Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mwether on February 06, 2022, 02:08:43 PM
-
Happy Sunday, all!
As I peruse the used V7 market and find both Mk.2 and Mk.3s for sale, I'm wondering about your experiences with the engine changes between models.
I understand that the II (2014) got the more forward cant on the engine/heads, new gearbox with an extra gear—taking it from five- to six-speed—ABS, TC, and a redesigned chassis. Then the III (2017) got heavier (twin-walled pipes, etc.), a few more ponies, and different gearing, which made the torque peak at higher RPM.
Below is part of what Dave/Moto International used to have on their website about the difference:
...The IIIs make a little more horsepower, steer a little more lightly, run cleaner to meet more stringent emissions standards, and sit lower to fit more riders.
There is some excitement surrounding the news that the III makes “10% more horsepower!” Yes, that’s true in terms of the peak value. But it comes at the expense of a little bit of low-end torque. The II and III have the same peak torque value, but for the II it is reached at 2800 rpm while the III doesn’t accomplish it till 4900. So at low engine speeds does the III feel weaker? Yes, but not in a way that will be negative to all riders. Some felt that the II was too torquey at low engine speeds, so the III is less abrupt and more linear.
Gearing is slightly different: the III has a slightly taller first and sixth gear. So the III feels a bit more relaxed on the freeway. I felt that first on the II was lower than necessary. Perhaps a commuter would like the lower first of the II better.
Two things I doubt anyone will question: the seat and the rear shocks are definitely more comfortable on the III. Oh, and the seat is about ¾” lower on the III but that means that the II has a little more leg room for taller riders.
Typically, I'd buy the newest version of a bike I could, but I wonder if more folks prefer the character of the II?
What have you all experienced?
-
I believe the II has a Heron head (dished Piston)
The III has a Hemi head (domed piston)
-
I can't day about the one year only V7II as it's the ONE version I didn't bother riding. IIRC I thought peak torque or hp was lower on it than the preserver predecessor MkI model, but I could be remembering wrong.
I will say that I happily own both a MkI V7 Stone (first year 1TB model) and a V7III. Plus I've sought out rides on the V9 and the newest V7850.
I like my MkI so much it's not going anywhere. The MkIII is noticeably more powerful and a better highway bike. The current 850 isn't as noticeable a difference from the III as the III is from the I.
If I wrecked either tomorrow I'd buy a pre-EU V V9 Bobber Sport or an EUV V7 850.
The heron head is cool and nostalgic and I don't need more. But if I lost it somehow the more modern hemi heads are clearly better.
-
I believe the II has a Heron head (dished Piston)
The III has a Hemi head (domed piston)
Thanks, Roy. That's my understanding too.
-
Thanks, Kev! Very helpful.
I like my MkI so much it's not going anywhere. The MkIII is noticeably more powerful and a better highway bike.
Can you tell me more about this? Are there some conditions in which you prefer the Mk1?
(I sure do like the white ones, and I think the Mk.1 was the only one to come in white!)
Do you notice any weight difference? Does the III feel any bigger or more cumbersome?
-
I can comment on the difference between the 2, 3, and 850. I’d say the 2 builds power faster than the three with the three struggling less with highway speeds in cruising not that it did bad. I liked the V7 ii a lot. The power delivery was fun. The 850 does great and I love it as it does feel significantly better for Highway use. Less rpm’s at higher speeds. Maybe that will make some sense.
I think it’s really about whether you prefer hitting your power early or building up to it. My 2 cents
-
Thanks, Kev! Very helpful.
Can you tell me more about this? Are there some conditions in which you prefer the Mk1?
(I sure do like the white ones, and I think the Mk.1 was the only one to come in white!)
Do you notice any weight difference? Does the III feel any bigger or more cumbersome?
I have spent my life trying to either convince myself that I was mature enough for a sportbike or somehow needed more power because it was available.
It took me too long to figure out that I'm just as happy with a slower/lower power bike, occasionally "flogging" it, but still staying much more within more uh "reasonable" limits.
My MkI can be thrown around in the curves and ridden aggressively while still staying below oh crap speeds. If there is any shortcoming, it's with the power and feel on the highway. While it'll do 75-80 all day long, it's not easy/lazy.
As such I have a big bore Harley Road King for that kind of riding.
And the RK is more than just lazy highway power, the chassis is bigger and more easily carries more. That said I sometimes wonder if I could do without it. And I could more easily do without it on a V7III than a MkI. The III isn't night and day different, but it's got a little bit more all around (power, comfort, stability and feel on the highway).
Yet I come back to the MkI so often because sometimes less is more and I enjoy that.
But no. I don't think the III is more cumbersome and I don't think the MkI is "actually better" in any other way. It's just cool and I love it.
Of course take all this in the perspective that I once hopped off the 800# RK and threw myself against the MkI V7 (the same way I throw my body against the RK to help get it off the stand) and almost threw the V7 to the floor.
Also keep in mind that the V7III is my diminutive wife's second bike (the Ducati is her first love). The V7III was purchased so she could carry our youngest son as a passenger. I really couldn't tell the difference between the two in weight unless I tried to bench press them, and then I'd fail at either.
