V7 power bump

[pyoungbl]

Before you go too far down the path of the drone engine you really need to take a look at what Chuck had to do to fit one.  He's happy with the result but it was not a drop-in upgrade.

[rocker59]

Hi All

Does anyone know of an engine kit to bump-up the new V7's power above the official 48 hp?

Thanks

Contact Guzzipower:

http://www.guzzipower.com/

If you have the $$$$, they have the solution.

[kevdog3019]

This begs the question, what would be the shipping charges for the drone engine from Israel?

You might could sell a few if the price is right!

Doubtful on many levels.

edit:  To be fair, we don't have a clue what this drone engine puts out.  Guzzi hp figures are EXTREMELY sketchy (60hp on a lario-laugh).  Don't trust them.  We have Chuck's butt dyno, but... no need to travel the butt dyno path again.  It will forever be a mystery what the drone produces unless we see some graphs, though myths seem to make many complacent.

[Cage Free]

Hi All

Does anyone know of an engine kit to bump-up the new V7's power above the official 48 hp?

Thanks
[/quote

Bet your sorry you asked. Doesn't take much to piss some people off.

[sign216]

All I asked if you know of any engine kit to increase the power. If you don't know of any, say you don't know but stop with the lecturing crup. Thanks for those who gave useful answers it helped.
As for the drone engine, over a year ago I relocated to Israel and since here in the beginning of the 90's they have built their first drones with Guzzi V75 engines there are still some available and my mechanic already suggested me to put one in my V50 Monza.

once again thanks to all of you.

Best

You're in Israel, and the drone engines are still around over there?  I've got some relatives there.  Maybe I could ask for a favor....

A better answer to your question is the 820cc big bore kit.  I got one from R.A.M. of Italy, which is pretty close to you.  The cylinders and pistons were fun to put in, but getting the fueling correct thereafter was a tremendous pain.  Not as easy as changing a few carburetor jets.  So the kit is not the easy answer it appears. 

[SteveAZ]

The thing about bench racing and hp/mod/go faster discussions that has always cracked me up is (to steal Petes phrase) no one looks at the rider and bike holistcally, as a system.

Loss of and location of weight is just as important as adding power, maybe even more important as cornering speed can improve before you lose traction and no hp increase can do that for you. I had more than one friend back in the motocross days pour lots of  $$$$ into a bike while ignoring the fact that their own weight was how shall we say....a bit high. Now I'm the last guy to point a finger a a guys gut and laugh (my own 6-2 frame has varied from 170 to 220 lbs at different times in my life) but it's the cheapest way to go faster. Eat less, exercise more and you'll go faster. Or don't...but it's the cheapest and fastest way.

I used to race mountain bikes years ago with a guy who would spend thousands on titanium parts, down to the nuts and bolts, to save maybe 2 lbs on his 22ish pound cross country racer. He also loved Guinness and Carne Asada burritos.. So do I, but anyway....he always carried an extra 10 lbs minimum on himself. That's fine we all live the way the that makes us happy but most of the time and all his hard work on the bikes weight simply kept the aftermarket guys in business and had no real effect on his finishing times.

Talking about this stuff is no where near as cool as watching a drone engine transplant thread  but much more attainable and maybe more effective too.

BTW I just blew up my LM III from the bottom end up. It's getting a fresh 1100 engine whIch I *think* came from a mid 90s Cali to replace the beautifully fun 850 mill so my bike is going to feel very different when it's back on the road. The price on the 1100 was less than a third of a guesstimate cost for a  rebuild on the 850 so if I wanted to keep riding, the choice was obvious. I have no idea what my new HP numbers will be. The 1100 can be massaged into all sorts of configurations so some day I might be on here wondering about swapping heads to gain 4 hp.

Just doing my part to contribute to the required WG thread drift.

[pyoungbl]

As we thread-drift along...don't forget about the 900cc Guzzi has admitted to have in development, per the 2015 Piaggio annual report to stockholders.  No word whether this will be BB or SB but it will certainly broaden the line.

Peter Y.

[M0T0Geezer]

I've owned 23 bikes over the years from 65cc to 1300cc and for me the little V7 has to be the best fun bike I've owned.

Ditto that.  My '04 Breva is the most fun of my 20 different motorcycles.  I've got 36,000 miles on it, mostly put on since 2012 when I bought it used.

Maybe spend the $$ for after market exhaust cans and a lithium battery.  Both will save a lot of weight over the stock items.  Leave the tool kit at home and lose 10 lbs off your arse to save still more hp eating flab.

