V11 Modifications - Opinions?

[motoguzznix]

I like this kind of discussion very much as I ride Guzzis since 83. When I bought the Lemans 2 the bike was one of the fastest around. But 2 years later came up the VFR and the FZ 750 and these bikes driven by an ambitious rider were too fast for the Guzzi...

But I liked my Guzzi, why selling it just to be faster? So I'm still here and ride it - last year I had the opportunity to ride a new Breva 1100. It is not as fast as my V11, but despite the fact it passes the Euro 3 emission regulations, there is a lot of Guzzi feeling in the bike!

It is not possible today to build a bike with the Lafranconi "silencers" from a Lemans 1975, which sound awful. But I am happy that this feeling or soul is available from a new bike. And I enjoy it most every spring when I start the bike for the first time in the year, and I can be sure that it will start and shake immediately after the first dip on the starter button.

Unfortunately, the Piaggio owners won't make a real sports Guzzi even with a new engine concept. The Guzzi V concept could offer much more the the ability to make a touring bike work. BMW shows that, and a modern Guzzi could offer even more...

(pete roper @ Mar 24 2006, 08:30 AM)

It simply isn't possible.... to get more out of it in it's current guise and retain any semblance of reliability.

I agree with Peter that it is hardly possible to get much more from this old engine. Noise and exhaust emissions are the main reasons for that, making 100 HP reliable would be possible I think. 120 definitely not.

It is never a good idea to go over the top with tuning. My opinion is to stay conservative, as the engine mostly remains more enjoyable and drivable. Examples like ratchet told of are the result of people not knowing what they are doing. Did they get money for that?

[Guest ratchethack]

what consistently astounds me is that people seem to be quite happy to spend substantial amounts of time and money making their motors more powerful, (and less reliable!) but entirely neglect their chassis and suspension .

Careful, there Pete. Some of these boys go into a deep "5-mile stare" when they hear "suspension". Seems they can't be bothered when there's peaks to be chased on dyno charts!

 

Some actually object to any mention at all of chassis set-up. It's as if their better half just reminded them again that the house needs painting...

 

I don't get it either...

[Skeeve]

I can understand why people like the idea of heavily tuning their Guzzi motors. For starters, compared to something like a Jap 4 it's comparatively cheap and you can get *improvements* of one sort or another pretty easily. BUT, (there's always the but.) what consistently astounds me is that people seem to be quite happy to spend substantial amounts of time and money making their motors more powerful, (and less reliable!) but entirely neglect their chassis and suspension .

 

Hey, I resemble that remark! Well, inasmuch as I'd like to twiddle & see if more could be reliably coaxed from it by making some changes. Of course, I have no *money* for any of that, but in an ideal world I'd have a workshop and time enough to do some Burt Munro impressions...

 

But you have to accept that the simple laws of physics and engine design parrameters mean that you CAN'T get over 100 BHP, reliably, out of an ancient 1 litre capacity, air cooled, shaft drive twin. I'm sorry. It simply isn't going to happen. Even a well set up 'C' kitted Hi-Cam will struggle to make 100hp and the costs in terms of longevity are very high! As for the R1100,(or whatever.) BMW making 120? Oh look! there goes a squadron of pigs

Pete.

83580[/snapback]

 

Hey now, Pete, don't sell the folks w/ the propeller beanie fetish short; after all, if you take the reading at the piston crown, the very special edition HP2 [iIRC, the R1200 doesn't make 120; it's the HP2 that is quoted as churning out those numbers] quite likely *does* produce that much. Don't forget, the advances in computer modeling & production casting & etc. etc. etc. in the decade between when the HiCams were being developed at a tiny little Italian factory and the Type 203? motor being designed by a subsection of a midsize luxury/performance automotive manufacturer could account for a LOT. And don't you think that if you took the #'s for the HiCam at the underside of the piston, that you could reliably see 100hp [translating to about 88rwhp by the time it works it's way down thru the big ends to the crank, thru the clutch, thru the gearbox & down the shaft, making a 90deg bend at the rear axle & out the tire to the ground?] Doncha?

