rologuzzi Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 What we are looking for is the temperature around the combustion chamber. Therefore the OEM used plastic part, properly assembled, is perfect (as long as it doesn't brake, of course). The brass replacement may be rocksolid, but it transfers more heat off of the NTC, cools it down. I'm not sure of how much effect this has, but the hotter NTC is, for sure, in the plastic housing (again - as long as it's properly assembled!). BTW, on my bike I can monitor the head temperature on Cliff's Optimiser. After about 3 miles it shows 75°C (ambient 10°), operating temp. is about 95°C (ambient 20°C). Interesting is the fact, that at idle it rises rapidly to 120° and more. 125°C I can see also when I show off the Quat-D while cruising between all those Coburg street cafès The temperature rises fast, but goes down only very slowly and never in city traffic! Hubert The temps I've measured using Technoresearch software are consistent with your figures, although they were measured at idle from a cold start. Max has been around 100. No doubt it would get hotter & eventually cook if left to idle for long enough. Adding PC heatsink silver oxide thermal grease to the gap between the sensor & holder has definitely improved heat transfer (max temp indicated before was around 70-80) but hasn't had a pronounced effect on how the engine runs. So far, the sensor doesn't seem to be suffering too much at the higher temps. Resistance values are the same as before the addition of heatsink grease. I am running a stock setup with the exception of Staintunes. Starting, idle & response through the rev range are excellent, as is fuel consumption (18km/litre around town, 20-21km/litre highway). It doesn't seem to exhibit signs of being overly rich when cold as described by many others; why this should be is a mystery to me, but I'm not complaining either. I noticed MG's have a brass sensor holder advertised (part #30163301, $29.95). Does anyone know if this is suitable for the V11? If so, surely it would be a cost effective alternative to the very fragile plastic stock unit. Cheers Tony
guzzijack Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 It doesn't seem to exhibit signs of being overly rich when cold as described by many others; why this should be is a mystery to me, but I'm not complaining either. I noticed MG's have a brass sensor holder advertised (part #30163301, $29.95). Does anyone know if this is suitable for the V11? If so, surely it would be a cost effective alternative to the very fragile plastic stock unit. Your bike is probably running well because you have already filled the holder/sensor gap with a suitable heat conducting material, (maybe also the EFI is set up well?). The part number looks good for the replacement brass holder but why bother? IMHO, unless I had a plastic holder which was damaged in some way I'd just do as you have done and fill it with copper grease or a more dedicated thermal conducting paste. I think people are getting too wound up about changing them. GJ
Gio Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 I forget which fittiing I used, but it was one that wedged in nice and bit will enough to get it out. Thanks Dave - as there is not enough room for the entire impact driver (without removing the airbox) presumably you just used an appropriate tip and a regular drive ...? Did it require much force? Also and for those fortunate enough to have removed the black plastic top and lower part as one piece (Ryan?) - can you confirm my expectation that the lower stock part is threaded as per brass replacement .. I'm anxious to try the new sensor holder as I have full history of poor fuel consumption (~12.5 km/l or 35mpg around town to ~15 km/l or 42 mpg on highway) ... Cheers, Gio
Gio Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 OK - I managed to remove the lower portion of the stock holder by cutting a slot across the top (need to remove oil line to valve housing to allow small hacksaw blade to pass between cooling fins) and then using impact driver bit - it did not move easily! Replaced with brass holder. Filled all voids with Copaslip and checked temperature (at top of brass holder) ~100 C when engine fully warmed up which rises to ~110 C max ~2 mins after stopping. Will report back on any change in fuel consumption. Gio
pete roper Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 OK, this is just me but if replacing the sensor required taking the airbox and all that shit out I'd just pop the head off and do it on the bench. You can have the head off in 10-15 minutes whereas pulling all the inlet tract munt off would be a right royal PITA! Pete
