Bill Hagan Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 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. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangeokie Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Any status on the finished product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
droydx Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeeve Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangeokie Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now