All these "modifications" will improve the power to weight ratio (seat-of-the-pants performance) more than any black magic on the engine - with the exception of a new fuel mapping (ECU reflash) from Todd over at GuzziTech.  That one is really worth the $$$.

'Geezer

[kevdog3019]

The thing about bench racing and hp/mod/go faster discussions that has always cracked me up is (to steal Petes phrase) no one looks at the rider and bike holistcally, as a system.

Loss of and location of weight is just as important as adding power, maybe even more important as cornering speed can improve before you lose traction and no hp increase can do that for you. I had more than one friend back in the motocross days pour lots of  $$$$ into a bike while ignoring the fact that their own weight was how shall we say....a bit high. Now I'm the last guy to point a finger a a guys gut and laugh (my own 6-2 frame has varied from 170 to 220 lbs at different times in my life) but it's the cheapest way to go faster. Eat less, exercise more and you'll go faster. Or don't...but it's the cheapest and fastest way.

I used to race mountain bikes years ago with a guy who would spend thousands on titanium parts, down to the nuts and bolts, to save maybe 2 lbs on his 22ish pound cross country racer. He also loved Guinness and Carne Asada burritos.. So do I, but anyway....he always carried an extra 10 lbs minimum on himself. That's fine we all live the way the that makes us happy but most of the time and all his hard work on the bikes weight simply kept the aftermarket guys in business and had no real effect on his finishing times.

Talking about this stuff is no where near as cool as watching a drone engine transplant thread  but much more attainable and maybe more effective too.

BTW I just blew up my LM III from the bottom end up. It's getting a fresh 1100 engine whIch I *think* came from a mid 90s Cali to replace the beautifully fun 850 mill so my bike is going to feel very different when it's back on the road. The price on the 1100 was less than a third of a guesstimate cost for a  rebuild on the 850 so if I wanted to keep riding, the choice was obvious. I have no idea what my new HP numbers will be. The 1100 can be massaged into all sorts of configurations so some day I might be on here wondering about swapping heads to gain 4 hp.

Just doing my part to contribute to the required WG thread drift.

Nobody??  I call BS on this.  I did with mine.  Loss of weight, different ergos, brakes, suspension.  I'm 160 @ 6' so no need for me to lose weight.  I have a 12oz. battery so can't go any lower there either.  Your statement CRACKS ME UP.   :thumb:My entire project was holistic.  This thread is full of funny one-liners. 

[kevdog3019]

For anybody who is seriously considering wasting their money going down this path here are a couple of things to consider.

Simply increasing capacity may get a bit more torque but to get more power you'll need a higher rev limit. Never mind the limitations in the valve train but I hope whoever is thinking of producing these technological marvels is giving some thought to the crank and rods.

I don't know if the current V7 rods have been substantially strengthened but they certainly look very similar to earlier smallblock rods. One thing that I my experience has always needed doing on any smallblock and more so the harder they were thrashed is re-sizing of the big ends during rebuilds. The big ends tend to ovalise as the wall thickness is really quite thin. While big block rods have always been substantial bits of engineering the smallblocks were always an 'Economy' model and there is nothing wrong with that but it does mean that in the interest of both cost and weight the rods are a bit flimsy. Also bear in mind that the engineers knew perfectly well the limitations of the Heron head design so super-high quality rods were un-necessary.

If though you are going to be chasing *more* from the engine one would hope that the use of lighter, forged, Pistons with a modern, shorter, skirt design, Deeves type oil ring and thin compression rings with low tension would be employed and the rods swapped for something more substantial. If this is not done it may work OK but life of components like big end shells is liable to be compromised and if you run your big ends? Well, I don't think you can get undersized bearings for smallblock rods and anyway you'd loose both the nitriding and rigidity of the crank if you do under-grind.

Look,if people want to go down this path all power to them but please! Look at the package holistically and consider ALL the relevant factors otherwise you're going to end up with an expensive and possibly dangerous disappointment. I don't want to hear a load of whinging and bitching about unreliability when an essentially good design is stretched beyond its service parameters.

Pete

Pete,
     I must say I've not heard much in the way of bottom end issues with the sb's. The one I have ran out of oil so that's a given. Perhaps I've missed something? I've heard a good deal of BB's that have had bottom end journal issues (as posted above) though. Just saying I haven't seen evidence of the issue.... yet. Again, I'd like to know what Millich races with with his old V65 54hp winner. Seems it's holding up ok.

[SteveAZ]

Nobody??  I call BS on this.  I did with mine.  Loss of weight, different ergos, brakes, suspension.  I'm 160 @ 6' so no need for me to lose weight.  I have a 12oz. battery so can't go any lower there either.  Your statement CRACKS ME UP.   :thumb:My entire project was holistic.  This thread is full of funny one-liners. 

