V11 Modifications - Opinions?

[dlaing]

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...   

83742[/snapback]

No, the ideal forum recommendation gives someone like Polebridge all the information that he needs to make a smart decision about what is right for him.

Rants by you and Pete are both informative and amusing, but lack the objective balance of stating the fact that with smart decisions, one can increase HP by more than 10% through the modifications that are outlined in this thread.

Yes, on older Guzzis there is a history of hot rodding that has resulted in schrapnel.

Thanks to forums like this, those days are disappearing.

As always, people will ignore good advice and will take risks and pay the consequences.

Nobody here is recommending a race cam.

Nobody here is recommending 12:1 compression ratio.

Nobody here is recommending turbos or super-chargers.

What has been recommended is essentially sound advice.

If you want to suggest that high compression pistons WILL cause problems, your argument does not hold.

If you want to suggest that high compression pistons MAY cause problems, I think that it is fair to offer such a warning.

There is evidence on both sides.

Why can you not accept all the evidence?

As for the porting, and addition of better quality valves, I have not seen any concrete evidence to suggest that they would not be a good idea. Where is your evidence?

Please agree with me on that, so we can take it off the table.

As for the PCIII, I know we both agree that is a good part of Polebridge's plans through FBF, although you might skip the custom tune, right?

But he should get a custom map if he gets valves and porting, right?

[dlaing]

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'

83742[/snapback]

You are getting warmer,

will sort of, but you have it all backwards.

AGW is not a fraud, but a call for sound decisions, rather than supercharging industry, and flogging civilization out at WOT.

The Global Warming Fraud pundits are the equivalent of the insane hot rodder, destined to death or glory!

Sorry, the glory of sub 15 minute supercharged school bus run on a one hour route, is not worth risking the lives of our offspring.

[Guest ratchethack]

If you want to suggest that high compression pistons MAY cause problems, I think that it is fair to offer such a warning.

There is evidence on both sides.

Why can you not accept all the evidence?

Hmmm, both sides of Pro vs. Con? For what objectives? We've been over this a couple of times now, haven't we? I don't know of any "evidence" that I've not accepted, Dave. I've been among the first to validate performance improvements of higher-comp pistons via my Pal's FBF pistons, in my first post in this thread. I don't know of anyone who's successfully run 'em hard for more than about 10K miles without the need for a major rebuild, but that's just me. If you're referring to the "evidence" so often referred to in this Forum of greatly increased pre-ignition (in an engine that's already pre-ignition-prone with stock pistons) that often seems to require not only fuel not available where road riders like to get fuel, and/or the added cost and complexity of what for many (including myself) would consider extraordinarily critical and sensitive timing and fuel mapping capability, not to mention higher operating temps and all the associated problems associated with that, many of which I think Pete has also often lamented, I can't think of a single thing! According to Pete, the torque and power advantages of high-comp pistons - like that of any other mod that increases torque and power - would seem to be offset by shortened reliability and longevity as he and I have both referred to many different ways and many different times in this thread. *sigh*

As for the porting, and addition of better quality valves, I have not seen any concrete evidence to suggest that they would not be a good idea. Where is your evidence?

Please agree with me on that, so we can take it off the table.

A "good idea" for whom, and for what objectives, Dave? I thought we'd been all over the different objectives for different riders thing? Sorry Dave. I take it you're referring to "race porting" - the practice of hogging-out heads with (or more often, without) the benefit of a flow bench for use with larger valves - if that's what you mean by "better quality" valves? The stock valves in some cases seem to be "soft", according to a few reports here lately. I'm concerned about this myself, as I've noted. Certainly higher-grade valves with greater durability - of no larger than stock dimensions - would be welcome by myself. As far as evidence to suggest that larger valves than stock issue wouln't be a "good idea", well - I reckon Pete has access to "evidence" against large-valve heads and the usually associated porting from his personal experience that you'd accept? He's built a pile of race motors and a much larger pile of road motors. So have many other builders I'm familiar with. As many builders including Pete have noted (in this thread, as I recall) he doesn't find any advantage - but rather many disadvantages - with use of large-valve heads and extensive porting for engines in either category. I think those who really know how to port for track and the road mostly just mildly clean 'em up, maybe do light polishing, and slight matching work. Porting for both road and track seem to be at considerable variance with porting for the dyno. The historical "evidence" against large valves - if you accept the reports from Pete as evidence - has been running pretty strong against 'em - regardless of objectives! The overall porting quality of the stock heads seems pretty good as is, as I b'leive Pete's often noted so eloquently. How's that for "evidence"?

