to me. But that is subjective and it is a very close call. My Griso, an '07 1100, is a remarkably useful every day type of motorcycle. I have no issues commuting on it, touring on it (I have the small fly screen), or carving the twisties on it. The griso is a fairly basic bike. It does not have a giant fairing, built in saddlebags, or other RV style amenities. But that is part of what I like about it. While it might not be the most interesting Guzzi I own it is certainly the most comfortable. I replaced the stock handlebars, the originals have a slightly odd bend and while the overall position of them is fine the angle they put my wrists at was not quite right. Some people find they need more leg room, there are lower peg options, but I don't have an issue with that. I also find the stock seat to be pretty nice, I am looking at replacing mine but that is due to wear and tear. Maybe I will just get it recovered. All in all I have really nothing bad to say about the Griso. It is, for a Guzzi, very refined and day to day useful. For a while it was my only bike. Out of all the bikes I own the Griso is my reliable couch.

Oil pressure switches like that on the V11 are normally closed. It requires oil pressure to open the switch. A bad oil pressure switch can result in an oil light that does not go out. However, if the oil pressure light comes on your first assumption should be that you don't have oil pressure, not that the sensor is bad. If testing shows the sensor is bad, replace it. It is not that uncommon to have a sensor go bad. But it is also not that uncommon on a V11 to have something else wrong like the oil filter coming loose or the old filter gasket was still stuck there when you installed the new filter. If you have a leak at the filter on a V11 you will have a lack of oil pressure but since the leak is inside the sump you won't have an oil leak externally like you would on most other modern motorcycles. In the end, you have to decide which odds to play.The ramifications of low oil pressure are pretty serious. I would eliminate that as a possibility before focusing on the sensor.

I loved the CB-1, had a friend who had one. I also had a Suzuki Bandit 400, I still have it but it is not running now. The motor is in parts on the floor and has been for a while. Priorities. I have owned bikes with a variety of power characteristics. I have had peaky high reving bikes that make more horsepower than torque, mid range bikes that are somewhat even between the two, and low reving bikes that make more torque than horsepower. Due to the nature of the formula to figure out horsepower from torque and rpm, they should all make the same horsepower and torque at 5252 rpm. The way I see it, when a motor makes peak torque well below that number I would call it a torque motor, if it makes peak torque way above that number I would call it a horsepower motor. If it makes peak torque with a thousand rpm of that number on either side I would call it a mid-range motor. And yea, I likes my women and beer like I likes my motorcycles. They all tend to have something to offer........

The Triumph 675 motor, especially in the Street Triple, calls to me. I used to have a Yamaha FZR 400 a long time ago, and that was serious fun. I am sure the Triumph 675 triple is even better. I like motors with large amounts of mid-range power like the Guzzi's. But a more top end motor can be serious fun in its own right. Not really the best tool for the same job as the Guzzi, but still an awesome tool for carving up backroads.

Yea, my wife has those on hers as well. We never gave it too much thought. We did consider making new tags and riveting them on in place of the originals. My wife used to run a CNC router and she could have made tags that say whatever she wanted. She no longer works there any more. Opportunity lost.

Yes, those were fun. I still have my 440, but I don't get to ride it much. Lucky Phil pretty much nailed it, that is the math formula used to calculate horsepower from torque. Typically engine dynos measure force (torque) and then calculate horsepower from there. Chassis dynos realistically measure horsepower and then reverse the math to get torque. That second bit about chassis dynos can be a very debatable, but in my opinion that is how they work in a nut shell. The part about the math formula is what it is. That is how horsepower is calculated. More difficult, and more open for debate, is understanding the difference between horsepower and torque as well as what they mean. Often people refer to a motor as torquey, without paying attention to where that torque is rpm wise.

First things first. ALL motors make torque. They all make torque. The only question is how much torque and where it is spread. A Suzuki SV650 makes peak torque of around 42 lb-ft. A Honda 700 from an NC or CTX (which is where all this started for me and why I started this thread) makes about the same amount of torque but lower in the revs. As I recall it was around 6000 rpm for the SV and 4200 rpm for the Honda. But the SV motor, in spite of being smaller, cranks out much more horsepower due to that torque being higher up in the rpm range, and as a result of that the SV is much faster. The Honda is easier to ride, but the SV is faster. Torque is the force the motor can generate. Horsepower is how much work it can do with that force. Horsepower is really a measure of how fast it is. Having more torque lower in the rpms makes a motor easier to ride. But horsepower is what makes it go fast. They are not mutually exclusive, the key is to have the best balance between the two. A good spread of torque down low makes the bike easier to ride, but you still need torque higher in the rpm range if you want to go fast. It is a balancing act. The V11 does not make a massive amount of torque, nor is it stacked in the lower rpm range. But from 3-4k up it pulls like made. Compared to some bikes it is a torque motor, compared to others it is a rev'er. But I think it is really a mid-range motor. It has to be wound up a little compared to something like a Buell 1200, and it does not make the power and revs of something like a big Ducati. But it offers a good balance between torque and horsepower, and that power is easily accessible. As to two strokes, I have mentioned my old KTM 440 here before. It is an absolute beast in the woods. Most of the time in the woods the throttle is closed, and it is usually opened in short bursts. Those short bursts are followed by long moments of quiet, unless I am screaming. Honda used to make a CR500, it had massive amounts of torque. It actually made too much torque down low for most people and often modifications were geared towards moving that power up higher to make the bike more ride-able. My 440 was pretty ride-able from the factory, but only you consider what it was.

