More pony's please

[Guest ratchethack]

GMOTO, I b'lieve you're still missing my point. Sure your V11 makes more power at all throttle settings than mine. The point is, that as long as we're both at less than WOT, all I need do is crack open a little more throttle to make the same power -- and there it is! If I want "MORE RESPONSIVE" throttle, I simply whack it open a little more. In my own case (100% riding on the road, not the track) -- which I doubt is so unusual, even if others are somehow disinclined to admit it, I hardly EVER hit my throttle stop. I b'lieve that truth be told, just about everyone not doing track time with their Guzzi's is likely doing much the same.

 

Wot it boils down to, in other words, GMOTO, is that unless (and until) you're hitting WOT a "significant" percentage of your time and holding it open up thru 7-8K RPM, you're not even accessing the additional power you spent all your effort chasing. Capice?

I think it might be you that's missing the point. I understand that you don't need anymore power then you currently are getting out of your V11. That's fine. More power to ya(so to speak). But for some of us a faster, more responsive Guzzi is a good thing. That is a personal choice. Personally I choose more power and responsiveness. And both me and my wife can tell the difference. A more responsive Guzzi feels like a faster bike then it is compared to a stock Guzzi. A we both do hit the throttle stop on a frequent basis. For us it's not about improving top speed but the acceleration out of the corners. Clearly you do not ride like we do and that's fine. In the end it comes down to either you get it or you don't. I get it.

 

. . .[sigh]. . . I tried five times and five ways. Now I give up. Anybody who does "get it" wanna take a whack?

[Guest drknow]

I think it might be you that's missing the point. I understand that you don't need anymore power then you currently are getting out of your V11. That's fine. More power to ya(so to speak). But for some of us a faster, more responsive Guzzi is a good thing. That is a personal choice. Personally I choose more power and responsiveness. And both me and my wife can tell the difference. A more responsive Guzzi feels like a faster bike then it is compared to a stock Guzzi. A we both do hit the throttle stop on a frequent basis. For us it's not about improving top speed but the acceleration out of the corners. Clearly you do not ride like we do and that's fine. In the end it comes down to either you get it or you don't. I get it.

+1

 

The added value of the improvement is a personal thing, but when you're talking about 80 to 90 hp, that 10 horsepower is a huge thing. Moreover, the motor probably has much more torque at lower rpms, more responsive throttle response, etc. If you rode a stock bike and your bike back to back, they'd feel like different machines. Depending on the rider, without the improvements, a V11 wouldn't be worth owning.

 

dk

[GuzziMoto]

Thank you.

[Steve G.]

GMOTO, I b'lieve you're still missing my point. Sure your V11 makes more power at all throttle settings than mine. The point is, that as long as we're both at less than WOT, all I need do is crack open a little more throttle to make the same power -- and there it is! If I want "MORE RESPONSIVE" throttle, I simply whack it open a little more. In my own case (100% riding on the road, not the track) -- which I doubt is so unusual, even if others are somehow disinclined to admit it, I hardly EVER hit my throttle stop. I b'lieve that truth be told, just about everyone not doing track time with their Guzzi's is likely doing much the same.

 

Wot it boils down to, in other words, GMOTO, is that unless (and until) you're hitting WOT a "significant" percentage of your time and holding it open up thru 7-8K RPM, you're not even accessing the additional power you spent all your effort chasing. Capice?

 

 

The only thing that's stopping me from using full throttle WAY more is the pinging that happens at strangely irregular times.

That said, if you bought a MG for all our performance reasons, you have been misguided in your persuit. The tuning goal for an engine such as this [air cooled, 2 valve, push rod, 2 cylinder] would be to enhance it's midrange, so upshifts would not be needed for times when more "urge" is needed.

Steve

[Guest ratchethack]

The only thing that's stopping me from using full throttle WAY more is the pinging that happens at strangely irregular times.

That said, if you bought a MG for all our performance reasons, you have been misguided in your persuit. The tuning goal for an engine such as this [air cooled, 2 valve, push rod, 2 cylinder] would be to enhance it's midrange, so upshifts would not be needed for times when more "urge" is needed.

Steve

Well said, Steve. I b'lieve I agree in full, if you meant "all out" performance reasons above?

 

Indeed, the PRIMARY reason I purchased a V11 in the first place after nearly a dozen prior moto's is for the simply gorgeous shape of the TORQUE CURVE in stock state of tune, which I understood from the get-go to be EXACTLY wot I was looking for, knew to be what I considered a superb match to my kind of riding, especially when coupled to the "new" ratios in the 6 speed box. I knew in advance that the torque curve could be slightly smoothed, "the dip" at 4500 RPM could be lifted, improving the SHAPE of the midrange torque curve with a minimum of meddling with such "minor mods" as a Stucchi crossover and freer-flowing mufflers, and optimized with a PC III.

