QUAT_D Exhaust?

[Baldini]

....When Baldini got his kit the new ECU had a Cali sticker on it. It wasn't identified as the Race ECU at all. ...

 

Yeh. I queried this w/supplying dealer. I was assured that it was just sloppy factory procedure: ECU's for Ti kit are picked from bin of stock ones & reprogrammed - some don't get stickered correctly. This may sound like (& may be) BS but another dealer I spoke with who had handled the kit said same. Both know factory & MG for years. Kit ECU was certainly different to stock (I interchanged them several times to compare) seemed richer, pulled harder but was lumpy & felt rich. Stock was smoother but didn't seem to have the grunt or maybe felt a bit lean. I decided to take them at their word, stuck w/ kit ECU + PC111 & once set up on the dyno it all runs great. Of course it maybe stock ECU + PC111 would also run great w/dyno. I dunno but I'm OK w/ how it turned out. I payed a lot of money tho - sounds like you got a real bargain, & even if ECU is wrong it's a fair price for cans. Do you have PC111?

 

KB

[geruguzzi]

Looks like you can order this in USA.

I'm thinking about buying it! anybody else interested?

 

Motowheels.com

 

[Dan M]

Looks like you can order this in USA.

I'm thinking about buying it! anybody else interested?

 

Motowheels.com

 

 

 

This has caught my eye. This box looks different than one I saw on a Ghezzi-Brian, is there more than one model? How's the sound? I'd hate it to be louder than the current crossover & carbon can set up I'm running.

[luhbo]

The best explanation I ever found was "ACES of WW1". That's how BFG said it and that's right on the spot.

 

But, I find the quality of it is poor, and the ex.-hole def. is too small. Above 6500 the bike runs against rubber. That's a pitty, because with Mistrals this was the point where the music began to play.

 

Another problem is that an O2 probe will interfere with the subframe, another point that shows that the whole thing is a bit misdesigned.

 

But Look'n Feel of it is great. That's at least one thing you will get for nearly 900,- Euros.

 

Hubert

[Guest ratchethack]

Now I haven't been paying CLOSE attention to Quat-D, but haven't I read countless reports here of weld fractures at low mileage and dreadful top-end performance?? Haven't I seen a few horrendously disappointing dyno charts with essentially NO top-end at all??!! I don't mind giving up some top end for a substantially enhanced midrange (I got that meself with a Stucchi crossover and FBF oval carbons), but I reckon there ain't ANY midrange upside with a Quat-D?!?!?!?! Then on top o' that, the ones I've heard up close and personal sound to my ear like open exhaust through a 55-gallon oil drum?!?!?!? I don't get it. Can somebody please explain how this is anything but a purely cosmetic styling exercise with serious real-world performance and durability drawbacks for the road?? Or are they strictly for the purposes of boulevard parading and trailering to shows???

 

TIA

[luhbo]

Well, the weak top end brings the V11 definitely below 200 km/h, that's truely a shame. On the other hand, just only thinking about speeds over 200 km/h would make you a valid candidate for special observation under aspects defined by the patriot act, wouldn't it? There is a different DB eater available that should be less restrictive, so a better top end should be possible anyway.

 

Sound is different to Mistrals, but that does not mean less impressive. It's a perfect streetfighter thing, spitting and hissing between waiting cars at the red light while you exercise your right hand a little. Go for a 100 km tour and you're addicted.

 

And all that street legal! Mistrals aren't! In Europe this can cost you your bike, at least you have to walk home, and don't talk of the money the cops claim.

 

Because of the cracks and other problems it's actually available only in a fully closed catalysed version. No possibility to remove the catalyser.

 

Hubert

[dlaing]

Now I haven't been paying CLOSE attention to Quat-D, but haven't I read countless reports here of weld fractures at low mileage and dreadful top-end performance??

Haven't I seen a few horrendously disappointing dyno charts with essentially NO top-end at all??!! I don't mind giving up some top end for a substantially enhanced midrange (I got that meself with a Stucchi crossover and FBF oval carbons), but I reckon there ain't ANY midrange upside with a Quat-D?!?!?!?!

No, you have not read countless reports, because there have been few reports about the Quat-D at all. If you can't count, it is because you are not trying.

"dreadful" "horrendously" "NO top-end at all??!!" Come on Ratchet, get back to reality.

FWIW Slowpoke got a few more "measured" HP out of the same Quat-D that I regretfully traded away. So what you probably saw posted was my disappointing dyno.

For what it is worth, my Quat-D, that I traded for Mistrals, did crack at the same spot that my OEM crossover cracked.