 

[dlaing]

I love dynotec's conversion, 108HP! (if I read the translation correctly):

http://www.dynotec.de/presse.php?id=3

not to mention the 158HP four valve

http://www.dynotec.de/presse.php?id=9

[dlaing]

Just to be clear.

I am all for being reasonable about HP gain recommendations.

I just find it hard to believe that anyone finds the FBF or Mike Rich method to be unreasonable for those that have the time and money. (that is what Ratchet and Pete are implying, right? and are people agreeing with them??? Sorry, it just boggles my mind)

I think that 80RWHP is a reasonable goal for most of us.

90RWHP is a reasonable goal for the more maniacal of us, who are fans of Eraldo Ferracci or Mike Rich.

108PS whatever that is, is good for those of us with the money to send it to dynotec.

I think Guzzi can add 10 claimed HP to the V11 Case while keeping it two valved and air cooled, but with no other legal limitations. For example hotter cam, more compression, better ECU mapping, more sensors like MAF and WBO2, catalytic convertor, ceramics, roller rockers, carillo rods, bigger bore, better quality valves, higher revs, etc.

Remember, the V11 is 91 claimed HP...add 9 more claimed HP and you reach the magical marketing number, that would help sell an MGS01 in street clothes.

Durability and emissions would not even have to be compromised.

The technology is there, and yes it will raise the price.

[pete roper]

Dave, as I've said I'm all for trying to get *more* but there ARE limitations. Look, if I can get a crappy old V7 Ambo to detonate on *standard* gas when it is timed up *right* using a degree wheel, not the horrid marks on the pulley and it will still detonate if provoked using 98 octane then I don't see how you could prevent it on something like a V11 motor unless you do stuff like retard the spark, run the mixture too rich or whatever which will be counter productive and will REDUCE power. OK, so when the revs get up and the volumtric efficiency falls off there will probably be a benefit in terms of power BUT it will rob tractability lower in the rev range. Certainly modern engine management systems are a LOT more sophisticated than an old single points dizzy and a pair of crappy old 29mm VHB carbs but what is happening in the combustion chambers, (Which on the V7 and the V11 are, surprisingly, a very similar shape!) will remain pretty much the same in the V11 as it was with the early roundfin.

 

Wilder cams impose a much greater strain on the valvetrain than a softer one. I've seen enough flogged out valve guides in hotted up motors to be able to say categorically that using something with a profile like a 620 x 8 will neccesitate new K-lines in a race bike at least once a season. That equates to only a few thousand road miles. How many people actually want to pull their heads off, (If you get my drift? ) every few thousand miles and have major restorative work on them? Tappets and rockers also take a pounding in these situations.

 

I'm NOT saying that people who want to shouldn't try and tune their bikes up, far from it. All I want is that they go into it with eyes wide open. I'm sorry but some things simply aren't achievable, no matter how much people want them, and a reliable 100RWBHP from our engines is NOT achievable even with Carrilo rods, (which incidentally have a much shorter fatigue life than many other products and (ahem.) are sometimes a bit less than accurately machined.) and don't even THINK about Titanium. Don't believe me? Go to the Arrow website and see what the service intervals are on their Ti rods! You'll have kittens! I did! All the other things like ceramics etc. will help but they will be hellishly expensive and the higher the state of tune the less pleasant the machine will become to ride, (After a certain point of course.) Look, I like tuning things up. Our race bike is the current NSW period 4 PC champ. It's a LONG way from being a standard LeMans/V7 Sport! But would I want to ride it on the road? No way!

 

Conversely setting up the chassis correctly is generally fairly cheap compared to engine work and it will allow you to fully explore all the potential you already have BEFORE you go in and start working over the motor. Certainly people like Mike Rich are much smarter than me when it comes to dragging power out of engines. I don't dispute that for a minute and if you do go down the tuning route I can think of nobody more qualified than he to be of help. I personally think that it's putting the cart before the horse.