rologuzzi Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 Your bike is probably running well because you have already filled the holder/sensor gap with a suitable heat conducting material, (maybe also the EFI is set up well?). The part number looks good for the replacement brass holder but why bother? IMHO, unless I had a plastic holder which was damaged in some way I'd just do as you have done and fill it with copper grease or a more dedicated thermal conducting paste. I think people are getting too wound up about changing them. GJ Yes, my bike is well set up & I have no immediate intention of replacing the stock sensor holder. I believe in the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" & the plastic holder isn't broken (yet). However, its nice to know that there's a readily available alternative to the stock unit should (when) the unmentionable occur. Tony
Gio Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 OK, this is just me but if replacing the sensor required taking the airbox and all that shit out I'd just pop the head off and do it on the bench. You can have the head off in 10-15 minutes whereas pulling all the inlet tract munt off would be a right royal PITA! Pete No need to remove airbox Pete - was just commenting that there is not enough room to get a straight shot with an impact driver - managed to get the little bugger out after cutting a slot in the top. Gio Yes, my bike is well set up & I have no immediate intention of replacing the stock sensor holder. I believe in the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" & the plastic holder isn't broken (yet). However, its nice to know that there's a readily available alternative to the stock unit should (when) the unmentionable occur. Tony 100% agreed. If I was getting your reported fuel consumption of 18/21 km/litre (mine is currently 13/15) I would not have bothered - but based on other reports I think this is worth a try - stay tuned for actual results ... Gio
Gio Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 Based on 3 fill-ups (20.9 l in 283.9km), around-town fuel-consumption has improved from 12.5 to 13.6 km per litre (35.4 to 38.4 mpg) or an increase of 8.8% - not as much as I had hoped for but I'll take it. Bike runs great - some evidence of running leaner (a little cough and splutter after decelerating from speed to tick-over eg at lights) and hope to fix that at next tune-up. Plugs look fine. Gio
Guzzi2Go Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 So I did the mod too. Squeezed some CPU thermal grease into the temp sensor hole. Took it for a spin today, starting with a slow, city ride (low rev, low gear), with a bit of 100 km/h left-right-left... General impression is that the bike now runs smoother. Especially the city ride seems to be much more comfortable, as the bike does not tend to jump on every slight motion of throttle. Devil will know if it is a cure or a placebo?
Guest Mattress Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 [size=7]I can't resist throwing my 2 pennies in this discussion. I'm sorry but I'm almost certain I am correct in my opinion, but please don't take it as arrogance. I'm learning I need to start trusting my thought process and intuition because its nearly always close to correct. I don't know why. But now I think some people are just born that way. Doesn't mean we are better or superior. here it goes. The switch to plastic had no engineering requirement. It was a cost reduction (definition is below) Likely scenario: the gap was a) a F-up in communication along the enterprise and supply chain, or the part was already made and in service somewhere in the universe and the supplier helped convince everyone to use it. Stranger crap happens everyday I swear in todays decline of western civilization's industrial base. Lets do a study. Someone out there must have a heap of Guzzis in the shed from a broad timeline. But we can focus on the latter models with electronic to ECU ignition controls. Pull out all the sensors. Identify the holder material. Measure the length, maybe take a photo. Stick a pencil down the hole and measure tap depth. Write measurement data on the back of a crusty enevlope rather than Excel spreadshit. The only thing I can think of to justify a gap is poor manufacturing capability and tolerance that spooked the ignored engineers, already stunned and insulted by the decision to inforce a piece of plastic ****, who could only imagine the daily meeting nightmares if these things bottomed out on the assembly line and exploded the casing in a cloud of polymer buckminster balls. I take no satisfaction in being right except that I hope it is true I am so I build confidence in using my skill/gift instead of ignoring it as hocus. A lot of opportunities passed bye that way and probably a few fun nights "takin it to the mattresses" after closing time. (Cost Reduction means: its not cheaper for you the consumer, you pay the "price" which is different than "cost". the delta is PROFIT usually, until the business clowns are slapped around by the finance division when the TRUE cost of inferior quality detonates the Excel spreadsheets as warrantee data rolls in the door. Next, both parties walk over to engineering - throw the hot potato and split to their new job at a higher level....Shwew! George! the engineers screwed that one up eh? wink wink)[/size]