That is a cool way to think about it. We used to have a similar view between two strokes and four strokes.

I think perhaps what makes the Guzzi motor seem like it is a rev'er is that within its allowable rpm range it makes it power more so in the upper half of that rpm range. But on the other side of that is that to me a motorcycle engine that only revs to 8 grand is never a true rev'er. I have ridden/raced Ducati's that rev'ed past 10 grand, some as high as 12 or 13 grand. That is a big twin motor that revs out. I know it is apples to oranges, just trying to explain where I am coming from. That 6.7 Powerstroke chart would be more fun to look at if they used the same scale for HP and TQ. That really highlights the difference between HP and TQ.

Well, I like Lucky Phils explanation. That is pretty much the way I think of it as well. As to a truck making 300 hp ( or more likely 300 lb/ft of torque) vs a car making the same amount of power, I think that is more a function of where the torque is in the rpm range and the area under the curve. A broader torque curve can be a good thing in a street car, and even more so in a tow vehicle. Here is a link to a great article from Hot Rod Magazine that talks about the differences. One of the best parts of that article is that it highlights how people with a lot of understanding on the subject still dis-agree about the difference between HP and TQ. I don't think of the Guzzi motor as an overly torquey motor. It makes good torque, but compare to the Buell X1 I used to own it is not that torquey. Most on here seem to think of the Guzzi motor as a rev'er, and again, compared to previous bikes I have own it is not that either. I think it is very much a mid range motor, with an almost electric motor abundance of power at 5 grand. And yes, Honda Kool-Aid is red. Edit; forgot the link. http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/hrdp-0401-torque-horsepower-guide/

"Not for Highway Use"?

I was on another forum, a much less exciting forum full of Honda Kool-aid drinkers, and the topic of horsepower vs torque came up. There was a side aspect of that, what is the best rpm to shift at. I have little faith that the topic will yield very exciting conversation there, but I expect that the same topic here may yield better results. And I enjoy discussing technical things like that. I find that a fair number of people don't fully understand the relationship between horsepower and torque. Some people say things like "torque is really what is important", or "I would rather have a motor with lots of torque than one with lots of horsepower". They often don't pay attention to WHERE the torque is made, at what rpm, and what impact that has on horsepower and how fast it will then go. An example, they posted a chart comparing the horsepower and torque between a Honda NC700 and an Suzuki SV650. The Honda only made about 2 lb-ft of torque less than the SV, but because of the difference in rpm where the torque is made the SV killed the Honda on horsepower, making something to the effect of 40% more horsepower. 1/4 mile times I found show the SV kills the NC in spite of the NC having more displacement. I am sure the NC is easier to ride around town, as is the CTX that shares the motor and drive train. And it does get better gas mileage (by an equal chunk more) in spite of being heavier. I just find it interesting how the dynamics of torque, horsepower, and rpm, work

+1 on fun factor - all aspects exactly as you describe it. That 440 2-stroke must like riding Thor's Hammer. Your other remarks make me think I should swap air filters - I've got mismatched high vs low flow things on the bikes. LeMans has sawed-off titanium exhaust with a paper filter in the stock air-box; Scura has stock exhaust with a K&N filter in the stock air-box. Would be a good experiment (but not today). BTW - I'm probably faster on the quiet and stealthy Scura, but the LeMans sounds faster. They're both fun. Thors Hammer.... Yeah, that fits. But the name of the bike is Gabriela, as in Gabriela Sabatini. Yeah, I am a bit old. But when you ride the 440 in the woods it is all about short burst of throttle. So the bike makes these loud, short, Braaap!!!! sounds. The rest of the time the throttle is closed and you are trying not to hit trees. It reminds me of listening to Gabriela Sabatini playing tennis. Most of my vehicles have K&N filters or the like in the stock air box. Two have a stock paper filter in a stock air box. One has K&N pods and no air box, but the stock air box on that one supposedly was not designed well (Guzzi Daytona). I laugh when people say the K&N filters kill motors. I have had motors last for over 100,000 miles with K&N filters. I am sure if you don't clean them and re-oil them on a regular basis they can let dirt in. But I have seen bikes, Guzzi's included, that have no filter at all last for more than a few miles. As long as the filter is keeping out rocks and other things large enough to do damage to the motor I am happy. I don't ride these things in the dirt for Christs sake.

