Crack-proof V11S headers...

[Bill Hagan]

Be sure to put a hose clamp on each of your new headers . . . And don't forget: Properly installed headers do not crack . . .

 

Thanks, Greg.

 

[Note to self: Plan visit to Seattle soon or hire someone to slap Greg into next county. Hmmmmmm. Door 2 might be safer; messing with black-powder guys can be risky. ]

[orangeokie]

Any status on the finished product?

[droydx]

This is a great idea! I'm definitely down for a set. I've cracked the left side header, and even with the stainless shim replacement set, am always messing around with leaks from the front X=over. I'm ready for a set NOW!

Andy

[Duncan]

I would also be interested in a set, but I am still concerned with the effect that the lack of a front crossover might have on the engine characteristics. Have there been any comparisons on the dyno between the two setups?

[Guest ratchethack]

I would also be interested in a set, but I am still concerned with the effect that the lack of a front crossover might have on the engine characteristics. Have there been any comparisons on the dyno between the two setups?

I had the same thoughts. FWIW, when my Pal with '04 LM ended his long nightmare with leaky/banging front crossover by having the header spigots welded shut, he said he couldn't detect any difference wotsoever, and I b'lieve he's pretty sensitive to such things.

[Skeeve]

I would also be interested in a set, but I am still concerned with the effect that the lack of a front crossover might have on the engine characteristics. Have there been any comparisons on the dyno between the two setups?

 

The front x-over was added to resolve the hole in the powerband 4k-5k rpm. For Guzzi, this was much easier to do than to redesign the exhaust & recertify w/ various govt. certifications, since none of the existing muffler/cat-con system would be affected by the addition of a front x-over.

 

The Stucchi x-over replaces the factory 'pre-muffler' and resolves the flat spot by utilizing a more elegant engineering solution. It also reduces some wt. vs. the factory exhaust w/ front x-over & pre-muffler.

 

The Stucchi 2->1->2 style x-over is a wonderful solution that fits within a predetermined space, but I suspect even they wish they could have done it differently: way too many direction changes going on there for the exhaust to be happy about it! I think Guzzi got smart when they built in a better 2->1 pipe when they were designing the Griso...

 

In my own private Idaho, I'd have the equivalent to an EXUP-valve in place of the factory pre-muffler, and some sort of variable intake-horn on the throttle bodies : the Guzzi mill needs all the help it can get w/ the high-rpm breathing, but we all love it for it's grunt: this way, you'd get to have and eat your cake too!

 

So, if I designed one of these, how many would want one? Even if it meant it was as heavy [or even heavier] than the stock system? Not as sexy as Ti/Carbon Fibre/Alloy cans, is it? Sic transit gloria mundania...

 

[Duncan]

I resolved the midrange hole in the powerband when I installed the MG titanium pipes and ECU. The end result was awesome, and my dyno graphs showed a healthy difference in midrange torque between 4000-6000 without the big dip. I just dont want to mess up my near perfect fueling by drastically changing the exhaust system.

[orangeokie]

The front x-over was added to resolve the hole in the powerband 4k-5k rpm. For Guzzi, this was much easier to do than to redesign the exhaust & recertify w/ various govt. certifications, since none of the existing muffler/cat-con system would be affected by the addition of a front x-over. . .

 

MG sold two different ECU's with their Ti cans, depending on whether you had the front cross-over header.