As for the performance, the new model shown has improvements over the one I had. Is the top-end dreadful? Hardly. It is purely a swap of top-end for mid-range. The lower mid-range is much better than my stock setup or my Mistral setup with OEM crossover. Put a Stucchi on and the midrange would be about the same as the Stucchi with Mistrals, atleast below 4000RPM. Actual testing need to confirm. I think the Stucchi would win over 5000RPM. 4000-5000 is where my biggest doubts are regarding which is better. In my opinion, the Quat-D needs more done to tune it right. Mistrals you can throw on a PCIII map, but the Quat-D should be custom mapped.

Then on top o' that, the ones I've heard up close and personal sound to my ear like open exhaust through a 55-gallon oil drum?!?!?!? I don't get it. Can somebody please explain how this is anything but a purely cosmetic styling exercise with serious real-world performance and durability drawbacks for the road?? Or are they strictly for the purposes of boulevard parading and trailering to shows???

TIA

If you listen to recordings of the newer Quat-D compared to the one I bought, the sound did improve. I think my Quat-D sounded a bit metalic. Not as warm as the OEM, and not as melodic as the mistrals. But what they do have going for them is that they put the music close up and personal to the rider, which is the only audience that matters. The ol'geezers standing around in the parking lot listening to it ride away will be more tantalized by the Mistrals. So, sorry for being selfish, but I like the way it sounds when I am riding it. It is not as obnoxious to my neighbors as the Mistrals are, and I get to hear it like I am sitting front row at a concert, not drowned out like conventional speakers in the wind. If I were to re-do the Quat-D, I would give it two outlets to balance the music in Stereo.

"Durability drawbacks"?!?! Sorry, but you are taking a little information and running away with it. The newer Quat-D is better built than the original. Drop the bike and then tell me which type of muffler is more durable.

In addition to the Quat-D being tucked safely out of the way of parking lot mishaps and low sides, the design allows for greater saddle bag options.

What I really liked most about the Quat-D is what it did for the rider's experience. The sound banking off of canyon walls can not be described as well as it can be experienced.

The handling is also noticably improved, as the weight is lessened, lowered, centralized and moved forward.

The Quat-D is not for everyone. I traded mine to get a little more top-end. I regret having traded, and have offered Slowpoke the chance to trade for the Mistrals. He had the sense not to take up my offer. If he is reading this, I'll throw in $200 on top of the trade. If anyone has the newer right port Quat-D, I'll throw in $400....my loss.

[Guzzirider]

I like 'em- the point is that they look like no other exhaust, sound like no other exhaust, keep the weight real low and keep the bike svelte.

 

If I was convinced the Quat D would perform as well as my Mistrals then I would seriously consider getting one.

 

I've listened to Belfastguzzi's Quat D and it sounds like a Spitfire chasing an ME109 on full chat.

 

Guy

[luhbo]

I like 'em- the point is that they look like no other exhaust, sound like no other exhaust, keep the weight real low and keep the bike svelte.

 

If I was convinced the Quat D would perform as well as my Mistrals then I would seriously consider getting one.

 

I've listened to Belfastguzzi's Quat D and it sounds like a Spitfire chasing an ME109 on full chat.

 

Guy

 

 

despite the Quat-D will never perform like Mistrals or the even bigger Ti-Cans do.

 

For every day use they are nonetheless the better choice, great sound, HUGE MIDRANGE!! (at least for me), great look, unfortunately a bit pricey and not really matching the bike it was designed for!

 

A member of the German forum was stopped by two quite upset policemen "How come that you're driving around with no exhaust at all!?!?". A short hint about the ECE stamp quickly gave them back the good feeling to have met a loyal and honourable tax payer and all went their ways again.

 

Hubert

[Dan M]

 

"Durability drawbacks"?!?! Sorry, but you are taking a little information and running away with it. The newer Quat-D is better built than the original. Drop the bike and then tell me which type of muffler is more durable.

In addition to the Quat-D being tucked safely out of the way of parking lot mishaps and low sides, the design allows for greater saddle bag options.

What I really liked most about the Quat-D is what it did for the rider's experience. The sound banking off of canyon walls can not be described as well as it can be experienced.

The handling is also noticably improved, as the weight is lessened, lowered, centralized and moved forward.

 

The attraction for me initially is the reduced / repositioned weight. (which may play an important roll if I ever start making measurements using a bathroom scale) I have to say I like the clean look as well. I'm curious about tuning potential, am I to understand that the Ghezzi-Brian machines that use it have no top end performance? If the trade is a palpable loss of power above 4000rpm then it may not be worth it.

This is all good information though, thanks.

Didn't intend to trigger another Dave/Ratchet bickering session.

[Admin Jaap]

Didn't intend to trigger another Dave/Ratchet bickering session.

They don't need any triggering...

[Pierre]

No, you have not read countless reports, because there have been few reports about the Quat-D at all. If you can't count, it is because you are not trying.