 

We seem to have gone full circle and are now repeating ourselves, Dave. We're on different planets here, if not in different universes.

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

The "first hit" on the wallet is always the easy one here. It's the "next hit" on the wallet that can be a killer. If y'er not likely to be the owner if 'n when the "next hit" rolls around, you may be lucky, IMHO. I think it wise to consider that for anyone planning to keep their Guzzi for the long run without higher-than-usual maintenance costs and unplanned, frequent rebuilds, it's wise to remember that

 

He who laughs last, laughs best.

[Guzzirider]

I don't know of anyone who's successfully run 'em hard for more than about 10K miles without the need for a major rebuild, but that's just me. 

83766[/snapback]

 

 

Just to be absolutely crystal clear on this, who has had to have a major rebuild? I am aware of quite a few riders who have the FBFs but have heard no reports of rebuilds or engine damage.

 

Do we have proof of these rebuilds or is this just speculation?

 

Guy

[Guest ratchethack]

Just to be absolutely crystal clear on this, who has had to have a major rebuild? I am aware of quite a few riders who have the FBFs but have heard no reports of rebuilds or engine damage.

 

Do we have proof of these rebuilds or is this just speculation?

 

Guy 

83782[/snapback]

Guy, as you point out, engine rebuilds as a rule don't tend to be well documented or reported on. Though I can't offer hard evidence and I'd have to go searching for it, this is not merely speculation as far as I'm concerned - unless you consider many of the "shrapnel" files I've seen over the years to be speculation. They've included the results of extensive engine modifications of many kinds. High comp pistons are one of the most common mods that I've seen included in more fragile, highly tuned engines that can let go with some spectacular results. I'll go for a search if I have time and post back if 'n when I find an example that mentions high-comp pistons.

 

I think it IS entirely fair - as well as safe - to speculate, however, that not only do high-comp pistons add considerable stress to most of the engine and drive-train over stock pistons, they contribute to shortened engine life and more frequent and more extensive rebuilds. Just speculation on my part, but I think this is pretty well backed up by the experience of most of those who do the work.

 

NOTE: I just took a pass through Ed Milich's Schrapnel Italia page at GuzziTech. There's lots of stuff there that may or may not have benefitted from the "contribution" of high-compression pistons, but I'll bet Ed has a story or 2 he could tell about the added toll it takes on motors...

 

If he hasn't yet gone into a coma over this thread , maybe Pete has a tale or 2?

[Guzzirider]

Just speculation on my part

83785[/snapback]

 

I thought so! I can understand your reasoning, but I won't worry about it- life is too short!

 

I will be a good test bed anyway because my bikes tend to get well used.

 

Guy

[dlaing]

Hmmm, both sides of what?  Pro vs. Con?  For what objectives?  We've been over this a couple of times now, haven't we? 

83766[/snapback]

 

There is evidence that it WILL cause problems if the increase in compression significantly increases the speed of the fuel burning to a degree that fueling and timing cannot compensate for.

There is evidence that FBF will tune the bike so that is not a problem.

There is evidence that Mike Rich is confident that his increase in compression coupled with better design results in no problem.

The longevity argument cannot be proven until someone rides with high compression pistons for a long time.

Perhaps I have to be more specific about Mike Rich's claim as quoted by Al R.:

AS FOR MY PISTON KIT-

 

THEY INCREASE ACTUAL MEASURED COMPRESSION FROM AVERAGE 9.4 / 9.6 TO 1 TO AN ACTUAL 10.25 TO 1.

