Stucci cross over install

[belfastguzzi]

As per the other thread, you might as well remove the long pipe, as it won't be doing anything. It's not a drain.

[Greg Field]

I'm no nannystater. But I can tellyou the charcoal cannister does serve a useful purpose, at least when newish and functioning. Afer removing mine, there's definitely more gas fumes vented into my garage. I can smell the difference clearly everytime I go there.

 

Will it bother you? Only you can say.

[Mr. Bean]

As per the other thread, you might as well remove the long pipe, as it won't be doing anything. It's not a drain.

 

Are you sure? On my bike this was the same hose with the infamous tipover valve on it. I was led to believe it is tied into the internal vent plumbing of the tank. If you are unlucky enough to have a tipover, gas will leak out of the under tank fitting onto your engine. I'm only guessing here based on my experience with my MZ. It had a tipover with the cannister in place and it flooded the cannister with raw fuel. Finally had to remove the cannister to alleviate starting problems from over-rich mixture. I ran that line as I did on this Ballabio. If I over filled the tank and left it in the sun it would drip fuel from the vent down the tube and onto the ground.

 

Randy

[Crooz]

All this info is great... I'm learning a little more each day. HOWEVER... I have yet to see a clear-cut answer to the question "will removing the canister and plugging or tying together the tubes from the throttle bodys change the engine performance/cranking/ect... ?

Additionally, does it make any performance difference what-so-ever if when removed the tubes to the throttle body's are plugged vs tied together?

[Cleanwater]

The charcoal canister is there to draw gasoline vapors that would be normally vented to the atmosphere. The vapor is stored in the canister until the engine is running. The vacuum of the engine then will pull the gas vapor out of the canister thus saving the earth. When I remove the canisters, I box them up and store them in the garage for safe keeping. Just incase California starts to do emission checks on motorcycles.

 

Mike

 

 

The draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Clean Air Act for California includes annual inspections for emmissions compliance for motorcycles. The draft points to the high frequency of emmissions system tampering for motorcycles. Lets hope (and push the AMA to advocate) that the testing only applies to new motorcycles...

[belfastguzzi]

Are you sure? On my bike this was the same hose with the infamous tipover valve on it. I was led to believe it is tied into the internal vent plumbing of the tank. If you are unlucky enough to have a tipover, gas will leak out of the under tank fitting onto your engine.

Randy

Uk etc bikes don't come with any of that stuff in the first place.

There is just the left side pipe – which is the drain from the recess in the tank. There is no pipe attached to the right side tank outlet and from what I remember, the 'in-tank' end of that tube seals up into the vent system in the tank cap. It wouldn't-couldn't drain in any normal circumstances. If the bike fell over on its left side, fuel, if it could escape past the seal would run out the left side drain. If it fell on its right side, I don't know, maybe some would get in through the vent and so escape down the right side tube, but I imagine that either way, more petrol might just escape the seal and run out from the cap.

 

I can't see how you could fill the tank so completely full that expanding petrol would be forced into and then out of the vent. Definitely spilled fuel leaks from the left side drain (when you are filling the tank), but that's a different matter and it will only be a little amount and do no harm.

 

As I understand it, the vent is for gaseous gas (as in the UK meaning of the word) passing either way through the system, whereas the drain is for liquid (whether water or petroleum).

 

I may be missing something: so if an American citizen with experience of the 'extra' pipes, fittings and infamous tip-over valve would like to confirm or correct – please do so.

 

 

As for the 'performance difference / cranking etc' ~ surely it makes no difference whatsoever. Just throw the stuff away, plug the holes and do the normal tuning set-up that you would do anyway, or not as the case may be. In my experience, removing, plugging or re-routing emmissions / breathe-back pipes hasn't made any difference to how an older engine runs. It may do on a modern motor with dependencies built-in and with a hundred sensors and more computers than Cape Canaveral – a £70,000 Range Rover maybe – but we buy Guzzis 'cause they don't have that stuff and don't work that way. Praise be.

 

Edit. Guzziology probably has something to say on this. ?

