Old or New, which Guzzi's do you prefer?

[bigbikerrick]

deffinitely old....Loop frame bikes are like nothing else, tons of soul, like Charlie states, they are built to last forever....I like that, its the only bike I have ever owned that I can say I will never sell. It goes to my son, no other bike I have ever owned even comes close to it in style, and "panache".  when I got it years ago, someone here told me.."The bike itself, will teach you how to ride it"  " It takes quite a few miles under your belt to learn how to ride a loop properly"

Rick.

[oldbike54]

Nope... Just not looking to add to my maintenance commitments.

 The oldest motorbike I ever owned was a Triumph with a '49 model year engine , and it did require a fair amount of maintenance , but my airheads and old Guzzis really aren't much more trouble to keep running than a new bike , maybe an extra hour a year . It is true that performance has improved , modern brakes and suspension are amazing , but even modern bikes can give problems .

 Now about you're dislike of old folks ... 

 Dusty

[Chuck in Indiana]

Fly-by-wire????

Airliners don't count.  Those aren't planes.
But.. all that stuff is duplicated because it is prone to failure.
 forinstance..
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13447/why-are-critical-flight-computers-redundant

[Kev m]

The oldest motorbike I ever owned was a Triumph with a '49 model year engine , and it did require a fair amount of maintenance , but my airheads and old Guzzis really aren't much more trouble to keep running than a new bike , maybe an extra hour a year .

More is more.

But I suspect you're either fooling yourself or being disingenuous.

[Antietam Classic Cycle]

How many miles do you ride a year Kev? I ask this because, so far I've put 8k miles on my '76 Convert since April. The maintenance has consisted of: changed the oil twice, adjusted the valves once. Nothing else. Just out of curiousity, I checked point gap at 6k miles - it was the same .016" I set them at. I haven't needed to do anything with the carbs or anything else. I don't expect I will need to do anything more than the above for quite some time. If it was a new Guzzi, I'd need to do the same things wouldn't I? So, nothing is added to my "maintenance commitments" the way I see it.

And it's not just the Convert - in the 7k miles I've put on the Morini, it's been the same way - valve adjustments and oil changes - with the addition of chain adjustment. It does have electronic ignition though.  Both of Ambos rarely needed anything other than oil changes and valve adjustments - the points did burn on the '69 once and it got a trailer ride to Lance's ("broke down" close to his house) because I wasn't carrying my spares.

I'll stick with my "quaint" old "mistresses" and let y'all prattle on about maps, sensors and all of that modern crap... 

[Sheepdog]

I'm with Kev when it comes to old bikes. I loved my '60 R60, but the riding time/maintenance time ratio was just too high. It never let me down, but I had to do a whole bunch of work to earn a weekend trip. I sold it and bought a KLR...

[oldbike54]

More is more.

But I suspect you're either fooling yourself or being disingenuous.

 No on both counts . If is it simply a matter of time , how many hours working does it take to pay for that new bike VS some extra maintenance time on an old motorbike ? Add in things like how easy it is to remove and replace the wheels on an older bike than a newer one , even maintenance time begins to even out . How many pre 1980 motorcycles have you owned , really simple devices on the whole . I like the new bikes , great performance , but an old one that has been taken care of isn't that difficult to keep sorted .

 Dusty

[Kev m]

How many miles do you ride a year Kev? I ask this because, so far I've put 8k miles on my '76 Convert since April.

My miles per year have steadily decreased from about 30k/year in the 90's (no kids, commuting 1.5 hours each way) to my current lows of maybe 8-10k/year (2 young kids at home/working at home).

But my preferences were formed in the 90's and I bought my first EFI bike new in 1996.

[Kev m]

No on both counts . If is it simply a matter of time , how many hours working does it take to pay for that new bike VS some extra maintenance time on an old motorbike ? Add in things like how easy it is to remove and replace the wheels on an older bike than a newer one , even maintenance time begins to even out . How many pre 1980 motorcycles have you owned , really simple devices on the whole . I like the new bikes , great performance , but an old one that has been taken care of isn't that difficult to keep sorted .

