Cali EV detonation

[motoguzznix]

Thanks for the update, Matt. I hadn't missed your porting analysis. Good work!

 

Have you considered swapping heads and cam? This takes me back a few years to my understanding back then that one of the primary drawbacks of the design of V-11 heads for the road is that the valves are larger than ideal for the kind of low and midrange torque I consider most desirable for the road. Before Todd Eagan swapped engines in his Jackal for one from a Sport, I'd considered swapping heads and cam with him. I reckon the small-valve, milder cam Jackal engine is better suited to the road for 99+% of riders, whether they understand this or not. Todd (being truly one o' those 1%'er's! ) was interested in doing this, but at that point in time, I had relatively low miles on my Sport heads and had no other reason to have the heads off, and I didn't have enough motivation for this kind of excursion without a need for heads off in the first place.

 

Since "bigger" and "more" is generally always considered "better" in the world of moto modification, I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult to find a Jackal rider somewhere interested in a swap when it's time for top-end refurb. To each his own, as they say? I'd be interested to know if you'd considered this y'erself.

Ratchet

 

When you look at the flow graph linked above, there is a comparison of the V11 big valve head and my Lemans 2 heads, which sport the same 44/37 valves like the Cali1100/Jakal.

The smaller ports of the small valve heads are flowing better at high lift than the V11 ports. So the Cali heads can make better use of the Valve lift given by the V11 cam (10,5 mm) than the V11 itself.

 

I haven't measured the lift curve of the actual Calis, but I suggest the design has not much changed compared to the ealier, approx. 9 mm lift cams with very long duration. These cams used by Guzzi since the mid 70s are of a very undesirable design which I woudn't like to see in any of my own engines.

When swapping the heads to to the Cali style ones, I would retain the V11 cam with shorter duration and more lift. Power will be better throughout the revrange. But be careful: with the cali valve springs the max rpm is limited to somewhat above 7000, maybe 7500 but not more! So I would also retain the V11 valve springs/collars. Give the springs 0,5 - 1 mm less preload (36 - 36,5 instead of 35,5 mm quoted) and you will be safe to a little above 8000 rpm. This is what a Guzzi engine should be capable for.

One step further in midrage performance can be done by the use of an aftermarket cam designed for the mid valve heads like the Calis, Dynotec 8206, HMB 8206 or Bruno Scola OSS. These cams have shorter duration and more lift than the V11 cams contributing to higher valve acceleration. This is good for bottom end and midrange power and reduced fuel consumption. Use them either with the springs recommended by the cam manufacturer or with the stock V11 valve springs, as these are of good design. The Cali springs are definitely not.

 

You need the Cali pistons and cylinders too, as the domes of the V11 pistons are too big for the Cali heads. To get an optimal squish band, the cylinder barrels have to be shortened to get the pistons completely on top of the bore at TDC. This is importent to be done, as the compression ratio benefits too and that is fine. Valve clearence has to be checked at that state of progress - heads and cylinders skimmed, cam timing correct, assembled with the right gaskets.

The inlet port at the flange should be slightly reworked to cope with the manifolds. Blend in the shape of the inlet port if necessary.

 

Following this route you will end up with an engine with no less power than stock V11 but much more toque low down. Remember: this engine configuration is very different to the V11 and the Cali too, so the standard mapping should change - a custom map worked out on a Dyno would be the correct route to get the best out of the engine. I would also lower the rev limiter to 8000. Supposedly the standard mapping will work and produce a drivable engine, but my suggestion is that the maps can be leaned out in some areas to make full use of the fuel saving potential of the engine. The choice is yours.

 

Maybe some experianced engine builder in the forum can make some comments whether my guesses here are correct or not.

[mark.gilmore]

My Calidfornia EV is detonating at high speed. It has taken a while to convince myself that this is actually what happens, but it is prominent on hot days, up hill and two up, above 140km/h. It seems to start after sustained speed of 5 to 10 minutes. you hear a mechanical noise, not like the normal ping, but something more like a hammering sound. After it starts, more power just give more noise, not much more speed.