-
I can comment on the difference between the 2, 3, and 850. I’d say the 2 builds power faster than the three with the three struggling less with highway speeds in cruising not that it did bad. I liked the V7 ii a lot. The power delivery was fun. The 850 does great and I love it as it does feel significantly better for Highway use. Less rpm’s at higher speeds. Maybe that will make some sense.
I think it’s really about whether you prefer hitting your power early or building up to it. My 2 cents
I guess we all have our own perspectives.
I love Harleys and Guzzis and have loved BMWs, but some of the BMWs spun up enough to be a little "buzzy" to me. Still they were never as buzzy as say a JAPaninc. 4cyl 1200 Bandit. But at highway speeds the oilhead BMW was more like a Bandit than a Harley.
What do I mean by all that? Mostly that the difference in rpm and power delivery between the various V7 models is an RCH and better measured with a micrometer then a yardstick.
OP, really, just buy the one you like.
-
I thought the OP had raised this before and had many responses. But, as with oil threads and the like, I can revisit this sort of discussion every day. :wink:
I have not ridden -- or don't remember if I have -- the first in the series.
But I have a II (Stornello) and III.
I am not an engineer or a human dyno, thus my view is entirely subjective without a claimed data point beyond my own take.
I like them both. Lots. I have done multi-day trips on both. I find them both grand on the back roads I ride. I am only rarely on the slab and then only for a few miles exit to next exit. Both keep up with all but the stooopidest of traffic on the I-roads, but the thought of droning on at even 70+ for hours makes me tired even to think about it.
If, however, I had to choose one over the other for the visceral "feel" of a Guzzi as I think of them, the II wins. Easily. If anything, the III is, IMO, over-refined to the point that -- at least in comparison with my other Guzzis and th Stornello in particular -- a bit tame, even bland.
It's not a shortage of power -- tho its not a 1/4 turn to a ton machine :shocked: -- but how it makes compared to the II.
I find the stock map on the III to be just fine, smooth, and linear. The original stock map on the Stornello was maddening, requiring what no other Guzzi of mine ever demanded, i.e., a significant warm-up before launching. The new one, much better.
The Stornello has had no issues beyond those I have inflicted on it. I did replace the rear shocks with Ikons.
The III, no issues at all.
Enough.
Best wishes on deciding.
Bill
-
I thought the OP had raised this before and had many responses. But, as with oil threads and the like, I can revisit this sort of discussion every day. :wink:
I have not ridden -- or don't remember if I have -- the first in the series.
But I have a II (Stornello) and III.
I am not an engineer or a human dyno, thus my view is entirely subjective without a claimed data point beyond my own take.
I like them both. Lots. I have done multi-day trips on both. I find them both grand on the back roads I ride. I am only rarely on the slab and then only for a few miles exit to next exit. Both keep up with all but the stooopidest of traffic on the I-roads, but the thought of droning on at even 70+ for hours makes me tired even to think about it.
If, however, I had to choose one over the other for the visceral "feel" of a Guzzi as I think of them, the II wins. Easily. If anything, the III is, IMO, over-refined to the point that -- at least in comparison with my other Guzzis and th Stornello in particular -- a bit tame, even bland.
It's not a shortage of power -- tho its not a 1/4 turn to a ton machine :shocked: -- but how it makes compared to the II.
I find the stock map on the III to be just fine, smooth, and linear. The original stock map on the Stornello was maddening, requiring what no other Guzzi of mine ever demanded, i.e., a significant warm-up before launching. The new one, much better.
The Stornello has had no issues beyond those I have inflicted on it. I did replace the rear shocks with Ikons.
The III, no issues at all.
Enough.
Best wishes on deciding.
Bill
I agree with Bill. I have a V7II Stornello, but have ridden both. The III is a bit smoother, more refined, and a VERY slight bump in power, but less 'authentic' feel or character. I've not ridden a V7II Special or Stone, but the Stornello is spunky, and I much prefer it over the III.
-
Echoing the torque-hp differences already mentioned: I bought my V7 II in 2017. When the new V7 III lineup came out, I visited the Guzzi dealer nearest to me, Seacoast Sport Cycle, same dealer I bought my II from, and discussed the differences between the 2 models. We obviously talked about the new heads, but when I brought up the power increase, he shrugged, and said essentially “they raise the numbers over here at the expense of the numbers over there.” When you add in the little bit of extra weight, and the higher RPMs for max torque delivery, I think the comparisons are there, but also minor enough. I agree with the refinement critique. It seems each new model of Guzzi is losing a good deal of that beloved raw personality. They sound great, at least.
You won’t be disappointed with either version, I bet, although it’s worth noting that there are obviously difference in parts, and older machines never get younger.