[Mr. Bean]

Cool...I'll have to check the next time I lift the tank...If i can remove that, I'm all for it....one less thing to get in the way. I gotta admit that I have never had the fuel leak from the Guzzi, only the MZ which had a different cap.

 

I agree that there is no difference in the tuning of the bike with or without the cannister in place. Obviously the engine will idle faster if the ports on the throttle bodies are not capped or plugged but otherwise no difference....

[Greg Field]

At least on the later bikes, the right is the vent for the tank, and the left is a drain that drains the well that surrounds the filler hole.

 

The left one drains away water that leaks in the filler well from rain and any fuel that splashes or overflows out of the filler hole.

 

There must be a vent, or the tank would be stressed under a strong vacuum as the fuel is drawn out by the pump. At least on US bikes, this vent is routed through a tip-over valve and to a charcoal cannister that is meant to trap any fuel vapor that might emit from the vent line. I have seen a V11 tip over and begin gushing fuel out of this vent line, so I'd recommend keeping a tip-over valve in that line.

[belfastguzzi]

so I'd recommend keeping a tip-over valve in that line.

Were there not complaints about this valve in early threads here? Can't remember what exactly (Al Rottenburger is the expert here and on anything in the general fuel tank area). Is it possible that it might sometimes malfunction / become blocked and cause the tank-suck that seems to plague American bikes?

Just asking

MG obviously consider it safe to let the rest of us ride without it

...along with exploding factory flywheels that they blessed some of us with and run-dry mains...

[belfastguzzi]

more gas fumes vented into my garage. I can smell the difference clearly everytime I go there.

so that's a benefit then "Must go out and sniff the garage once more...just for safety's sake you understand" mmmmmmmmm

[Greg Field]

Tipover valves can malfunction, like any other mechanical devise.

 

More often, tank suck is caused by a properly functioning tipover valve that is mounted at enough of an angle that it does what it's supposed to do: Block flow.

 

They can be secured in place so they operate properly. Here's a photo of how to do so (looking aftward):

 

 

Just use a zip-tie over the valve and air horn to hold the valve upright.

[Tom M]

The gentleman who has been parting his bike out in the classifieds section, biggbikerrick, had his bike catch fire and burn after an accident. He thinks the fire was a direct result of him removing the tipover valve to eliminate the tank suck problem.

 

IMO Greg's "zip tie it so it's vertical" suggestion is the way to go.

[Dan M]

All this info is great... I'm learning a little more each day. HOWEVER... I have yet to see a clear-cut answer to the question "will removing the canister and plugging or tying together the tubes from the throttle bodys change the engine performance/cranking/ect... ?

Additionally, does it make any performance difference what-so-ever if when removed the tubes to the throttle body's are plugged vs tied together?

 

I'm running with mine capped. Runs great, no issues performing a TB balance. I would think that tying them together would be of benefit if the bikes were carbureted, as manifold vacuum effects fuel delivery. Not the case with fuel injection.

JMHO

[JoeV11]

All this info is great... I'm learning a little more each day. HOWEVER... I have yet to see a clear-cut answer to the question "will removing the canister and plugging or tying together the tubes from the throttle bodys change the engine performance/cranking/ect... ?

Additionally, does it make any performance difference what-so-ever if when removed the tubes to the throttle body's are plugged vs tied together?

I just want to add my to this old topic. I had the dealer (Marsh Motors) install a Stucci crossover on my otherwise completely stock '04 V11 Sport and while they were there they removed the cannister. They always join the intake tubes with a piece of hose to even out the idle. They just leave the tank vent to dangle. I do not smell any gas in my garage, which is an improvement from when I removed the cap gasket to prevent tank suck. (They fixed a misrouted tip-over valve hose to solve that problem.)

 

Marsh Motors also synched the TPS adjustments, and told me the bike was running so well it didn't need a Power Commander with the Stucci x-over. I don't know if the stock ECU would tolerate further improvements to the motor, but for me it's running great now, and I'll leave the rest of it stock and concentrate on tuning the suspension.

 

Riding weather is finally here!!!

 

Joe

[WitchCityBallabio]

Just out of curiosity....does adding the Stucci crossover give the stock pipes a better sound, or is it strictly a performance upgrade?