"dreadful" "horrendously" "NO top-end at all??!!" Come on Ratchet, get back to reality.

FWIW Slowpoke got a few more "measured" HP out of the same Quat-D that I regretfully traded away. So what you probably saw posted was my disappointing dyno.

 

Dave, I must admit your experience (though not a dismal as Ratchet describes) with its dyno performance is what turned me off to the Quat D. As others have noted (and you make the point quite well) there are any number of good sound reasons to prefer the Quat D - potential for damage, saddlebag options, weight reduction / centralization - all significant advantages.

 

I know of only one other person using it, and that's the guy signs in as Jedi on the SoCal list. Saw his V-11 with it and talked to him for awhile. He's modified his version quite a bit (second outlet, I think) and claims some pretty impressive dyno numbers. Have you seen his / talked to him about what he did? If it can be made to work, in every other respect (except maybe cosmetic, and that's purely subjective) it's a superior solution IMHO.

 

Thanks for adding some first person insight. I try not to bash what I haven't had personal experience with. I'm always interested in the hands-on experience of others.

[dlaing]

Dave, I must admit your experience (though not a dismal as Ratchet describes) with its dyno performance is what turned me off to the Quat D. As others have noted (and you make the point quite well) there are any number of good sound reasons to prefer the Quat D - potential for damage, saddlebag options, weight reduction / centralization - all significant advantages.

 

I know of only one other person using it, and that's the guy signs in as Jedi on the SoCal list. Saw his V-11 with it and talked to him for awhile. He's modified his version quite a bit (second outlet, I think) and claims some pretty impressive dyno numbers. Have you seen his / talked to him about what he did? If it can be made to work, in every other respect (except maybe cosmetic, and that's purely subjective) it's a superior solution IMHO.

 

Thanks for adding some first person insight. I try not to bash what I haven't had personal experience with. I'm always interested in the hands-on experience of others.

Yah, the dyno is what turned me off too, to the point where I took several hundred dollars loss trading for Mistrals.

But my seat of the pants dyno after I traded for the Mistrals, is what made me realize what a dreadful mistake I had made by trading.

Yes, I probably lost ten MPH off of top speed, but I lost mid-range and the aforementioned other benefits.

A Stucchi crossover could certainly bring the mid-range that I am missing back, but I am still hoping someone will trade my Mistrals for their Quat-D, SlowPoke? JediOne?

Or I have been wanting to find a brilliant welder, shopsmith, that could create something to my design that would fit under the gearbox.

I talked to Jedi a long time ago and last I knew, I was awaiting him posting dyno results.

I was a little dubious of his modification without a detailed exploration of the innards.

I did hear his modified QuatD and it was quite a bit louder Perhaps too loud But I think it lost some of the metallic resonance, as the roar overwhelmed the tinniness.

Maybe Todd Eagan could post Jedi's dynos

[Skeeve]

If it can be made to work, in every other respect (except maybe cosmetic, and that's purely subjective) it's a superior solution IMHO.

 

Cosmetic: paint it black! Plan B: chrome it! No middle ground...

 

Frankly, I like the looks of the Quat-D less than the old colostomy bag collector on the 1100 Spot/Sporti & Daytonas. [For the Centauro, the c-bag was better than the rest of the styling, so no big deal there... ]

 

Like you said, it's a subjective issue when it comes to aesthetics, BUT the mass centralization/ wt. loss issue has a lot going for it. Performance wise, adapting a set of the Griso's 2->1 headers [or alt., the Enzo Cobras] with some Ti cans on the back would almost certainly outperform the present Quat-D as well as be far more aesthetically pleasing than any present offering. Wish I knew if it would work...

 

I think the next logical evolution in the realm of Guzzi exhaust design wrt something of the Quat-D box would be a hydroformed can that would truly utilize all the available space in the underbike location, be structurally superior & acoustically more effective while producing superior performance, w/ some sort of lightweight beauty covers on the sides to camouflage the fact that the underlying hydroformed box is as hideous as the MGS-01 is beautiful...

 

Ride on!

[dlaing]

Performance wise, adapting a set of the Griso's 2->1 headers [or alt., the Enzo Cobras] with some Ti cans on the back would almost certainly outperform the present Quat-D as well as be far more aesthetically pleasing than any present offering.

For a few minutes there, I thought you were serious

But maybe you are serious

I suppose if Enzo's early undergearbox cobra did not have such a tacky paint job, it would look fine.

Ti Cans are almost always nice, but what is the point of the Griso headers going 2 into 1 and then into more than one muffler?!?!?!?

Are you thinking of the Ducati two on the side look?

http://home.arcor.de/rotzfressa/Berliner%2...20S4Rs%2001.jpg