-
I would like to add one thing about the steering on the V7ii Stornello. Only ridden Big blocks before this V-7. Started out with the stock Bias front,and rear Radial. Stiff riding setup.. Then went to Conti RA3 for a bit.. Very good overall, and turn-in wheel. Picked up a set of factory V7-iii rims, and stock sport Demons .Bike would not turn-in without a lot of force. Way different steering completely. Now I am back with the stock rear Radial (GT201) and a Pirelli MT-60 RS 100/80R18 Turns in very well, rides super nice, and only a bit more noise. The stock sport demons on the V7-ii make my Breva 1100 feel like a Super-Moto (Dunlop Q3+) Conti's are going on my black,and now tubeless rims. Tires make a huge difference on this bike.
The six speed in my bike is excellent, and probably better then the 30 plus bikes I have owned (Motul 300 75-90)
-
A good review here : https://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/moto-guzzi/2017-moto-guzzi-v7-iii-stone-review.html
(https://www.motorcycle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/081717-2017-Moto-Guzzi-V7-III-Stone-hp-torque-dyno.jpg)
-
I agree with Bill. I have a V7II Stornello, but have ridden both. The III is a bit smoother, more refined, and a VERY slight bump in power, but less 'authentic' feel or character. I've not ridden a V7II Special or Stone, but the Stornello is spunky, and I much prefer it over the III.
Echoing the torque-go differences already mentioned: I bought my V7 II in 2017. When the new V7 III lineup came out, I visited the Guzzi dealer nearest to me, Seacoast Sport Cycle, same dealer I bought my II from, about the differences between the 2 models. We obviously talked about the new heads, but when I brought up the power increase, he shrugged, and said essentially “they raise the numbers over here at the expense of the numbers over there.” When you add in the little bit of extra weight, and the higher RPMs for max torque delivery, I think it comparisons are there, but also minor enough. I agree with the refinement critique. It seems each new model of Guzzi is losing a good deal of that beloved raw personality. They sound great, at least.
You won’t be disappointed with either version, I bet, although it’s worth noting that there are obviously difference in parts, and older machines never get younger.
I find myself nearly always agreeing with people who agree with me. :thumb: :grin:
I would like to add one thing about the steering on the V7ii Stornello. Only ridden Big blocks before this V-7. Started out with the stock Bias front,and rear Radial. Stiff riding setup.. Then went to Conti RA3 for a bit.. Very good overall, and turn-in wheel. Picked up a set of factory V7-iii rims, and stock sport Demons .Bike would not turn-in without a lot of force. Way different steering completely. Now I am back with the stock rear Radial (GT201) and a Pirelli MT-60 RS 100/80R18 Turns in very well, rides super nice, and only a bit more noise. The stock sport demons on the V7-ii make my Breva 1100 feel like a Super-Moto (Dunlop Q3+) Conti's are going on my black,and now tubeless rims. Tires make a huge difference on this bike.
The six speed in my bike is excellent, and probably better then the 30 plus bikes I have owned (Motul 300 75-90)
Hard to discuss intelligently the fine points of any aspect of motorcycle engineering with someone who has owned more than three times the number of motorcycles I have, but, of course, that won't stop me. :rolleyes:
The wheels swap was interesting to me, and your experience surprising. I would not have thought that, aside fro tires, the wheels would have made such a difference in performance. Then again, I had never even thought about doing that (as much as I dislike wire spoking).
The various mixing and matching you have done with tires, too, is interesting. Without doubting your observations, I am simply insensitive to all the nuances you report. Everyone, I suppose, likes new tires, and I thought that the stock-supplied Golden Whatevers were quite fine on and off pavement, with "off pavement" meaning no more than dual-track gravel and dirt. Anything more challenging means I should wear Depends. :embarrassed: Now have Pirelli Scorpion Trail II's that are OK, but I'll shop around for the alleged latest and greatest when I next new rubber for the Stornello. On my III, I found whatever the OEM tires were -- I've forgotten -- unimpressive. But when I replaced them with Conti RA3's, I never had the near-orgasmic experiences that most here seem to have enjoyed with those. The III now wears Pilot Activs, that I think are mighty fine. Again, there are indubitably objective charts and reports from more experienced riders such as yourself, but so much remains "what works for you," with riding style, roads, speeds, scream point, etc., deciding what works best. The seeminly exponential advances in tire technology advances can also make yesterday's observations less relevant.
A good review here : https://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/moto-guzzi/2017-moto-guzzi-v7-iii-stone-review.html
(https://www.motorcycle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/081717-2017-Moto-Guzzi-V7-III-Stone-hp-torque-dyno.jpg)
Thanks for that.
I am in the middle of reading a biography of Alexander von Humboldt, that great 19th century scientist, philosopher, and just about everything. He would, I think, look at such charts as marvelous representations of empirical data, but lacking the impossible-to-graph lines that depict satisfaction, fun, and joy.
Such an enhanced template of those factors reveals that, while I like both very much, I pursue happiness faster on the II than the III.
If ever a "debate" such as this evidences YMMV, it is this.
Best,
Bill
-
...There is some excitement surrounding the news that the III makes “10% more horsepower!” Yes, that’s true in terms of the peak value. But it comes at the expense of a little bit of low-end torque. The II and III have the same peak torque value, but for the II it is reached at 2800 rpm while the III doesn’t accomplish it till 4900. So at low engine speeds does the III feel weaker? Yes, but not in a way that will be negative to all riders...