EXPECT 2 TO 3 HP ( SOME HAVE SAID MUCH MORE) 

 

THEY ARE DESIGNED TO HELP ELIMINATE DETONATION AND INCREASE PERFORMANCE WITH BETTER AND LESS OBSTRUCTED BURN.

THANKS AGAIN -----------MIKE RICH

Now in the interest of consensus, does that sway you?

I suppose you could still be concerned about durability, but I am not.

I see no reason why the Mike's pistons would necessitate annual rebuilds or anything close to that.

More evidence:

Callithrix

My 03 lemans has FBF intake, fbf pipes, fbf Hi compression pistons, stucchi xover and a PC III, my 02 lemans is completely stock. Guess which one I had problems with pinging? Ans. the 02.( it has been remedied).

Both get Ca. brand Hi-Oct. gas and I buy from the cheapest place in town. I work on my own bikes and literally dropped the Hi comp pistons in; i.e No squish measuements. The only time I've induced pinging on the 03 is when I should've down shifted to pass someone. The 02 use to have the same mods as the 03 with the exception of the Hi comp pistons and was run on the same PC map. My subjective experience is that the 03 revs and accelerates faster and harder than the 02 did with the same pipe, intake, x-over and map. Just my two cents.

Maybe Callithrix would like to post whether or not his bike died at 10001 miles????

Other owners of FBF pistons include

helicopter Jim...I think we would have heard if he did not get 10,000 miles out of them.

Robbiekb

Enzo aka captain nemo

Al R. has Mike Rich pistons.

John T. was thinking of it...

Mike Mason went with Ross high compression pistons.

Perhaps some of them could provide feedback.

[Guzzirider]

Maybe Callithrix would like to post whether or not his bike died at 10001 miles????

Other owners of FBF pistons include

helicopter Jim...I think we would have heard if he did not get 10,000 miles out of them.

Robbiekb

Enzo aka captain nemo

Al R. has Mike Rich pistons.

John T. was thinking of it...

Mike Mason went with Ross high compression pistons.

Perhaps some of them could provide feedback.

83787[/snapback]

 

Other posters on here with the FBFs include Mandello248, Gthyni and Ian Mottram.

[Guest ratchethack]

Maybe Callithrix would like to post whether or not his bike died at 10001 miles????

Other posters on here with the FBFs include Mandello248, Gthyni and Ian Mottram.

Oh, Boy - Here we go...there's blood in the water now! Looks like they're closin' in for the kill...

 

Gents!

 

Good God, leave us not depart from the original debate and transform it into something entirely different, here, please!

 

A little pre-emptive factoid here. I said:

I don't know of anyone who's successfully run 'em hard for more than about 10K miles without the need for a major rebuild, but that's just me. 

Dave and Guy. Now I'm sure that should you find one, two, or even as many as ten or even 20 who have "proved" by swearing on Jaap's duties and responsibilities as Censorship Czar that they have at least 10001 miles on their hi-comp pistons, your intention will no doubt be to claim that this PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that:

 

1. not only do I not know what I'm talking about, but that

 

2. high-comp pistons contribute nothing whatsoever toward engine stress and wear than y'er garden-variety stock piston.

 

Am I reading you right, Gents?

 

Just checkin'...

 

My pre-emptive, (and airtight) defense:

 

1. I think if you carefully evaluate what I said, any such "evidence" would not make my statement untrue.

 

2. Any such "evidence" wouldn't detract in any way from the validity of the argument that high-comp pistons contribute more to engine stress and need for more frequent and more extensive rebuilds than lower-comp pistons.

 

Just prepping for what more'n likely comes next....*sigh*

 

Dave, you may now resume chumming the water....

 

[...breaks out shark repellent, braces for onset of feeding frenzy...]

[belfastguzzi]

Hey there Mr Hatcheck. You're wanted in 24/7 (and no, not in the G.W. Thread).

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

Without taking any sides I would like to say a few things here.