 

I'm NOT having a go at anyone here, I'm simply expressing my views. I'm certainly not expecting everyone, or even anyone, to agree with me but it IS how I feel about the whole business. That's all. No accrimony, no rudeness or insults, simply the way as an individual I see things

 

Pete

[dlaing]

Wilder cams impose a much greater strain on the valvetrain than a softer one. I've seen enough flogged out valve guides in hotted up motors to be able to say categorically that using something with a profile like a 620 x 8 will neccesitate new K-lines in a race bike at least once a season. That equates to only a few thousand road miles. How many people actually want to pull their heads off, (If you get my drift? ) every few thousand miles and have major restorative work on them? Tappets and rockers also take a pounding in these situations.

83630[/snapback]

Would roller rockers help in a situation like this?

FWIW the MegaCycle 620 x 9 would probably be closer to what Guzzi should use to make a sportier engine, assuming it does not mess up emissions too much.

 

and a reliable 100RWBHP from our engines is NOT achievable even with Carrilo rods, (which incidentally have a much shorter fatigue life than many other products and (ahem.) are sometimes a bit less than accurately machined.) and don't even THINK about Titanium.

83630[/snapback]

Really!?!

Thanks for your feedback on that.

I had been mislead about Carillos being lighter AND more durable.

I guess I can stop saving up for them

Conversely setting up the chassis correctly is generally fairly cheap compared to engine work and it will allow you to fully explore all the potential you already have BEFORE you go in and start working over the motor.

83630[/snapback]

That I'll agree with.

 

I don't dispute that for a minute and if you do go down the tuning route I can think of nobody more qualified than he to be of help. I personally think that it's putting the cart before the horse.

I'm NOT having a go at anyone here, I'm simply expressing my views. I'm certainly not expecting everyone, or even anyone, to agree with me but it IS how I feel about the whole business. That's all. No accrimony, no rudeness or insults, simply the way as an individual I see things

Pete

83630[/snapback]

Careful now, some folks take your personal opinion to be holy gospel.

In fact I caught Ratchet at the San Diego Travel agency booking a Yak hunting trip, so he could render some Yak Fat®.

Personally, I have a little more faith in Mike Rich then in FBF, but I believe FBF will have similar work done in one fifth of the time, and for a little less money, if I recall the Mike Rich rates correctly. But I'll bet FBF does not show you the flow bench data, assuming they even have a flow bench.

 

One of the issues that I believe has nudged people to go for porting is that our valves have notoriously soft stems, and it is considered preventive maintenance to have the seats K-lined and valves to be replaced with more durable valves. And of course it only makes sense to port at the same time.

The porting seems to be good for a few HP with people not claiming any reduction in driveability.

Ratchet's buddy being the exception, unless he uses race fuel or octane booster, or whatever Ratchet said.

[pete roper]

Would roller rockers help in a situation like this?

 

I had been mislead about Carillos being lighter AND more durable. 

I guess I can stop saving up for them 

 

 

Careful now, some folks take your personal opinion to be holy gospel.

In fact I caught Ratchet at the San Diego Travel agency booking a Yak hunting trip, so he could render some Yak Fat®. 

 

83634[/snapback]

 

Roller rockers probably would help but you will still get some side force exerted. To be honest I don't know. It's not something I'd ever seriously considered.

 

Carillos are very good rods but contrary to what people think they can, and do, snap. This is not to say they are a bad product from this point of view. They are made for high performance, racing type, applications. Sorry, but in these situations rods, like everything else, are seen as consumables. I had a set in my hot rod, they were lovely, no complaints, but every time I had the rods out I had 'em re-sized. A mate here recently stuck a set in his Mk IV motor. I sent everything down to Baz in Melboring for ballancing and one of the brand new rods was 1 thou out of round on the big end, the other was 1/2 a thou out of round.

 

Anyone who takes my personal opinion as gospel needs their head read! I'm just another boof-head who happens to like Guzzis. I probably have a lot more experience with them than most but most of my work is maintenance and mild hop-up work for the road. I'm not a U-beaut tuner or a terrifically succesful modifier of motors but I do know the basics of internal combustion engines, a bit of metalurgy and know what tends to work with what in relation to our old donks!