As you can see on the graph the torque of the V7 III is never lower than the V7 II, even at 2800rpm.
-
The wheels are the exact same, just painted, and unpainted.. It was a point of describing the Sport Demons more then anything else.. The V-ii does not like to turn into a corner with them. They want to keep going straight when good radials fall into the comers without thinking about.. Since the V-7iii was changed to quicken the steering,it seems like a tire change/upgrade from the factory would of been a easy first step if you wanted to make the bike turn..If you had a Dyno charts on the same Dyno with more examples it might have a bit more meaning, then just one bike of each type.Same day too..I am thinking any V7 is going to be a dog compared to just about any modern bike around that size. Is there that much difference being blown off by 20 bike lengths or just maybe 15 on a really fast V-7 version? I think the output of my 883 was kind of similar to the v7. least the rubber mounted one I had. Although You can hop up the Harley much easier, and to a way higher level. 45 v twins do nothing for me, and even the 60 degree stuff seems a bit off here, and there.. :evil:
I still say the rear golden tire is one very good tire, and a great match with the sticky front Pirelli.. It was the front GT-250 that was such a mismatch for me.. It so close now to the feel of the RA-3 in general street riding, I am no longer concerned about going to a 60/40 type tire for the street.As long as it has good compound. Not on the Stornello anyway..
-
As you can see on the graph the torque of the V7 III is never lower than the V7 II, even at 2800rpm.
^^^
This
I realize we're not talking about powerhouses in any of these bikes, but dynos suggest the Mk I and Mk II are pretty similar and the Mk III have a definite bump relative to them. That agrees with my experience with the feel on my Mk I vs my Mk III.
I guess I still really like the feel on the Mk I, but I'm not sure I agree with the Stornello cult that I like it MORE.
Then again, when the Stornello came out people talked about the map being different or the feel of the motor being different because of that exhaust. So who knows, maybe there is a difference between the Stornello and the rest of the V7s.
-
The wheels are the exact same, just painted, and unpainted.. It was a point of describing the Sport Demons more then anything else.. The V-ii does not like to turn into a corner with them. They want to keep going straight when good radials fall into the comers without thinking about.. Since the V-7iii was changed to quicken the steering,it seems like a tire change/upgrade from the factory would of been a easy first step if you wanted to make the bike turn..If you had a Dyno charts on the same Dyno with more examples it might have a bit more meaning, then just one bike of each type.Same day too..
My experience doesn't jive with yours. But I think it's a matter of perspective, maybe coupled with physical differences. I just can't call the Mk I or Mk III slow to turn in or needing any effort, regardless of whether they are shod with Sport Demons or Michelin Pilot Activs (the only tires I've ever used on other).
As for Dynos, I know people get all bent out of shape regarding comparing one to another, but multiple sources (MCN back in the day, Motorcyclist.com, Cycleworld, MotoUSA.com etc.) have put multiple press bikes in the same ballparks enough that I can believe the Mk I, Mk II, or Mk III numbers as real enough.
-
Torque curves are only for engines, and wide open throttle.
The gear ratios are different on V7, V7 II and V7 III and they affect the feeling of torque.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7D6cvsHB/Rapports-V7.png?dl=1)
The V7 II has the shortest first gear.
-
^^^
This
I realize we're not talking about powerhouses in any of these bikes, but dynos suggest the Mk I and Mk II are pretty similar and the Mk III have a definite bump relative to them. That agrees with my experience with the feel on my Mk I vs my Mk III.
I guess I still really like the feel on the Mk I, but I'm not sure I agree with the Stornello cult that I like it MORE.
Then again, when the Stornello came out people talked about the map being different or the feel of the motor being different because of that exhaust. So who knows, maybe there is a difference between the Stornello and the rest of the V7s.
"Stornello cult" ... I like that. :grin:
Maybe the "difference between the Stornello and the rest of the V7s" is more a cult thing. You're a Jeep guy; you might understand. :thumb:
Hey, my first car was a Studebaker coupe. That may explain everything. :wink:
Bill
-
Unless you went for a back to back ride with Good radial, and stock Demons you might just might be use to the feel of the Demons.. Night, and day. Very pronounced difference. Not saying the sport Demons did not work well enough, just wanted to go straight and took way more effort to turn.
-
Unless you went for a back to back ride with Good radial, and stock Demons you might just might be use to the feel of the Demons.. Night, and day. Very pronounced difference. Not saying the sport Demons did not work well enough, just wanted to go straight and took way more effort to turn.
Perhaps to all.
Or perhaps the subjective nature of what is being discussed.
I've said many times over the years that I find the V7s to be nimble, almost to the point of twitchy.
When I ride them back-to-back with each other or other bikes in the fleet I've never thought of them taking ANY effort to turn in, never mind "way more" whether on Demons or Michelins, whether coming off the RK or the Monster...
It's not particularly important. IT may mean I'm a blunt instrument or there could be physical differences (size, strength) or mechanical differences that lead me to these differences in perception.
I point it out only so the OP or others can realize they may also agree or disagree in their own perception when the time comes.
