General Category > General Discussion

V7 850 Sport

(1/7) > >>

faffi:
I just checked the data on the sportiest Guzzi currently for sale - you can do the same here https://wlassets.motoguzzi.com/wlassets/moto-guzzi/master/tech_spec/V7/V7_Sport_tech_spec_EN/original/V7_Sport_tech_spec_EN.pdf?1741777541076

While I have not found any source that has put the Sport on a scale, the more basic V7 850 is listed at 218 kg wet, while independant results from certified scales show it at 221 kg. So one would expect the Sport to clock in at 223 kg with a full tank of gas as its actual weight.

Personally, I find that rather disappointing. It is about the same as the original 1978 Honda CX500 with the double front disc brakes it had outside USA, which was 221 kg wet. With liquid cooling and also shaft final drive. My most recently acquired bike, the BT1100, is a road-crunching 251 kg wet, but the difference between it and the Guzzi Sport is almost entirely within the drivetrain; the engine itself is around 95 kilo, or roughly 30 kg more than the engine of the Guzzi 850 if the information I have is correct. The Yamaha is littered with metal covers that have no or little function, driving up the weight. Not quite sure where there Sport carry its heft.

The Sport has narrower wheels and tires than the BT, and for whatever reason an 18in front instead of a 17in that could take a 110/70 radial. Brakes are similar between the two, fuel capacity is close with the Sport holding a sole liter more. Both are air cooled, both have shaft final drive, both are based on old designs.

However, I would find it interesting to compare the two on the road. I expect the Sport to be more agile, because of its lower weight and also narrower wheels, plus a much shorter wheelbase. 80 mm, or 3.15 inches, to be precise. Claimed engine power is similar at 67.3PS for the Sport and 65 for the BT, and torque is not terribly far off, either, at 79 Nm @ 4400rpm vs 88.2 Nm @ 4500 rpm respectively. Roll-on, full acceleration and stopping distances would for me personally be nice to compare. As well as seating positions, comfort and suspension.

TN Mark:
I find little reason to fret over spec sheets. An owner, or a potential owner, either likes the aesthetics and how the bike actually rides or they don’t. What’s a real or a perceived ’issue’ for one reviewer or owner is often times unnoticed by another.
Many actual owners aren’t, or shouldn’t be stopped by a spec sheet.

PeteS:
Back in the day Motorcycle magazines did dyno tests, quarter mile times, braking distances, and sometimes lap times on a given race track. Late ‘60s into the early ‘70s they did a few Superbike Comparison tests. Those results gave you a better idea how different bikes compared. Factory horsepower and weights don’t really tell you too much. You have get on a bike and try it for yourself.

Pete

kingoffleece:
Spec sheets are way down on the list of things to consider.  Way down.

blu guzz:
It's funny how priorities change if you live to be an old, bold biker.  The fact that Pee Wee Gleason could get down the strip on a 1981 KZ750 a tenth of a second faster than he could on a GS750E was very important in those days.  Although is seems absurd today, those specs drove a lot of sales back then. My first "big" bike was a 1981 GS650E. The salesman told me I was riding a "12 second bike" and I was sold. In reality, except for its speed, it was not a very good motorcycle.  The worst part was probably the skinny forks that allowed quite a bit of wobble in any kind of aggressive cornering. It was so cool because it had triple discs, but I almost wrecked it on the test ride because the rear locked so easily.  Not to mention the skinny Bridgestone rim warmers that in those days were not very well thought of.  Hey, at least I had a "12 second bike".  You couldn't give me that bike today.
Perhaps with age comes wisdom.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page