We can get only 93 and 95 perol. Strangely, 93 or 95, it does not seem to make a difference. We are 1600m above sea level, and it is rather hot about 30 Celcius.

I am after the easiest changes first, like spark plugs, ignition etc, but I am not sure what can be adjusted on the EV.

Any ideas?

 

I stopped my detonation by Cliff's My15,LC1,WB02 sensor.no more ping. While I was there,K&N+straight through X-over.Sweet as.Heaps more torque.

[Guest ratchethack]

Maybe some experianced engine builder in the forum can make some comments whether my guesses here are correct or not.

Matt, thanks for continuing to contribute to our knowledge base here. This is exactly the kind of thing I consider most valuable about this Forum and I thank you, Sir! Your last post goes into my Clyinder Head Refurb file. I will make good use of this info (and more) in preparation for "heads off" time.

 

Many thanks again also to Todd E. for weighing in here. I'll check with you on those Jackal heads when the time comes.

 

This seems like a good time as any to throw the following out in hopes of drawing informed comment:

 

Ed Milich at GuzziTech is one of those long-time Guzzi engine builders with decades of experience. In one of his posts back in August of last year, Ed recommended a few parameters for setting up the heads, and this went in my Cylinder Head Refurb file. In fact, this is wot got me started on my "fishing expedition" for wot quickly turned out to be the non-existent stock "squish clearance":

 

Ed recommended:

 

Squish, .040"

Valve to piston, (intake) .06-.10", (exhaust) .10"

Valve to valve, .025"

 

EDIT: I may have got this wrong! If so, my apologies to Ed! Any comments?

 

Long as this thread seems thoroughly hijacked (sorry, Guido - I plead less than partial innocence, I'm just going where the thread leads, but probably should have started a new thread ):

 

Any o' you guys interested in this discussion have any opinions on the wisdom of going to smaller throttle bodies and intake spigots - again in search of enhanced low and midrange torque spread for the road -- not dyno peaks at WOT for track or Bonneville Salt Flats ) , which would seem to be a better match to the small valve heads per discussion above?

 

Any comments? Matt? Todd? Beuhler? Buehler?

 

TIA

[motoguzznix]

Matt, thanks for continuing to contribute to our knowledge base here.

 

Any o' you guys interested in this discussion have any opinions on the wisdom of going to smaller throttle bodies and intake spigots - again in search of enhanced low and midrange torque spread for the road -- not dyno peaks at WOT for track or Bonneville Salt Flats ) , which would seem to be a better match to the small valve heads per discussion above?

 

Any comments? Matt? Todd? Beuhler? Buehler?

 

TIA

One comment I have to make: my name is Ernst, not Matt.

 

I would stick with the V11 throttle bodys, as they are matched to the V11 frame. The effort to match them to the Cali heads is minor.

My 950 ccm LM2 worked very well with the 40 mm Dell'Orto Carbs from 2000 to 8000 rpm. The flow of the 40 mm Carbs should be comparable to the flow of the 45 mm V11 throttle bodys. With the increased capacity of the 1064 cc engine and the use of the fuel injection this should work even better. The bigger engine can make better use of the biggger intake area.

[Guest ratchethack]

One comment I have to make: my name is Ernst, not Matt.

 

I would stick with the V11 throttle bodys, as they are matched to the V11 frame. The effort to match them to the Cali heads is minor.

My 950 ccm LM2 worked very well with the 40 mm Dell'Orto Carbs from 2000 to 8000 rpm. The flow of the 40 mm Carbs should be comparable to the flow of the 45 mm V11 throttle bodys. With the increased capacity of the 1064 cc engine and the use of the fuel injection this should work even better. The bigger engine can make better use of the biggger intake area.

Thanks again, Ernst. So sorry about my confusion on y'er name. Somehow I had it right for awhile, then got me wires crossed.

 

I appreciate your thoughts on throttle body size.

 

Are the Cali throttle bodies smaller than the V11 TBs?

[motoguzznix]

Are the Cali throttle bodies smaller than the V11 TBs?

The Cali TBs are 40 mm Diameter, the V11 are 45 mm.

But the Calis are routed and linked in a different way so they might not fit to the V11 frame with reduced space under the main tube.