 

UNLIKE TYPICAL CHASERS OF PEAKS ON DYNO CHARTS, of which we seem to have the same super-abundance here as everywhere else, I had very close to ZERO interest in just about anything going on above 6-7K on the POWER CURVE. The hp peak was of complete disinterest to me (and still is). I'd considered taking Todd Eagan's offer at the time to swap heads to take advantage of the the smaller dia. valves on his Jackal in pursuit of enhancing the SHAPE (not the peak) of that MID-RANGE TORQUE CURVE, and would have done the deal, except I couldn't bring myself to meddle with a pristine motor in perfect state of tune not yet broken in at the time. I'd readily re-consider this kind of swap further down the road when it's time for valve guides. Todd, of course, knew exactly wot he was after. Different bird altogether.

 

So WRT the "misguided" comment above, I would add that those focused solely on POWER PEAKS on the dyno, and doing such things as camming up and porting for LARGER VALVES THAN STOCK are chasing an altogether different bird than I'm ever going to be interested in chasing -- and may I further suggest that IMHO, such kinds of efforts applied to many strictly road-going V11s tend to be those flowing thru the perpetually-revolving door of the "misguided", where the turnover is high, the mileages are low, and many a formerly pristine moto winds up unridden, sold off, and/or parted out at a great wallopping loss.

 

BAA, TJM, & YMMV

[GuzziMoto]

. . .[sigh]. . . I tried five times and five ways. Now I give up. Anybody who does "get it" wanna take a whack?

Guess not.

I agree that chasing peak power for a road going V11 is silly. But nobody here is suggesting that, as far as I can tell. All the mods we've discussed enhance the mid range torque as much as they help the peak output. I have not changed the power curve of my V11, I have amplified it. Turned it up a couple of notches. It has not cost me any drivability, reliability, or even mileage. I have no doubt that someone could screw up a V11 modding it unwisely( so perhaps it's best you leave yours as is), but if you do your homework and choose your mods wisely it is a win/win situation( if you feel the need for more power to begin with).

And as far as the pinging goes, improving the squish helped out with that a lot.

[polebridge]

'I had very close to ZERO interest in just about anything going on above 6-7K on the POWER CURVE'

 

That being the case Ratchethack, maybe you can help me out here. I installed an FBF X-pipe on my 2004 Coppa Italia V11 and had the FBF folks custom map it for me. Problem is the thing is a bit noisy in that it seems to rattle a bit a idle. Also, I have heard of a lot of problems with these pipes cracking (although mine is fine so far).

 

In light of this I have considered replacing it with a different X-pipe. Of course I have read some of the threads here and it seems like some are saying that the Mistral X-pipe gives the best mid-range boost at the expense of a little top end power compared to the Stucci. What is your opinion? Did you try the Mistral pipe and find this not to be the case? I too am more interested in improving the low-end and mid-range punch of the motor so I am inclined to try the Mistral pipe. My only concern is that I will probably need to have another map done for the Mistral wereas the Stucci and FBF are so similar in design that I may be fine with the map I am currently running.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Anybody?

[Guest ratchethack]

PB, there've been lots of posts on this but not for many years. Coupla things:

 

I'd selected the Stucchi from among the rest of the field on the basis of the credibilty of the dyno runs done by Doug Manley a few years prior. He's moved his charts around a few times on his Web site, but he's probably got the same ones up, they're as valid as ever. The Stucchi "filled in" the dip in the torque curve at 4500 RPM nicely without taking anything of consequence away in any part of the torque curve I had interest in. On top of that, it was known to be of high grade stainless, with high quality welds, and it has an integral hanger that uses the stock hanger mount, something that I b'lieve the Mistral doesn't have, IIRC? This is just me, but due to the large number of cases of split head pipes, I'd never consider a crossover without a stout hanger that takes advantage of the stock rubber mount.

 

I ran head-on into the one drawback that many others have also experienced with the Stucchi, that being the thing was "twisted" about its longitudinal axis, so it wouldn't sit flat, with the free end sitting over 1 cm free of the bench. I've advised others buying them to have their supplier do a QC on it before shipping and reject any that're that far out o' whack. This made it one effen B!tch to fit, with considerable angle grinding, filing, and lots o' language objectionable to (some) women.

 

But it's been a solid piece once fit, no cracks long term, and delivered exactly as Lofgren's dyno suggested it would in terms of seat o' the pants dyno. This is just me, but unelss you think there's some significant difference in shapes, I wouldn't expect any need wotsoever to have to do another map going to the Stucchi from the FBF. If there's a need for a new map, it shouldn't be very much of a need.

 

Good luck.

[savagehenry]

Hi again,

I posted the info on my bike to illustrate a couple of questions in ALdad's original post.

1. These bikes are easily modified to make more overall HP, and the torque can also be improved. And you can do these mods with either or both as your goal.