 

Oh, Yaks are out of season at the moment, you have to harvest 'em at the end of summer when they're fat and well fed to get the best Yak fat. At this time of year it's prefferable to head north and club some seals for blubber .

 

Pete

[dlaing]

At this time of year it's prefferable to head north and club some seals for blubber .

 

83645[/snapback]

Where to, Darwin? (double innuendo implied)

[pete roper]

Nah! In Darwin they use Dugong fat. It's got a higher viscosity rating so it works better in the hot climate.

 

The other Darwin, writer of 'Origin of Spieces' spent a large part of his youth travelling the world and exterminating things in a quest to find the perfect lubricant, the treatize he wrote that got him into so much trouble was purely a subterfuge to get the emerging mineral oil barons from Texas off his back .

 

Pete

[Guest ratchethack]

Gentlemen! I also appreciate this discussion. There’s much to be gained all the way around on this topic, IMHO. But methinks a malignant confusion persists! Pardon all the repetition that follows, please, but maybe some added emphasis is in order? As Pete said, no acrimony intended here. We’re just shootin’ the breeze around the moto shop here – OK?

 

Pete, WRT qualifications for opinions on performance modifications to the Guzzi big block, if you’re “just another boof-head”, most of us aren’t fit to carry water for Journeyman Philistine boof-heads! I reckon you’ve opened up more big blocks in y’er time and sent more of ‘em rapidly around racetracks than some of us have opened up our drawers to take a leak…

 

Now my opinion here is worth very close to what you pay for it. But Gents - when Pete has an opinion on modifications, I don’t know about you, but I don’t ignore it. If you do, I suspect it’s at your peril!!! Now, knowing human nature…

 

Pete has laid out the truth here, guys – whether we wanna face it or not, the Guzzi big block is pretty much “tapped out” WRT its potential. And I believe this means both in its V-11 form, and in all future air-cooled iterations. To me, this is just another reason to adopt a viable long-term ownership strategy f'er wot y'er ridin' today!

 

Now I think we all understand the natural inclination to optimize output! I’ve been doin’ it to varying degrees for most of my life since before age 12 with a dozen moto’s and a couple dozen cars. Hey – for many Guzzisti, a core aspect of the fun of motorcycling is to meddle and tweak!

 

Now let’s try to back this off a tad to the conceptual level for clarity, shall we?

 

Pete has presented strong arguments for a WORKING PRINCIPLE that applies here. That principle (again!) is that when you start plumbing the Guzzi for more power, there’s a simple trade-off involved. When you gain power and/or torque (which you can do, on a strictly limited basis), the cost is reliability. It’s a direct inverse relationship. This is not at all like shopping at the local Goofy Mart, as if you pick y’er power modifications off the shelf and pay for ‘em in full at the checkout and then go merrily on y’er way casting all y’er cares into the wind, singin’ The Barber from Seville! There are still SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL COSTS involved!!! Is there anyone reading this who still doesn’t understand any part of this?!

 

Speaking in terms that the aforementioned Chuck Darwin would no doubt prefer, when you tweak for more power, you make your motor LESS FIT FOR SURVIVAL, and there’s no getting’ around it, capice? This is just me, but heaven forfend, leave us not hasten the imminent extinction of this wonderful old dinosaur!

 

Now if you’re racing on the track, drag-racing the local squids, or going for land speed records, (as I suspect some are!) you may be willing to trade reliability for power. You can reasonably and sensibly do this, or you can do it otherwise! All you need to satisfy the objective of your pursuit is to have the engine last for the length of reliable operation it takes to win – whether it be a race, a ¼ mile drag, or attempting to smoke the local hooligans between stoplights. After meeting your objectives, however, the engine may be so spent that it needs anything from a top-end job to a complete rebuild afterward. In many kinds of racing, this is exactly what happens! The trade-offs are expected - and planned for in advance.