 Dusty

Well it depends, but Jenn can buy me a new bike with a couple of 24 hour shifts. Or one shift for an old bike. [emoji39]

Pre 80, owned, only lets see the XS650 and R80/7, plus 3 more from the 80's. Plus the ones I've maintained for friends.

Easy to remove wheels??? Let's see R1100 or B1100, place on centerstand, remove lug nuts. Rear wheel is off.

I dunno man, I'm still a relatively young one around here but in a couple hundred k miles, I'll take the new ones...

[redrider90]

why pre-85?
What's the difference between an 85 T-5 and a 90 Mille. a few ccs and tires and these bikes are nearly identical.
 85 Cali II vs 90 Cali III?
Other than some in 90 Guzzi added electronic ignition the nothing much changed from 85 to 90

[ramarren]

My 89 Mille has the same points-and-carbs technology as my 74 T, which means I can fix it at roadside. I like that a lot, and distrust black boxes that can fail suddenly.

That said, I'd love ABS on my next (possibly last) bike.

Hmm. I moved to electronic ignition in the 1970s and equipped all my Guzzis with electronic points replacement gizmos since then. I never had one fail on me. My buddy Dennis, who was a staunch believer in 'fix it at the roadside' technology and stuck with points and coils forever, was always setting his points, setting the timing, fixing the points, setting the timing, etc. Finally he went to electronic ignition in the 1990s ... and hasn't had to maintain his ignition system since, other than the occasional squirt of lubricant on the advancer mechanism. To quote him, "I don't know why the hell I didn't do this twenty years ago."

I prefer to be riding my bike, not fixing it. :D

[Moto]

I think the issue is a bit confused here. It's not a question of whether the past was better than the present. It's a question of whether an old motorcycle, today, can be better than a new motorcycle today. I think the answer is yes, if you make some sensible upgrades. For example, electronic ignition makes an old bike much more reliable. Old bikes can be modified more easily than new bikes and therefore become better bikes, but new bikes like my Griso, for example, often can't  be. If you want a new speedometer on my Griso you're completely out of luck. It won't run with any other speedometer so far as I know, and the one that it has is likely to break down. But for modifications on my T3, the sky's the limit. Old bikes are separable, and incrementally upgradeable. New bikes are unitary and disposable. So I think you can make a better bike today out of an old bike than it was originally, and probably a better bike in many ways than many a new bike will ever be.

Moto

[Gliderjohn]

I will say that the older ones certainly promote meeting people at stops. I would loosly guess that my T-3 gathers 10x the attention that my Norge does. Oh no....my inner poser is coming out!
GliderJohn

[Tom H]

I love my Loops, you can take them from me when you pry my cold dead hands from the bars.

With that said. My EVT is what I seem to ride the most now. Why?? The power and brakes are very addicting!! The ability to cruise down the freeway at 70mph with just a little throttle twist. Wanna do 80mph, just a hair more twist and run it all day.

My Loops fit me better, the ergonomics to me are much better in police dress. My EVT looks like it should be a comfy sofa going down the road. It's not. The seat hurts my rear, the loops (even the rock hard seat from 20 something years ago is better).

If I had t leave town right now and ride across the country, which would be the better bike to take. Ignoring the EVT seat for the moment. We have a modern electronic controlled bike that will roll down the road. But, if something stops it from running, a tow is most likely in order. The Loops may be able to be fixed on the side of the road with commonly carried spares (plugs, points and the like). Then again, if there is a major failure of the drive train on either, a tow would be in order.

So which one is better??? Both.

As I age, the EVT may become a bit heavy to handle around town. The Loop feels much lighter and easier to handle around town with it's ergonomics. My feet are flat on the ground, my knees are at a nice angle om the running boards compared to the EVT.