2. Done properly, vast improvements do not mean you must sacrifice reliability.

3. If you like to "Dyno Race", cool. We all derive our fun from these bikes in our own way, and your way may not be my way. I have never even had a bike dyno'ed, I just passed on what FBF told me the bike was putting out. I don't doubt that many shops are favorable to their work, and so their #'s may be too. I didn't even get the dyno report from FBF when I had it shipped half way across the country because I told them I don't give a RAT'S ASS about "numbers". I later asked if they would be kind enough to send it anyway, they did not, oh well.

4. Chasing HP/improved torque costs money. And it follows the Law of Diametric opposition. As you get deeper into mods, the increase of power starts becoming "More money for Smaller results".

 

The $ figures were taken both from the FBF catalog, and the figure given to me by FBF during pre-purchase talks. They charged the ORIGINAL OWNER $5800 for their work and parts. I would not spend that on ANY bike because I don't have it! Yes, WELL over $20,000 is ALOT for MOST bikes, IMHO. But I saw THIS bike, and could not pass up the most beautiful mechanical thing I have EVER seen, with THIS motor, for less than 1/2 of the above figure and that includes tax, shipping and purchase, out the door.

 

Ratch, The Breva cam was installed to improve the everyday,on the road, power, not top end. And I don't know what the top end is, because it JUST KEEPS PULLIN' at 125 mph, with alot of throttle twist left!. I have never been on the track. But I am damn happy with the results up to the 5000+ RPM range, where I LIVE on this bike. I believe it was you who noted that your motor seems to spin freer with the "Roper plate" and I totally concur. And please, do not lose ANY sleep worrying about if you piss me off. We are here to talk, banter and call a spade a spade. I tend to understand where you are coming from, I think. One must sometimes CHOSE to defend a point they themselves may not even agree with, to be certain your beliefs are truly solid. If you don't challenge your most deeply held beliefs, true growth cannot happen. What worries me is the close relationship of love and hate. You and dlaing go at it so often, I wonder if there isn't something more BETWEEN you two that the rest of us are glad NOT to know about!

 

guzzimoto, dr. know, steve g. and others- right on, man! It's our money, and we'll piss it away as we see fit! ALWAYS "ride your own ride".

 

And finally, Polebridge- Many gracious thanks for your kind words, it truly is one of the best sounding bikes, to be sure. When Harley lovers admit it and non riders comment favorably, you know your on the right track. I get that ALL the time. My bike has now sold two other MG's. I've had guys chasing me down to say, "Man, when you BLEW by me, I had to know what that was, that thing sounds fuc%#$@ing AWESOME!!!!"

 

P.S. Jaap, thanks for not killin' this site, you can see the emotion on the "page" is out of our love of this bike. Later, S.H.

[Guest ratchethack]

. . .vast improvements do not mean you must sacrifice reliability.

SH, thanks for not taking the common defensive position of others hereabouts.

 

Your comments are well taken.

 

However. . . Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, your Guzzi isn't out of break-in yet, or just recently? I respectfully suggest that "reliability" for the last half century on Guzzi Big Blocks has properly been measured on a scale up to many hundreds of thousands of miles after break-in, and considering the extent of your mod's, it's well within, and probably just beginning to pass through the well-established "infant mortality" window very specifically opened and determined by those mod's.

 

I would also respectfully point out that your statement above is in direct conflict -- not only with me, my opinion rightfully being worth slightly less than that of Alice's dog, Faucher. -- But according to the well-earned professional opinion of none other than the many times posted position (on this Forum and many others), of one of our frequent Forum experts. I refer, o' course, to the Honorable Master of Cermonies of the Annual Bungendore Bunyip Parade and Wombat Rodeo , who's wrenched, ridden, race-prepped, and no doubt broke many a Guzzi Big Block in his day over many decades since his misspent younger years (by his account, not mine ) as a young rakish lad on a motorbike -- over many continents, at that -- so his opinion might be considered fairly well qualified.

[savagehenry]

SH, thanks for not taking the common defensive position of others hereabouts.

 

Your comments are well taken.

 

However. . . Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, your Guzzi isn't out of break-in yet, or just recently? I respectfully suggest that "reliability" for the last half century on Guzzi Big Blocks has properly been measured on a scale up to many hundreds of thousands of miles after break-in.

 

I would also respectfully point out that your statement above is in direct conflict -- not only with me, my opinion rightfully counting less than Alice's dog, Faucher. -- But by the well-earned opinion of none other than the many times posted position (on this Forum and many others), of one of our frequent Forum experts. I refer, o' course, to the Master of Cermonies at the Annual Bungendore Bunyip Parade , who's wrenched, ridden, race-prepped, and no doubt broke many a Guzzi Big Block in his day over many decades since his days as a young rakish lad on a motorbike -- over many continents, at that -- so his opinion might be considered fairly well qualified.