 

However, if you ride on the road and your objective is to keep your Guzzi roadworthy over many tens of thousands of miles (certainly possible) – or even hundreds of thousands of miles (also possible!) without rebuilding it on a regular basis, you simply CAN’T expect to extract more power from it, because it won’t take it! Is there anyone reading this who doesn’t understand any part of this?!

 

Now let’s try another principle – ownership and USE OBJECTIVES.

 

Everyone will have different objectives. I won’t ever fault anyone for having different objectives from my own! But as Pete so politely and reasonably asked, can we at least be honest with ourselves about what we’re doing when we start meddling with things, and do it with our eyes open?

 

As long as somebody, somewhere, can make modifications to the Guzzi big-block that look impressive on a dyno chart, does this automatically become your goal for mandatory, compulsive pursuit of that same objective? Given the trade-off principle above, what are the likely consequences of that objective – even if you only get part-way there? How many road miles, for example, would you reasonably expect to get from a Dynotec engine that charts out at 100 bhp before the hard necessity of a rebuild, or catastrophic failure (whichever comes first)? How many road miles would you expect to get from one of FBF’s 140 bhp “no problem” motors?

 

Look around yourselves, Gentlemen. I don’t care where you are, the landscape is littered with the burnt-out remains of attempts by Journeyman Philistines to hot-rod vehicles. They’re mostly hidden from sight, mind you – whether it be behind garages, overgrown with weeds, or stacked up in heaps at the local breaker – THOUSANDS of motorcycles whose owners NEVER PLANNED for them to be there - because they DIDN'T PLAN AT ALL, the results of little “surprises”. I've resurrected more'n a few of 'em personally as a kid. The CONSEQUENCES of plumbing ‘em for “more power” were not considered here. Is there anyone reading this who doesn’t understand any part of this?!

 

Me, I’m a dedicated Road Geez. I don’t necessarily recommend this behavior to others, it’s just my own personal preference. Among my primary objectives are plans (God willing!) to ride my Guzzi as long as I can manage to wobble it around mountain roads. I ain’t that old yet (!), so I’m gonna do my best to make sure that she’s got a long, happy life ahead of ‘er! As a “long-term” vehicle, I consider the Guzzi a near-ideal choice – and this can’t be said about too many moto’s! Now as a Road Geez, since I NEVER ride around at WOT (the very measurement condition where the dyno peaks that everyone seems so obsessed with are taken) – It doesn’t make ANY difference to me whether I’ve got 80 or 100 bhp on tap – I still ain’t gonna use all of it!!! IMHO, this sure ain’t everyone, but I suspect it’s pretty close to real-world operating reality for the majority of those who primarily ride on the road.

 

So for my purposes – and again, I acknowledge they’re gonna be entirely different than the next guy – plumbing the Guzzi big block for 10-20 more bhp not only has NO VALUE – it has NEGATIVE VALUE. Is there anyone reading this who still doesn’t understand any part of this?!

 

It’s a free world – (or most of the Guzzi-riding part of it, anyway). As Guzzisti, we owe it to ourselves to keep each other from goin’ off the deep end. Best not dive into shallow water before discovering the coral reef 2 feet below the surface, either, Gents!

 

We've all got our windmills to tilt against - don't we?

 

Best choose 'em wisely whenever possible!

[dlaing]

Is there anyone reading this who doesn’t understand any part of this?! 

83724[/snapback]

You do understand and agree that there is a difference between understanding and agreeing.

I understand that there can be trade offs.

I have outlined how I believe more power can be extracted while minimizing the impact to durability on one of the world's most durable motors.

Weak links to our drive train are:

cam chains that need replacement more frequently than desirable

soft valve stems

exploding clutches on some models

and that is about it.

Our engines have a very solid bottom end.

The top end could burn cleaner, and from what Mike Rich indicated, his pistons are not only higher compression, but also improve squish and burn.

The valves he puts in, improve reliability.

The porting he does brings in more air and thus more power which does put more strain on the drive train, but IT IS A ROBUST DRIVE TRAIN.

YES there are limits, and maybe dynotec's 108PS has exceeded what some of us consider acceptible, but the Mike Rich and FBF mods that we are discussing should result in pretty minimal decreases in durability, and in the case of the valves, durability should increase.