-
I have been back and forth on this comparison as well. In the end, it ain't a whole lot of difference. If I was looking for a v7 ii or iii, I would get the one that looked great, was priced right, and well taken care of (low miles, good maintenance/care).
The v7 iii does have a large number of changes vs the ii. If you like chrome pipes, the iii pipes are double walled and they don't discolor from heat like the ii does. The iii also has improvements in the internal oiling system, shifting, and clutch. Not 100% what they were, maybe no big improvement.
When I bought my iii , it was at the time I had new ii or new iii models to choose from. I test rode both and liked the iii better. Seemed to rev up faster, felt more sporty/zippy, a bit more modern. Then 2 years later I found a great deal on a ii and bought it. They are both fun. You really gotta ride them back to back to notice the differences. Like if you rode some guys ii in Dec and then some other iii in Jan, you'd be scratching your head trying to remember and compare.
I really like buying 1 owner used bikes (vs. multiple owners). That way you can talk to the person that has had it, see where it was stored (garage or street), get an idea of how it was maintained and used, etc.
The other thing you didn't mention ... the idea of buying a new v7 850. Much more expensive, but everything brand new and 2 yr warranty.
-
The other thing you didn't mention ... the idea of buying a new v7 850. Much more expensive, but everything brand new and 2 yr warranty.
In previous posts, Jeff mentioned that a used V7 would be more in his wheelhouse.
That said…isn’t Guzzi now going with FOUR year warranties? Thought I read that somewhere…
-
The way the tires (sport demons) turn in on my Stornello is my take, and just maybe a few very rare riders could not feel the difference..That is my perspective too, and just about everything said in this thread follows that line. The guy needs to ride the bikes for himself , and going by others perceptions is almost meaningless. Magazine testers are the worst overall judges of what a bike does.
-
The way the tires (sport demons) turn in on my Stornello is my take, and just maybe a few very rare riders could not feel the difference..That is my perspective too, and just about everything said in this thread follows that line. The guy needs to ride the bikes for himself , and going by others perceptions is almost meaningless. Magazine testers are the worst overall judges of what a bike does.
Fair enough :thumb:
-
Holy crow!
You guys are amazing. I go away for a few hours and come back to the Rosetta Stone (of Stones?) to decode. While I haven't yet had the time to do a close read, I THINK consensus may be emerging around the following ideas:
- V7s have become increasingly refined with each iteration. This development has been a double-edged sword in that some of said refinement may have come at the cost of lessening the wonderfully simple and elemental nature that makes Guzzis Guzzis? (Not that I necessarily understand that, since my experience with the marque is essentially non-existent.)
- Ultimately, don't sweat it, since these differences are small and likely only noticeable when different iterations are ridden back-to-back.
As a follow-up, maybe you all can help me calibrate my expectations...
I'm looking for the kind of twin torque my 2005 Multi had. Obviously not nearly as much in ft-lbs, but the same sort of shifting-is-largely-optional delivery. Just a broad flat curve, where you can ride the twisties with the throttle functioning pretty much like a rheostat.
The below review (of the 850) describing a non-linear "doggy," and "stair-stepped" powerband is concerning. Am I missing nuance here, or is this guy all wet, perhaps?
The 2021 Moto Guzzi V7 Special E5’s powerplant confounds expectations that it would have a linear powerband. As it works out, it’s something of a three-stage rocket, with the understanding that there are rockets of varying sizes and performance levels.
Below 3000 rpm, the motor is doggy, and then it’s time for fun. Although it’s not an issue pulling away from a stoplight, the motor balks at roll-ons when running below 3000 rpm. Above that, it’s a peppy performer. Moto Guzzi brags that 80 percent of the peak torque is available from 3000 rpm onwards, and it’s clear why the PR folks seized on that number.
There’s another boost at about 5000 rpm. That is where the two-valve motor hits its torque peak of 54 ft-lbs. The surge continues to a peak of 65 horsepower at 6800 rpm, just before the rev limiter kicks in, and after the 6500 rpm redline on the old school analog-style tachometer.
While the stairstep powerband could be a problem for a higher-powered machine, it adds to the character of the V7 Special’s riding experience. On a retro motorcycle such as the V7, we’re used to a linear power delivery that is efficient, if not exciting. The V7 adds a dollop of satisfaction as you feel those extra nudges along the way through the limited rev range. One would think that an effective rev range of 3000 to 7000 rpm might make the V7 a challenging ride. However, the plentiful torque prevents you from having to row the gearbox endlessly.
https://ultimatemotorcycling.com/2021/05/10/2021-moto-guzzi-v7-special-e5-review-18-fast-facts/
I wish this were a case where "just go ride one" was the answer, but there are precisely zero for sale around me and new isn't in the cards.
::goes back to read every word in the thread. carefully::
-
My Stornello is much closer to the power output of my 2017/ XT250, than my 2009/ 1100 Monster.(ECU-Pipes) :grin:
-
My Stornello is much closer to the power output of my 2017/ XT250, than my 2009/ 1100 Monster.(ECU-Pipes) :grin:
:thumb:
My Multi was the 1000 engine (with Termis), but I get it! In the two-fiddy dept., I also had (and loved) a Kawi Super Sherpa.