Ok....you and three or so other guys. 

I'll amend my sentence from "nobody" to "almost no one".

 Other than that, yeah, what I said before.

[Vasco DG]

Pete,
     I must say I've not heard much in the way of bottom end issues with the sb's. The one I have ran out of oil so that's a given. Perhaps I've missed something? I've heard a good deal of BB's that have had bottom end journal issues (as posted above) though. Just saying I haven't seen evidence of the issue.... yet. Again, I'd like to know what Millich races with with his old V65 54hp winner. Seems it's holding up ok.

Is Ed using stock rods? I dunno? All I'm doing is saying I hope that if some sort of hot-up kit is produced it is done properly.

pete

[Muzz]

Looking at Ed's photos it is still a Heron head system.  I notice that he talks about torque rather than hp.

[kevdog3019]

Looking at Ed's photos it is still a Heron head system.  I notice that he talks about torque rather than hp.

Yes, putting a few stallions into your motor will significantly change its character. Hp and torque are little understood. When people say they want more hp I don't necessarily take that at face value. Do they really want to go from 105 to 120 mph or do they want to simply get to 105 with a harder pull and quicker rate?  Of course, hp will usually go up to some degree when you bump torque significantly.

[tris]

Oh come on Pete, I heard you can get 3hp just switching to iridium plugs. 

you forgot

+1.5 BHP for an air cleaner
+2 BHP for a new exhaust
+3 BHP for one of them there magnetic fuel enhancer dodads 

and the best one

+15 BHP (equivalent) if the fat git (myself included) riding it looses a couple of stone 

RaananC - good luck with whatever you decide

[Penderic]

And you will go faster in a bathing suit.

Use synthetic suntan oil if you must.

[tiger_one]

Every year they release a new Driver (golf content) that is supposed to be 5 yards longer than the previous years model.

I'm thinking I should be hitting 295 yards, if you add up all the drivers I have bought!

[sib]

Every year they release a new Driver (golf content) that is supposed to be 5 yards longer than the previous years model.

I'm thinking I should be hitting 295 yards, if you add up all the drivers I have bought!

Same with "hi-fi" components, every year lower distortion, higher S/N ratio, etc.  And bicycle frames, every year lighter, stiffer, less wind resistance.  I believed all that stuff for the first 50 years or so, now, not so much.

[kevdog3019]

Same with "hi-fi" components, every year lower distortion, higher S/N ratio, etc.  And bicycle frames, every year lighter, stiffer, less wind resistance.  I believed all that stuff for the first 50 years or so, now, not so much.

Yes, for this reason horse power is overrated but torque is telling. I agree.

[Kev m]

Well, I do understand the basics of how torque is calculated, and maybe more importantly have an idea for how different motors feel based on peak hp or peak torque figures and where they make said peaks in their rpm range.

I definitely have a preference for twin cylinder motorcycles, that generally make generous amounts of torque and usually lower in the power band.

But I can't say that the HP figures are irrelevant in terms of performance, just looking at my own garage.

Duc 696 - 408# wet, rated at ~ 67 RWHP and 44 torques, 12.21 second 1/4 mile

V7 Stone - 444# wet, rated at ~ 40 RWHP and 41 torques, 14.57 second  1/4 mile

Somehow I don't believe that more than 2 second difference in the 1/4 mile is 3 ft. lbs. of torque and 36# of weight. Seems how and where it is making that hp (and how much) is the main difference.

Now, that said, I STILL PREFER the V7 to the Duc, but the Duc doesn't feel like a highly stressed motor. It might turn 500-1000 rpm quicker much of the time, but doesn't feel buzzy, peaky, or like it is straining.

I know that at the absolute top end it's still pulling long after the V7 cried uncle.

And at the end of the day it is in the same ballpark on acceleration as the third bike in the garage (which has almost 2x the displacement):

Sportster 1200, at least 585# wet, ~65 RWHP and 70 torques, 1/4 mile in the high 12's.

Of course I can't imagine that Sportster seeing the same top end as the Duc either...though it'll easily match/best the V7.

<shrugs>

[SmithSwede]

To add to the thread drift---Kev m--why do you prefer the Guzzi V7 to the little Ducati monster? 

I've always been tempted by a Ducati like that but never had one.  So I'd be interested in why you prefer the Guzzi I already own. 

[Kev m]

To add to the thread drift---Kev m--why do you prefer the Guzzi V7 to the little Ducati monster? 

I've always been tempted by a Ducati like that but never had one.  So I'd be interested in why you prefer the Guzzi I already own.

I could write a book, but here are some thoughts.