Is there anyone reading this who does not understand and agree with this?

FWIW, if you are worried about stress on the drive train, you should be more concerned about peak Torque, rather than peak HP.

Save that OEM crossover!!!!

And if you are worried about valve train wear, lower your rev limiter to 8000 RPM.

The life you save may be your valve trains.

I'd love to see someone offer a roller valve kit...perhaps that would minimize valve stem wear.

Also the proper use of a PCIII or better, should actually improve engine life by lowering operating temperature and optimizing burn timing to eliminate harmful behavior like pinging.

Is there anyone reading this who does not understand and agree with this?

Perhaps we will reach a consensus.

[Guest ratchethack]

Dave, it seems y'er repeatedly asking if there's anybody who doesn't agree with what "could" and "should" happen in your statements above according to the folks who provide the products & services you've indicated.

 

I would point out that there's very often a considerable difference between what could and should happen according to providers of "go faster" gear, and what actually does happen, especially WRT long-term reliability. Herein I think, lies the core of what Pete is saying.

 

I reckon Pete pretty well knows what DOES happen. It doesn't seem to line up very well with what you're saying, or have I somehow completely missed your point?

 

Perhaps you could clarify?

 

Just checkin'....

[dlaing]

Perhaps you could clarify?  

83732[/snapback]

Perhaps you need to be more specific as my telepathy is hit or miss, but I'll try to cover everything:

 

What SHOULD happen is that everyone should agree with me, and have a dream of a more powerful and reliable and durable Guzzi.

What SHOULD happen is that Guzzi should build such a bike.

What SHOULD happen is that Polebridge should go for the FBF or Mike Rich treatment!

 

What DOES happen is that people get a mis-direction of where to head. Points that you guys have made like that you can over do it, or mis-prioritize your improvements are valid. Points that you guys have made that you can't get ten more HP out reliably are unfounded.

What DOES happen is that Guzzi is building a less powerful bike with the Breva and Griso, and when people shop for Guzzis, they get turned off by the bike being slower than the BMWs, Ducati, Aprillia, Japanese twins and Buell....although the Breva and Griso are more powerful than the Californias, so that may encourage some faithful to UPGRADE. Yes it is upgrading the power for some Guzzi owners, and I think we see more enthusiasm for the new bikes from California owners.

What DOES happen is that people who have upgraded with the FBF and Mike Rich treatments get big grins. at the expense of their wallets

But come to think of it, JediOne says he got less power from higher compression pistons...I don't know his source for the pistons.

And Al R. got less than spectacular dyno results, but with no baseline for comparison.

And Ratchet's buddy would be happier with a stock engine, but with all the other popular mods(muffler, intake, and PCIII)

And Pierre is still waiting for Mike Rich....

 

If Polebridge has any doubts, I will agree that the high compression piston option is the most dubious, but that the new valve, porting and ECU treatments, will actually make the bike more reliable and durable.

[Guest ratchethack]

Ah! I b'lieve I've got it now. Dreaming of what could and should happen, and big smiles on faces (of immediate, short-term duration) trumps what actually does happen long-term on the basis of many decades of experience.

 

Have I got it right yet?

 

Please be patient with me, Dave - I'm trying so hard...

 

Seems to me that bemoaning the fact that a long obsolete motor can't be made to be "competitive" any longer ain't gonna change the facts, but if chasing peaks on dyno charts, racing, and land speed records aren't what you got y'er Guzzi for - Who cares?

 

Now Guareschi has just proven that there's life in the old bird yet in BOT, but let's hope the rules will always let Guzzi in and at the same time not allow sumpin' Guzzi ain't got - otherwise, I reckon the big AC V-2's only future will be left to Road Geezers like me.

 

BAA, TJM, & YMMV

 

EDIT: Eureka! Major Epiphany here! Now I think I finally understand the wholesale, hook, line 'n sinker acceptance of the Global Warming Fraud!

 

Short-term dreaming seems to be the key to alternate realities!

 

Are we done here, or should we open up another great big can o'