 

1) The FBF pistons were easy to install and gave me the most fun of all mods - including pipes (sound does a lot for me but the FBF pistons change the sound drastically too).

 

2) They were easy to tune. I simply loaded the FBF map given to me with the pistons and have only had to adjust it twice since - both changes minor.

 

3) The performance gains have never been dyno'd but as far as I can tell the bike is not significantly faster than V11's w/o FBF pistons in straight line acceleration. The bike is significantly faster in response and roll-ons in the midrange and I do mean significantly. In different words I like to say that the bike is waaaay more fun to ride with 11:1 compression.

 

4) I have never been bothered with detonation as I use Cdn 94 octane and if I ever get stuck using low octane I simply drive accordingly - ie never let the manifold pressure get too high at low rpm's - or in laymans terms never lug the motor but keeps the revs high and roll on the throttle a little easier. I have never had to go slow because of low octane fuel.

 

5) I have only put abpout 10,000 km on the FBF pistons and no ill effects yet. However I feel that the way I ride my V11 - FBF pistons or no - all the wheelies, burnouts and hitting the rev limiter many, many times will probably bring on some form of wear above and beyond what an average rider will incurr (that's not bragging - it is simply me admitting to my childish behaviour on a motorbike).

 

6) I could give a f#&* if anyone else wants to put hi-comp pistons in or out of their bike. However I will give advice to anyone who asks for it - freely, because I hope everyone can enjoy their bike as they want to, not as someone else wants them to.

 

P.S. I was going to say rats ass in the last paragraph but it didn't sound right.

[Guest ratchethack]

Hey there Mr Hatcheck. You're wanted in 24/7 (and no, not in the G.W. Thread).

Thanks, BFG.

 

I read the entire thing and then realized I had no idea what I'd missed?

 

There's evidently a shark feeding about to begin over here.

 

I'd say, "C'mon in, the water's fine", but I reckon it ain't any too safe right now...

 

You might want to draw up a deck chair, though...

[Mike Stewart]

The Ghezzi-Brian I purchased last year has the FBF high compression pistons and Mike Rich flowed heads and the bike pulls very, very strong with no ill effects. I did a two day track class with this bike and I ran her very hard. When the air temp got up past the 95 degree mark, I was getting some pinging out of the two slower turns. I hooked up my lap top and richened up the fuel mixture for the rpm and throttle opening that I was getting the ping at (Thank you Powercommander ). Results no ping and big grin on my face after two days of fast riding.

 

Mike

[Guest ratchethack]

Gents!

 

Before we get too much more of a fish "boil" going here, I have a question. One of you high-comp piston afficionados might enlighten me.

 

Since high-comp pistons wouldn't seem to contribute to any additional emissions (unless sound might be effected enough?), in fact from my understanding, they might actually improve CO and NOX, etc. numbers, and higher compression yields greater burn efficiency, thereby lowering fuel consumption - Why do you suppose mfgr's don't choose to simply install 'em to start with, since they'd be able to claim considerably greater torque and power numbers, as well as top end, 1/4 mile times, etc.?

 

It would ALL seem to be good, even from their perspective - wouldn't it?

 

Enquiring minds just gotta know.

[dlaing]

6) I could give a f#&* if anyone else wants to put hi-comp pistons in or out of their bike. However I will give advice to anyone who asks for it - freely, because I hope everyone can enjoy their bike as they want to, not as someone else wants them to.

 

83808[/snapback]

Good point.

Ratchet, I apologize for giving a f@ about your pal wanting to put hi-comp pistons out of his bike.

You and Pete do make some points that have some RELATIVE validity, and possibly some absolute validity that time may prove.

 

One more question for Ratchet and Pete:

Do you think it was a mistake for Guzzi to go to higher compression pistons in 2003/2004?

They allegedly upped the compression from 9.5:1 to 9.8:1

That could be compared to Mike Rich's 10.25:1

FBF's 11:1 is probably less than 11:1 if it does not ping like a table tennis player