I know the V7's torque won't be the relative tidal wave the Duc's was, I'm just hoping that what's there comes on and stays on! :grin:
-
I thought the OP had raised this before and had many responses. But, as with oil threads and the like, I can revisit this sort of discussion every day. :wink:
This gave me the LOLs, Bill, as more and more I don't remember what I had for lunch.
I was glad to check the older thread and be reminded that my original dilemma was about pre-2000 vs. post-2013 bikes.
Having answered that question with everyone's help, this is now about modern V7s vs. other modern V7s. I think that represents some small kind of progress! :grin:
-
Good Lord, this thread is as tedious as the nonsense I fled over at the Enfield 650 forum :rolleyes:
How many foot pounds of torque can fit on the head of a pin?
Is his bigger than mine, tell me now?
-
Good Lord, this thread is as tedious as the nonsense I fled over at the Enfield 650 forum :rolleyes:
How many foot pounds of torque can fit on the head of a pin?
Is his bigger than mine, tell me now?
There's an Unnotify button so you're not bothered.
Personally, I'd rather help a person brand new to the marque get acquainted with the various models and updates.
-
:thumb:
My Multi was the 1000 engine (with Termis), but I get it! In the two-fiddy dept., I also had (and loved) a Kawi Super Sherpa.
I know the V7's torque won't be the relative tidal wave the Duc's was, I'm just hoping that what's there comes on and stays on! :grin:
I put a lot of miles on my KLX-250s.. When talking turn-in,this one with 17 front wheel was something..My bike(guzzi) is just nice to ride,but nothing like a big block anything when going up the steep hills around here. 4000 plus RPM is most suited for them..
(https://i.ibb.co/Zh3pQFS/KONICA-MINOLTA-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Zh3pQFS)
-
"Below 3000 rpm, the motor is doggy, and then it’s time for fun. Although it’s not an issue pulling away from a stoplight, the motor balks at roll-ons when running below 3000 rpm. Above that, it’s a peppy performer. Moto Guzzi brags that 80 percent of the peak torque is available from 3000 rpm onwards, and it’s clear why the PR folks seized on that number."
What a moron. I've always said the 1TB bikes run better a few hundred rpm lower than the earlier 2TB smallblocks, but that doesn't mean you should lug them by rolling on below 3k rpm.
OP, I do honestly think there is a seat in the pants difference between my MkI and my MkIII. It's noticeable.
As for a test ride, reach out to a local owner. If you find yourself in South Jersey come take both of mine for a spin.
Good Lord, this thread is as tedious as the nonsense I fled over at the Enfield 650 forum :rolleyes:
How many foot pounds of torque can fit on the head of a pin?
Is his bigger than mine, tell me now?
Classy move.
I always find o
It better to just complain instead of trying to help.
< / Sarcasm >
:kiss:
-
(https://i.ibb.co/5BkmdLM/Full-Size-Render.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5BkmdLM)
I don't really get all the fuss. My dad bought a new 78 R100/7. It had a full frame mounted Windjammer type fairing, I think it was a copy made by Lufmister, Krauser bags, and a sturdy tail rack. He took me in 1980 when I was 13 on an awsome tour from Chicago to Idaho, Northern Cal and everywhere in between. So there we were two up fully loaded, and I do mean fully loaded for M/C camping, and having fun. This was all done on a M/C that made about 60hp, I assume that was at the crank.
We ran along at 75-80 when on the wide open flats, we went up the Rockies over Wolf Creek pass, around 11000 feet up, and on and on. I thought we were on the most powerfully M/C money could buy, although I new by that time, BMWs were for old guys and cool dudes had Kawasaki, and Ducs. Point is, that bike was in the same ball park as the v7s the OP is considering.
I really think it's more how the rider uses the bike than the limitations of said bike, within reason.
-
WOW! Ok, Bill and Kevin are the closest to what you needed to know.
Having owned a 2015 I and a 2017 III I can promise you will be happy with either or. Both need front and rear suspension work if you want full enjoyment. The 2015 or 16 will need a Beattle map. Simple, cheap cures. The 5 speed is a lot nicer in tight, twisty NC. mountains. Less shifting, etc. Then of course the V85 is even better.
The stator on the 2017+ sucks and just might fail. Even if it doesn't it has pathetic output. The 15 might need a new regulator because some put out too much juice.
Buy one, enjoy!
-
^^^
This
I realize we're not talking about powerhouses in any of these bikes, but dynos suggest the Mk I and Mk II are pretty similar and the Mk III have a definite bump relative to them. That agrees with my experience with the feel on my Mk I vs my Mk III.
I guess I still really like the feel on the Mk I, but I'm not sure I agree with the Stornello cult that I like it MORE.
Then again, when the Stornello came out people talked about the map being different or the feel of the motor being different because of that exhaust. So who knows, maybe there is a difference between the Stornello and the rest of the V7s.
This summer you can ride the mello yello stornello, turn from your wicked lack of belief and thus join the cult. That is if we let you...........