And for what it's worth. Turning circle is much tighter before you hit the fork stops on my Loops compared to the EVT and the Harley. Why is this important? Your at a gas station and the pump is not working on one side of the island and you want to roll around to the other side, Try doing this against the stop at idle speed, not a very comfy feeling.

JMHO,
Tom

[ray bear]

Only the old ones have soul and talk back to you.  Bill

[pete roper]

I like both, although I honest I can't understand the fascination with Loopys? Spiney's have never really done it for me either but perhaps that's the way it goes. I just jump a generation. Early, short head, Tonti's and the CARC series are what float my boat. Smallblocks? Lots of good there but lots of bad too. I'd be far happier if they put the current engines in a modern chassis.

Pete

[perter]

You can't discuss taste... but we do it all the time.

I like my old bike not only because but also despite. Like I love my wife because and despite.

People who prefers old bikes do it among other things because they like to work on them. Maintenance is seen as part of the packet, not a burden. The old bikes probably takes more time overall, but who looks at the clock when you're in the shed with a beer and the bike you love?

I love my old Guzzi because it's unique and stands out. Because I can customize it to my needs and by that make it mine. It gives me a feeling I'm in charge of something that I understand and control, which is not common these days. It reminds me of my first moped and my first car and let me enjoy that unique feeling riding down an imaginary route66 og Alp pass on my 30 min commute to the daily work mill...

I also love my old Guzzi despite it breaks down from time to time. Despite the carbs goes out of sync and it suddely feels like it's shaking apart. Despite it's heavier and slower than the modern jap bikes. Despite it's an insane and unsafe way of transportation and.....

It's about personal preference

[rodekyll]

The last new bike I ever test rode was a Jackal, at MI when they were first rolling off the truck.  I didn't buy it, but I have a Jackal engine in my '76 Convert now, complete with the EFI.  perfect match of power to the transmission.  I put the big EV fenders on it about 15 years ago.  Otherwise, since I bought the Convert in 1978, my eye has never had a reason to roam.  I've had others in the meantime, but there's something about the twist-and-go, short wheelbase and potseed tank that combines to be as much as I need for power, handling, and funky.

But as someone else mentioned, there's not THAT much difference between tonti Cali's until the hydro signaled the end of the big block as we knew it.  I'd lump them together as the same "old" technologies, occasionally spruced up with gee-whiz updates, like tubeless spokes, fuel injection, and fancier brakes.  They're timeless.  Slap a windjammer and some candy-sparkle paint on your 2003 Stone, put some railroad boots under your bellbottoms, stash your dime bag, and you're ready to motor off to an evening with the Eagles, probably opened by Linda Ronstadt.  Can't do that with a new Goldwing (even though they rocked the windjammer the best, back in the day!).

[Huzo]

I will say that the older ones certainly promote meeting people at stops. I would loosly guess that my T-3 gathers 10x the attention that my Norge does. Oh no....my inner poser is coming out!
GliderJohn

My Norge doesn't get much attention either, but my number plate (tag) does !!!

[webmost]

I'm with Kev when it comes to old bikes. I loved my '60 R60, but the riding time/maintenance time ratio was just too high. It never let me down, but I had to do a whole bunch of work to earn a weekend trip. I sold it and bought a KLR...

See, this is where you guys're comparing apples to oranges. Compare them new versus new and old versus old; not new versus old.

My first beemer was an R60 like this one:

Helluva ride for its time. Had it today, it would be worth three times what it cost then, and if it broke down today you could still kick it into life using the original tool kit. But, drum brakes? It's not the blue tooth & touch screens makes bikes better today. It's the brakes, tires, shocks, and such not.