Reader's Digest:

* Looks
* Ergos
* Simplicity of maintenance
*  Sum of the motor and chassis*

*I'll expound on them all, but this one will take the most explanation.

* LOOKS - I'm not too proud to admit that I need to be emotionally stirred by the appearance of my bikes. I like them to have traditional lines, analog gauges, simple/uncluttered looks that make the engine the star. The looks and gauges remind me I'm on a motorbike and not a space ship.

The Duc has a better chassis (lighter/stiffer, with better suspension out of the box), but it has some exaggerated, almost cartoon-like, components/design elements, like the rear subframe and swingarm, or the overly angular headlight and the digital LED gauges. It doesn't matter how well it works if I don't like to stare at it in my garage.

That's not to say the Duc is a bad looking bike overall, it just doesn't speak to ME as much as the V7 does. And on the V7, bags don't hurt the looks, where the high exhaust on the Duc pushes bags out to an almost comical distance from the centerline.

* ERGOS - The standard, upright riding position of the Stone is perfect for me. It feels like I can tuck in for twisties, but I can be just as comfortable bolt upright and sniffing the roses. I can move around on the seat and find some variation to the seating in the V7. But the Duc slopes forward in the seat to the tank (ball crusher) and locks you into one position much more. There's also a little more forward a lean that is great for the twisties, but discourages you from smelling the roses.

* SIMPLICITY OF MAINTENANCE - This is simple. No chain to clean/lubricate every 500-1000 miles (or whenever it rains), no biennial timing belt replacements, infinitely easier valve adjustments. There's no comparison, the V7 is easier to live with. We just spent $1200 between a new rear tire and the fluids, maintenance and adjustments mentioned above plus fork, brake, and clutch fluid on the Duc at 7500 miles.

* SUM OF THE MOTOR AND CHASSIS - at the end of the day, if you're a V11 Sport, Griso, or MV Augusta, or Speed-Triple guy then the Duc is for you. The USD forks, mono-shock rear, lightweight Brembo wheels and radial tires will all combine for a faster ride through the twisties, or will tempt you to follow a Corvette at speeds far enough over the ton that the V7 will never see (unless dropped from a plane).

If a LeMans, or Cali, or Airhead, or Bonneville appeals to you more, then the V7 if for you. On the street the V7 will take those same curves still at speeds double the "recommended" for the curve, or arguably pushing sane amounts for the street. But it will make you feel more the hero for it. At the end of the day you'll use a higher percentage of the motor and chassis before you break the law or risk your life as much. You can, very simply, push the V7 more and feel like you're accomplishing more, while still actually going slower than the Duc, which, on the street, can be a good thing.

Think a hot hatch instead of a Supercar, or a Miata instead of an M3, a Mini instead of a Ferrari.

I can slow down and enjoy the V7 easier/more than I can the Duc.

I'm glad we own the Duc and take it out now and again. But I can honestly say I'd never have bought one personally nor would I own one if it wasn't Jenn's ride of choice.

I don't fault anyone for loving the Duc, especially a Monster or the new Scrambler, but I know myself and I couldn't be happier with my V7 or Sportster.

[Kev m]

PS, thinking about it more, my Sportster was to my Buell, as my V7 is to our Duc.

The Buell was basically a hand built American Griso. Same riding position, about 100 rwhp, same weight (low 500's). It was a little more upright and had an amazing range on a 5 gallon tank. But the mass centralization, USD forks, pizza-sized front disc and huge caliper, mono-shock rear all added up to 100 reasons I was supposed to like it more than my Sporty. But too often I found myself on the Buell wishing that I was on the Sporty. It was too easy to get tempted to ride faster than I should. It was harder to enjoy at more sane speeds.

To an extent I've spent a large part of my riding career with this struggle.

I appreciate the design and performance of the Duc or Buell on paper, but prefer the V7 or Sportster in reality.

My Jackal was to my Breva the same way.

My Road King to my R1100RSa.

I should just learn the lesson lol.

I've spent a long time trying to want the bikes I'm supposed to want.

I don't feel the need to do that anymore.

[kevdog3019]

Well, I do understand the basics of how torque is calculated, and maybe more importantly have an idea for how different motors feel based on peak hp or peak torque figures and where they make said peaks in their rpm range.

I definitely have a preference for twin cylinder motorcycles, that generally make generous amounts of torque and usually lower in the power band.

But I can't say that the HP figures are irrelevant in terms of performance, just looking at my own garage.