Seriously though, having ridden the V7, V7iii and V7ii Stornello, the mapping and response of the Stornello is far more engaging and 'spunky' by comparison, though as said, you can feel the slight bump in power on the V7iii. Two summers ago, I rode the V7iii for about a hundred miles, after I had just done 2-300 on the Stornello. After my time on the V7iii got back on the Stornello, and far prefer it.
I know you don't agree with the footpeg thing either, but the seating position and relation on the V7iii and Stornello are also different enough to notice.
On Tires, I can't wait to get rid of the 705's, was a poor choice for me.
-
I know you don't agree with the footpeg thing either, but the seating position and relation on the V7iii and Stornello are also different enough to notice.
What's the difference in peg position between the II and III?
There was a difference between the I and III, the latter being lower measured straight down from the rear of the tank/front of the seat to the peg. That's why I wound up adding drop pegs to the MkI.
-
What's the difference in peg position between the II and III?
There was a difference between the I and III, the latter being lower measured straight down from the rear of the tank/front of the seat to the peg. That's why I wound up adding drop pegs to the MkI.
When riding the Stornello and V7iii Special back to back, same boots, same day, on the V7iii, my feet were noticeably higher and forward compared to the Stornello where they were father back, lower not tucked under and beneath my hips, but clearly further back. Not huge, but clearly noticeable and less comfortable and preferable.
-
I am reminded that when the V7III came out I went to test ride the V7II racer and the III stone, the first Guzzis I ever rode. I remember at the time thinking that the racer was a lot more fun to test ride, and I pretty much chalked it up to the riding position. But having learned more since I think it was also the engine and the lower end torque. As it happened I ended up finding a mark I racer elsewhere that I loved the looks of and got that instead, had it for about a year and ripped around happily on it. The sub-400 lb weight made up for lower hp I guess. But I decided my knees and back weren’t really made for a racer, and now I’m also pretty happy with my mark III stone, though it does feel less “peppy.”
-
I am reminded that when the V7III came out I went to test ride the V7II racer and the III stone, the first Guzzis I ever rode. I remember at the time thinking that the racer was a lot more fun to test ride, and I pretty much chalked it up to the riding position. But having learned more since I think it was also the engine and the lower end torque. As it happened I ended up finding a mark I racer elsewhere that I loved the looks of and got that instead, had it for about a year and ripped around happily on it. The sub-400 lb weight made up for lower hp I guess. But I decided my knees and back weren’t really made for a racer, and now I’m also pretty happy with my mark III stone, though it does feel less “peppy.”
Just for the record, none of the Heron head bikes make more hp or torque then the III anywhere in their rpm range,
And none of V7 variants ever had a sub400# wet weight.
I don't know what you're feeling as less peppy. That's certainly not the experience I feel when I ride my two bikes back to back.
-
When riding the Stornello and V7iii Special back to back, same boots, same day, on the V7iii, my feet were noticeably higher and forward compared to the Stornello where they were father back, lower not tucked under and beneath my hips, but clearly further back. Not huge, but clearly noticeable and less comfortable and preferable.
Ok now I remember you saying something about this.
Wonder if the II was different from both the I and III?
Or if the Stornello was unique?
Or if it's a difference in seats?
All I know are the measurements I took on both the I and III were clear.
-
...My dad bought a new 78 R100/7.
...He took me in 1980 when I was 13 on an awsome tour from Chicago to Idaho, Northern Cal and everywhere in between. So there we were two up fully loaded, and I do mean fully loaded for M/C camping, and having fun. This was all done on a M/C that made about 60hp, I assume that was at the crank.
We ran along at 75-80 when on the wide open flats, we went up the Rockies over Wolf Creek pass, around 11000 feet up, and on and on.
This is stupendous, and I have failed as a parent.
-
WOW! Ok, Bill and Kevin are the closest to what you needed to know.
Having owned a 2015 I and a 2017 III I can promise you will be happy with either or. Both need front and rear suspension work if you want full enjoyment. The 2015 or 16 will need a Beattle map. Simple, cheap cures. The 5 speed is a lot nicer in tight, twisty NC. mountains. Less shifting, etc. Then of course the V85 is even better.
The stator on the 2017+ sucks and just might fail. Even if it doesn't it has pathetic output. The 15 might need a new regulator because some put out too much juice.
Buy one, enjoy!
Thanks, Vagrant! The insight that the 5-speed might be better in the twisties is something I likely would not have considered!
Just for grins, how have your V7s stacked up to your Versys 650?
-
Or if the Stornello was unique?
The stock foot pegs vibrate more then all other versions. Kind of wished I kept the knight pegs off my Aprila/Breva Although the Gold wing style knock-offs are pretty good.. My Stornello does not need any mapping once somewhat warmed up.. That seems to effect all of them.
The six speed tranny is superb on the Stornello .
The R-90 I use to ride in the late 1970's(friends) was well sorted. dual plugs/lightened flywheel, other mods..the V7ii would not have a chance running with them.. Those are 90 MPH all day rigs. drop it to below 75, and then it could..