My second beemer was this one:

Talk about fugginbrakes! Servo assisted linked ABS stop on a dime & give you eight and a half cents change. Fabu. But ten years on those ABS modules crapped out across the fleet. To buy a new modules cost more than the bike is worth, the part comes from Germany, and there's a six month backorder. After waiting three years for someone to come up with a practical solution, I finally had to rip out my tronics and manualize the brakes in mine.

Spose what I'm saying is, fresh off the factory line, gimme that apple, I'll take the new bike every time. Fifty years on, gimme that orange, I'll take the old bike every time.

[Kev m]

Web makes a great point.

But that servo ABS was an intermediate design.

You CAN fix most modern ABS bikes easily enough. Does it cost? Yeah it might, but performance usually does.

And there are plenty of bikes out there you can fix and eliminate the ABS if you wish (not that I'd go that route 9 out of 10 times).

And a modern bike, even without ABS will have much better brakes than an antique.

So spend a couple of bucks and you still have much better components, the antique with drums still has drums.

(cue the guy about to say drums aren't that bad.... no, they are, they really are...).

[elvisboy77]

New.  Fuel Injection.  Disc brakes.  End of list.

[Guzzistajohn]

My 80 CX has been very easy to live with over the last 30 years or so. I wonder how many of those with such strong opinions about older machines ever owned one long enough know from experience or is it just �opinion�?

[Gliderjohn]

In comparison, all my on the road problems over the years with my T-3 have been age related. Have broke a clutch and throttle cable, and three times I have had difficulties with the ignition switch. Had it run funky at times which turned out to be a bad condenser.
My Norge problems have all been related to factory assembly problems or design (tappets and oil sensor).
GliderJohn

[nick949]

As others have mentioned, the question isn't about which are better - clearly in most measurable ways, new bikes are 'better'.  But the question is which do you prefer.

My modern bikes linger in the garage while the Eldorado and the other seventies relics all see plenty of road.  Why? I prefer the experience of riding them. They make me happy. They are relatively slow (especially the Nuovo Falcone  )and can't compare in the braking, handling department, but for me, there's more to motorcycling than speed, comfort, electronic read-outs and safety.

Nick

PS  My most modern (active) bike is a Quota. All the more recent ones have been sold, but I seem to be a hoarder of the older stuff and can't sell any of them.

[Kev m]

As others have mentioned, the question isn't about which are better - clearly in most measurable ways, new bikes are 'better'.  But the question is which do you prefer.

My modern bikes linger in the garage while the Eldorado and the other seventies relics all see plenty of road.  Why? I prefer the experience of riding them. They make me happy. They are relatively slow (especially the Nuovo Falcone  )and can't compare in the braking, handling department, but for me, there's more to motorcycling than speed, comfort, electronic read-outs and safety.

Ya know, I'm probably the most vocal advocate for modern bikes in this thread. But I completely understand the point you're making. And ironically as vocal as I am, I would use this same argument to not only explain my preference for modern bikes, but the specific type of modern bikes that appeal to me.

Be it Guzzi or Harley, I tend toward bikes that are "relatively slow" compared to most modern machines. I mean, hell, my new RK is borderline faster than I need, and it's no rocket, maybe it's comparable to something like a CARC power wise, if that.

And my V7, the slowest and most crude bike in my garage is an absolute pleasure. It's like an older bike, without the additional maintenance or bad brakes of an older bike... though perhaps the suspension is close to an old bike. And I love it.

[blackcat]

I have three old bikes (and a car) that have electronic ignitions and have had no problems with any of those modules. Though the first Dyna on the CX was a problem, but I believe my faulty installation and the flogged original wiring harness had more to do with that problem then the black box, and I have not looked at the distributor on that bike since 1998.

The old bikes are great, but I understand their limitations, especially after having put so many miles on the modern bikes.