guzzijack Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Likely scenario: the gap was a) a F-up in communication along the enterprise and supply chain, or the part was already made and in service somewhere in the universe and the supplier helped convince everyone to use it. I'll go with scenario B The sensor is a standard MM item and has been used across the automotive and auto racing sectors. No doubt the holder is an off the peg item as well. I'm surmising here but........ as the main volume market for the sensor is within the four wheeled automotive world, is it possible it was designed to be fitted into a liquid cooled environment? (EDIT: Yes it is, as it is listed as a fluid temp sensor!). Maybe the Moto Guzzi application is the ONLY air-cooled one it is used in? Could explain why they perform better with the cavity filled - and no I don't mean to suggest that the holder would have been liquid filled in other applications, just that the temperature parameters may have been different/lower. EDIT AGAIN: I think I've cracked it! The sensor is designed as a FLUID temp sensor. Placing it in the holder is an O/E bodge of the first order by Moto Guzzi. By filling the holder we, the second line bodgers, have merely reverted the sensor to reading as it should do!!!!! Here's a cut and paste from the COG forum with info I found out about some of the sensors/suppliers etc. QUOTE David Wye from this forum alerted me to the fact that the Demon Tweeks Motorsports catalogue http://www.demon-tweeks.co.uk/ listed a correctly sized 58.5mm preload adjustment spanner for the rear shock - item C101 £5.52. This is in the car catalogue and not the bike one! Also in the catalogue are a range of sensors from MM Competition Systems Limited http://www.mmcompsys.com/aftermarkethomecommonparts.html These include the following items: TPS PF09 (item PF09) £65 Phase/cam sensor (item SEN8K-3) £28 MAP air pressure (item PRT 03/04) £45 Oil temp (blue) sensor (item WTS05) £28 There are also injectors, connectors and coils listed and they look to be equivilent to MG O/E ones but I haven't got a cross-reference on them yet. All are plus VAT and postage and I'm not sure how the other items compare to O/E prices but the TPS is the best I've seen yet. END QUOTE GJ
Guest Mattress Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Excellent research! Now, why I want to confirm date of implementation is to correlate it with known corporate history. If it lines up well with any known financial crisis, sudden introduction of other "newly" designed old parts, Aprilia, etc. I'm feeling a lift in confidence. I can literally see snapshots in my mind of the days inside the company we don't fully know about but I'm witnessing the remake everyday. I'm going to need it as I leap away from my career soon.
guzzijack Posted August 30, 2007 Posted August 30, 2007 Excellent research! Now, why I want to confirm date of implementation is to correlate it with known corporate history. If it lines up well with any known financial crisis, sudden introduction of other "newly" designed old parts, Aprilia, etc. I'm feeling a lift in confidence. Ha! that's an easy one - pick any date from inception to the present . What's the company's strapline? "Moto Guzzi, proudly going out of business since 1923" GJ
dlaing Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 So, do you chosen ones suppose they added thermal grease or had a brass holder when they mapped the ECU to that temperature curve? Also in the catalogue are a range of sensors from MM Competition Systems Limited http://www.mmcompsys.com/aftermarkethomecommonparts.html These include the following items: TPS PF09 (item PF09) £65 Phase/cam sensor (item SEN8K-3) £28 MAP air pressure (item PRT 03/04) £45 Oil temp (blue) sensor (item WTS05) £28 There are also injectors, connectors and coils listed and they look to be equivilent to MG O/E ones but I haven't got a cross-reference on them yet. All are plus VAT and postage and I'm not sure how the other items compare to O/E prices but the TPS is the best I've seen yet. END QUOTE GJ Before anyone gets there hopes up about the TPS, here is the Guzzi and Harley number On their 1.5M injected bikes, Guzzi uses a Magneti Marelli PF3C TPS ($212 retail) MG part number is 01530500 On their 1995-2000 Electra Glide Models, Harley uses a Marelli PF4C TPS ($42 retail) HD part number is 27271-95 Of course if the PF09 or more likely the PF2C has a good curve it my be a good choice. Any ideas about the the other sensors? EDIT Interesting. They list a WTS05 and a WTS09 The WTS05 inserts about 27mm while the WTS09 inserts about 22.5mm. What is ours?
guzzijack Posted August 31, 2007 Posted August 31, 2007 Before anyone gets there hopes up about the TPS, here is the Guzzi and Harley number On their 1.5M injected bikes, Guzzi uses a Magneti Marelli PF3C TPS ($212 retail) MG part number is 01530500 On their 1995-2000 Electra Glide Models, Harley uses a Marelli PF4C TPS ($42 retail) HD part number is 27271-95 Of course if the PF09 or more likely the PF2C has a good curve it my be a good choice. Errr.............. As I stated in the previous message, that was posted to the COG list - the Centauro and Daytona use the PF09 NOT the PF3C. GJ
Recommended Posts