I don't know if all these performance mods make us faster, but that is not always the point. I also have found that I go faster on a quieter bike. I think it is because I am more likely to rev it out when it is not so loud. I could point out the classic " A motor is just an air pump, and anything you do to help get more air in or more air out allows the motor to make more power". I have no doubt that a paper filter, especially when new, can flow enough air to make the motor run. And if that is all you care about you should stop there (other than changing that filter often because as it gets dirty flow goes down, fast). But if you want more power from your motor it makes sense to look at ways to get more air into and out of your motor. All you need to do is make sure you are adding the right amount of fuel to go with the extra air flow. But the main reason I ride is for fun, and all these performance mods make my bikes more fun. The sound, the feel, even the act of tinkering, it all adds to my sense of enjoyment. A great example of this is my dirt bike. I used to have a DR350, then I bought a KTM 440. I was already pretty fast on the DR350, and the 440 really made way more power than I needed in the woods here in the east. So I was not really any faster on the 440, but the 440 was so much more fun to ride. It would plaster a smile on my face that would last for days. It felt like it could bend time and space between the trees. The DR350 finally died, and I later bought a DRZ400. But I subsequently sold the DRZ400 and I still have the KTM 440. They just don't make 'em like that any more. I don't think I will ever sell the 440.

I did not know he had an auto parts chain.....

Once the fluid boils, the water that may be in the fluid can turn to steam, plus other components of the brake fluid turn to gas. When the system cools off, most of the steam would revert to water but the other components that turned to gas stay as a gas. They do not return to being part of the brake fluid. The result is that the brake do come back but not quite back to 100% normal.

I also am not sure the fluid is actually boiling. My experience with boiled brake fluid is once it boils it does not come back to 100% normal without bleeding. Clearly something is going on, but I would be surprised that the fluid is boiling. I don't think it is the only possible explanation. The only way I could see the fluid boiling would be if you are dragging the brake constantly, and the discoloration of the brake disc would be a clear sign of the heat being generated. And, as I said, I don't think it would come back to normal in a short time. It may be overheating the brakes, but boiling fluid causes a chemical change in the fluid that does not just go away when it cools down.

What brand tires do you normally prefer. Tires are such a subjective thing. There are few "Bad" tires out there, but there are subtle differences between brands. I prefer Michelins, but the only tires I have ever hated were Bridgestones. But other people like Bridgestones, even my wife. It is kinda like asking what the best flavor of ice cream is.

That Coppa is sweet, but $10k? They clearly expect to get the cost of the mods back out of it. Around here that ain't how it works. The more you mod a bike the less of what you spent will actually come back to you when you sell it. Lovely bike, too bad they don't ride it. Hope the next owner does.

Guzzi's have more weight on the rear than most other bikes. Plus, V11's have a small rear brake for the size. Todd even had a plan at one time to offer a larger rear brake with a larger pad to go with it. I don't know if he ever went anywhere with it. If you use the rear brake much on a V11 I can see having issues. I use the rear brake very little, and I have no issues. However, I think you need to determine whether it is just fading or if you are actually boiling the fluid. If you boil the fluid the brakes will fade and they don't fully come back until you bleed them. If they fade but after cooling they come completely back I don't think that is likely the fluid boiled. Boiled fluid needs bleeding to get braking fully back to normal. It is also possible you are exceeding the operational temperature of the brake pads. I would suggest if that is the case you should switch to a full metallic, perhaps an HH pad. EBC should offer such a pad for the rear brake of a V11, but I would consider trying either stock Brembo pads or a different brand. EBC are not exactly the top line brake pad company. That said, they do offer some good high friction full metallic pads. But consistency over a wide operational temperature range is not always their strong point.

I got chewed out for suggesting something like that once before. All Guzzi's are limited production. Having a numbered plaque is not required. Some are less common than others, having a numbered plaque has little to do with it. My '93 Daytona is probably rarer than a Scura, my wifes Lario is probably rarer still. But that has little to do with how much fun they all are to ride. I enjoy riding ALL my Guzzi's, and would happily enjoy riding yours if you want to lend it to me ;-) Can't we all just get along?????