[Chuck in Indiana]

I'm kind of a techy, but I fall firmly in the "older" camp, if the Mighty Scura is considered old.. and I would say it is. I don't want a motorcycle that will suddenly stop running if the dash gets some water in it. (!) I don't want a bike that will make me walk in BF Utah because for whatever reason it doesn't recognize the key. (!) I prefer to brake and use the throttle to the best of my ability, adjust the suspension manually.. not what some computer says I can or can't do.
It's that man/machine relationship. I enjoy that. That's why I ride a bike. That's why the Kid is now riding his 1100 Spot now instead of his shiny Grease O.
Now, on to reliability..
A "modern" bike is a marvelous thing indeed.
But.
If it has a failure, it will be without warning. It will be humming along just as happy as can be until it isn't.
An old machine will talk to you, and give you ample warning that some maintenance is needed, if you listen.
If you are willing to spend a weekend once a year and go through an older bike.. especially the electrical system on Guzzis..there is no reason that it can't be very reliable indeed. I would ride any of my old bikes anywhere.
If you are the kind of guy that "don't fix nothin that ain't broke" you are much better off with a new one.

[bpreynolds]

I�ve had my share of genuine vintage machines.  I hate wrenching.  I didn�t really enjoy those bikes much beyond charm.  You should like wrenching if you own them and IMOISIHO (in my own incredibly scientific indoubtable humble opinion) from what I�ve seen this is generally true.  Maybe not on this board but at meets and motorcycle gatherings that I�ve been to, most guys who love the old bikes more also enjoy wrenching a bit more.  Just sayin.  Don�t bother disagreeing with me, liar.    Kidding a bit there.  A bit.

I�m always repeating this stupid phrase on here but I�ve owned four 1100 Calis, V7, Stelvio, 8V Griso, and now a V9.  I�ve put what has to be something north of 110k miles or more spread out over each of them.  Not a single damn road failure on any of those Geese.  To me that’s something.  Really something over that many different bikes.  Other brands I�ve owned: Honda, multiple Ducatis, Kawi, Yamaha, Triumph.  Every single one of these and over much, much fewer miles failed me at some point or another.  Anyhow, what am I saying?  I lost my point.  Common occurrence.

Among the big blocks, I like the older 1100 2V engines the best.  But my favorites are the V7s and especially the V9 engine which is actually my favorite Guzzi engine of all of these. 

But hey, I still have yet to meet a bike I don�t like (though my previously owned and heavily wrenched upon Triumph Thunderbird Sport tested this often), so I like old and new.

[Testarossa]

Kev writes:

* I don't trust electronic controls (translation: I don't understand electronic controls)

* I can fix my old bike (translation: I don't understand my new bike).

* I could set the idle with a screwdriver, gap the points with a matchbook (translation, I mean answer: you're gonna have to bee-och, glad you like it).

And he's partly right. But Chuck has a better handle on it:

I'm kind of a techy, but I fall firmly in the "older" camp, if the Mighty Scura is considered old.. and I would say it is. I don't want a motorcycle that will suddenly stop running if the dash gets some water in it. (!) I don't want a bike that will make me walk in BF Utah because for whatever reason it doesn't recognize the key. (!) I prefer to brake and use the throttle to the best of my ability, adjust the suspension manually.. not what some computer says I can or can't do.

Chuck is used to sitting behind two mags and redundant spark plugs, a system that will keep the engine running in spite of catastrophic electrical failure.  So am I. I've experienced black box failure in Toyotas and Subarus, and alternator failure in a carbureted Cessna. Guess which one got me home? Similarly, I've had electrical issues with Hondas and Tontis, and been back on the road in 10 minutes. I look at the LCD instuments on a modern bike and think "If that goes blank, I'll need a trailer and $1500 in parts."

The bike I enjoy riding most is the '70 Triumph, but the drum brakes are horrible and get worse on mountain-road downhills. The T is an enjoyable ride despite the rear drum brake because I've ugraded the front brake with the proper m/c, braided hose and modern rotor/pads.

I like the Dyna III because it saves me setting points. But I carry points in my tool bag against the day it drops dead, without warning. And a rolling paper to set them.