Duc 696 - 408# wet, rated at ~ 67 RWHP and 44 torques, 12.21 second 1/4 mile

V7 Stone - 444# wet, rated at ~ 40 RWHP and 41 torques, 14.57 second  1/4 mile

Somehow I don't believe that more than 2 second difference in the 1/4 mile is 3 ft. lbs. of torque and 36# of weight. Seems how and where it is making that hp (and how much) is the main difference.

Now, that said, I STILL PREFER the V7 to the Duc, but the Duc doesn't feel like a highly stressed motor. It might turn 500-1000 rpm quicker much of the time, but doesn't feel buzzy, peaky, or like it is straining.

I know that at the absolute top end it's still pulling long after the V7 cried uncle.

And at the end of the day it is in the same ballpark on acceleration as the third bike in the garage (which has almost 2x the displacement):

Sportster 1200, at least 585# wet, ~65 RWHP and 70 torques, 1/4 mile in the high 12's.

Of course I can't imagine that Sportster seeing the same top end as the Duc either...though it'll easily match/best the V7.

<shrugs>

Then I don't think you'd cry if you put a little Duc top end on your V7. 

[Kev m]

Then I don't think you'd cry if you put a little Duc top end on your V7. 

I honestly don't know.

It might be a bonus, or it might change that fourth item in the list, that "sum of the motor and chassis".

I did say that I tend to pick the V7 over the Duc, and it's at least 9 outta 10 times.

The Corvette I mentioned was a specific instance that tempted me to explore the Duc's top end. I dunno if I'd ever want to do that on the V7 that way. And if that top end cost it the character and fun of the bottom end, being able to feel like I'm pushing it at lower speeds, then probably not.

[kevdog3019]

I honestly don't know.

It might be a bonus, or it might change that fourth item in the list, that "sum of the motor and chassis".

I did say that I tend to pick the V7 over the Duc, and it's at least 9 outta 10 times.

The Corvette I mentioned was a specific instance that tempted me to explore the Duc's top end. I dunno if I'd ever want to do that on the V7 that way. And if that top end cost it the character and fun of the bottom end, being able to feel like I'm pushing it at lower speeds, then probably not.

Nah, think 8-valve BB. Not too many guys are complaining about how it ruined their fun. It doesn't do much to the bottom. Same Guzzi character just no wheezing.

[Kev m]

Nah, think 8-valve BB. Not too many guys are complaining about how it ruined their fun. It doesn't do much to the bottom. Same Guzzi character just no wheezing.

I preferred my B11 to the Griso 8V I test rode. I still feel the 2V BB was a better motor for me.

But in the end, I decided I preferred a 40 hp Smallblock to either.

<shrugs>

[kevdog3019]

Bottom line is when proven (on paper), hp or torque comes from anywhere but the factory it's debunked. I find this particularly fascinating from Guzzi folks who seem relatively open-minded do it yourselfers. I understand people don't want the hassle to go this route. The part I can't understand is that it's been done yet people say it can't, we have not seen proof of blown up engines (even when they're raced for years under heavy mods and high hp), and the money involved is no higher than buying a new bike and turning around and selling it a year or two later only to buy the same bike new again with few changes. That's also expensive and your bike has possibly less change than the equal value modded one does. I flat guarantee if Guzzi came out with a bump of 5-6 hp (and some torque) that there would be one hell of a stir over it. Coming from the factory (without paper to prove it) means everything!!
Ps, we also know the Guzzi engineers have been spot on over the years. 

[JBBenson]

I think the stock engine on any motorcycle (or car) can be improved with a few upgrades, "improved" meaning smoother, more tractable power through the power band. Most stock suspensions are lowest-bidder type of equipment.

Smoother, more tractable power often feels like more horse-power, even though it may not be. Every vehicle I have owned has had mods done by me: I want the bike (or car) to drive and handle the way I want.

Stock bikes try to be everything to all people, and smog and noise compliant at the same time. Its not that the engineers don't know what they are doing, but that their goals are not the same as mine, thats all.

Think of it as setting the bike free: "free to be, all it can be".....even with only 40-odd horses.

[Mayor_of_BBQ]

All I asked if you know of any engine kit to increase the power. If you don't know of any, say you don't know but stop with the lecturing crup. Thanks for those who gave useful answers it helped.
As for the drone engine, over a year ago I relocated to Israel and since here in the beginning of the 90's they have built their first drones with Guzzi V75 engines there are still some available and my mechanic already suggested me to put one in my V50 Monza.

once again thanks to all of you.

Best

You said you haven't been around in a year, you may have missed it! Look at Chuck in Indiana's profile, check his post... find the Aero drone engine thread.. ready made instructions for you & your mechanic friend! 

Also in the last year, a member here put lario 4v heads on a modern v7. His build is well documented in its own thread.