I am only trying to show MY experience as it pertains to the original posted question.I do not ever want to attempt to contradict 'ol Pete, or the many others who have more technical, and hands on experience than myself. And my use of the term "vast" is fully a term open to debate. But to me, a bump of more than 10% in horse power, or the noticeably improved torque response is alot. These numbers appear to be possible without even doing headwork, or cam changes. Cross overs, slip ons and airbox mods have been reported to bring big smiles, regardless of any Dyno bragging rights. I don't know about my reliability over a much longer run, but I just crossed the 10K mark in my first 11 monthes of ownership and have not been stopped from riding by mechanical failure to this point. In my book, filled with more than 20 years on only air cooled twins, including several OLD Harleys, this is the mark of reliability. I will have no problem reporting any news to the contrary in the future, and as always, individual results may vary. Ride fast enough to scare yerself, and still RIDE home! Later, S.H.

[dlaing]

PB, there've been lots of posts on this but not for many years. Coupla things:

 

I'd selected the Stucchi from among the rest of the field on the basis of the credibilty of the dyno runs done by Doug Manley a few years prior. He's moved his charts around a few times on his Web site, but he's probably got the same ones up, they're as valid as ever. The Stucchi "filled in" the dip in the torque curve at 4500 RPM nicely without taking anything of consequence away in any part of the torque curve I had interest in. On top of that, it was known to be of high grade stainless, with high quality welds, and it has an integral hanger that uses the stock hanger mount, something that I b'lieve the Mistral doesn't have, IIRC? This is just me, but due to the large number of cases of split head pipes, I'd never consider a crossover without a stout hanger that takes advantage of the stock rubber mount.

 

I ran head-on into the one drawback that many others have also experienced with the Stucchi, that being the thing was "twisted" about its longitudinal axis, so it wouldn't sit flat, with the free end sitting over 1 cm free of the bench. <_ i advised others buying them to have their supplier do a qc on it before shipping and reject any that far out o whack. this made one effen b fit with considerable angle grinding filing lots language objectionable women. src="%7B___base_url___%7D/uploads/emoticons/default_rolleyes.gif" alt=":rolleyes:">

 

But it's been a solid piece once fit, no cracks long term, and delivered exactly as Lofgren's dyno suggested it would in terms of seat o' the pants dyno. This is just me, but unelss you think there's some significant difference in shapes, I wouldn't expect any need wotsoever to have to do another map going to the Stucchi from the FBF. If there's a need for a new map, it shouldn't be very much of a need.

 

Good luck.

It is silly for you to have so much power. Please sell your Stucchi crossover to me. I'll give you $300!!!!!

What other mods have you done!

BMC air filter that lets even more dirt into the engine than the perfectly good paper filter.

Lidless airbox? Or did you give up on that because it gave you too much noise and so much power that it threatened to shorten the life of your engine????

Are you still using stock mufflers or did you threaten the life of your engine even more with HIGH HP mufflers????

Enquiring minds need to know.

Obviously whatever mods you do is fine, while anything more is in the realm of "whatever floats your boat" commentary.

Heck you have done more mods for power than I have, but you repeatedly attack me.

[Guest ratchethack]

It is silly for you to have so much power. Please sell your Stucchi crossover to me. I'll give you $300!!!!!

What other mods have you done!

Dave. Take a look at your first post in this thread and ask yourself if this was or was not a perfect open invitation for me to remind you -- not of things you never said, but wot you've actually said here on this Forum (as I directly quoted you, word for word). Comin' out o' the blue like that, it appeared to me that you were lookin' f'er a little Forum action, Dave. I responded to your opener, which you addressed to me, and I'd no need to get "creative" about it. No one else here (myself included) could possibly make that stuff up.

 

Think it might be time for a little vacation, Dave?

 

How long's it been since you took a little trip back home?

[GuzziMoto]

In answer to polebridges question about cross-overs.

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11564

[dlaing]

Dave. Take a look at your first post in this thread and ask yourself if this was or was not a perfect open invitation for me to remind you -- not of things you never said, but wot you actually said here on this Forum. I've responded to your lead, Dave, and I've no need to get "creative". No one else here (myself included) could possibly make this stuff up.

 

Think it might be time for a little vacation, Dave?

 

How long's it been since you took a little trip back home?

So, giving up your power modification is so absurd that this is your response, while someone going just a little further in the quest for power leaves the orbit of your tiny little universe of closed minded ideas.

Do you sense any hypocrisy in your ways? Or are you just a troll getting a kick out of annoying people?

Or do you simply have the writing skills akin to the finesse of fisherman that uses dynamite to fetch his dinner?

Nobody here disagrees with you that a reality check is in order when pursuing more power, and that a ratio of diminishing returns is quickly reached.

The problem is with attack method, and your hypocrisy, as has clearly been pointed out.