-
All the Stornello love makes me wonder if the Arrow pipe (or another 2-into-1) and a remap are the way to go with ANY V7??
Unless there are also more substantive differences in the Stornello's engine or transmission (which I think is less likely)...
-
Interesting thread. I'm confused (happens frequently...). I'm still trying to sort out/understand the distinctions between the I, II, and III offerings of the V7. I found this link very useful for comparing the various iterations (but, don't know if it's accurate):
https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/bikes/Moto_Guzzi4.html
From the above link, it looks like the I had the highest seat height of all, but the footpegs were lowered on the II and they specifically mention the advantage to taller riders. But what really confuses me is when exactly did Guzzi make the switch to the hemi heads and also to the single throttle body? I have a 2012 V7 Classic and following the link above it says it is a single throttle body and, I think, implies it has a new head design (but doesn't explicitly call it a "hemi"). Also, I have seen some mention here (on WildGuzzi) of the offerings in the USA being slightly out of sycn (calendar year wise) with the rest of the world but can't remember which models/years this pertained to. Help!
-
Interesting thread. I'm confused (happens frequently...). I'm still trying to sort out/understand the distinctions between the I, II, and III offerings of the V7. I found this link very useful for comparing the various iterations (but, don't know if it's accurate):
https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/bikes/Moto_Guzzi4.html
From the above link, it looks like the I had the highest seat height of all, but the footpegs were lowered on the II and they specifically mention the advantage to taller riders. But what really confuses me is when exactly did Guzzi make the switch to the hemi heads and also to the single throttle body? I have a 2012 V7 Classic and following the link above it says it is a single throttle body and, I think, implies it has a new head design (but doesn't explicitly call it a "hemi"). Also, I have seen some mention here (on WildGuzzi) of the offerings in the USA being slightly out of sycn (calendar year wise) with the rest of the world but can't remember which models/years this pertained to. Help!
Yeah for years the US/CA was one model year behind the rest of the world so it's easy to be confused.
High level:
The smallblock was a Heron head design from incorruption.
Dealing with just the V7 iterations'
2TB models of the V7c, Cafe Classic, and Racer we're available (with smaller capacity plastic tanks) worldwide though about 2911, and in the US/CA with predominantly metal 5.5g tanks for 2012
1TB (MKI) models were introduced in the EU for 2012 and US/CA for 2013, this was the introduction of the Stone/Special and the continuation of the Racer. It had revised heads and jugs, but still Heron. It had a dry alternator, 5-speed, some roughly made foot controls etc and was available through 2015 in the US/CA, though the last year it moved to the wet alternator and charging capacity went down a bit
The MKII (V7II) was a one year only revision in the US/CA, arriving for 2016. The last Heron head bikes. Revisions included a 6-spd, ABS/TC, and there may indeed have been a revision to the chassis with regards to how the engine fit in the frame or controls or something, at least I thought I remembered something about that in the press release it included the one year only Stornello.
The MkIII (V7III) arrived in the US/CA starting with the 2017 models and (along with the V9) represented the beginning of the Hemi head smallblocks. In addition to the biggest change in motor the platform ever got there were tweaks all around the chassis from exhaust and shocks to controls and instruments, and bodywork. Not to mention there were a half-dozen more limited variants like the Carbon Dark/Carbon Shine/Milano/Rough etc.
Recently the MKIV (V7 850/EU V) version bikes were introduced representing the second biggest change to the platform including more changes to the chassis (swing arm, steering head/frame) and motor from power output to little things like a sight glass for oil level.
They are all birds of a feather and some things are common across all or most years. I believe things like seats and fuel tanks could swap through most years. But the changes slowly add up as the variants moved along.
-
Easy to spy by the valve covers.
V7 II = Last of the Heron heads:
(https://i.ibb.co/bJ7hZCC/FA91-FAD9-E4-ED-4101-A062-6625-D100-D286.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bJ7hZCC)
(https://i.ibb.co/n6s8xp7/0-C7-D5-FD2-4-C07-431-D-AAD7-677936-A45253.jpg) (https://ibb.co/n6s8xp7)
V9 and V7 III = first of the Hemi heads:
(https://i.ibb.co/Km5C5Lw/80-FA4-E5-E-25-A5-4-CC5-9-A1-F-DBA41-F385949.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Km5C5Lw)
V7 Classic / Cafe / Racer = Last of the twin throttle bodies, located just before the intake ports:
(https://i.ibb.co/DrYjSpQ/7-BAB1-D98-A153-4-B89-AFBB-DF801-C334-F28.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DrYjSpQ)
V7 Special / Stone / Racer (before V7 II versions, but after the Classic/Cafe) = First generation with single throttle body, located just after the air box:
(https://i.ibb.co/fNMdNS8/7435-FFA6-BC06-4-E72-9047-BDC62-EB71292.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fNMdNS8)
Looking at the photo below, given the info above, noting the heads, valve covers, piston style, single throttle body on the bottom left, and throttle body air manifold, you can see this belongs to a V7 Special, Stone, Racer, or V7 II Stone, Special, Racer, or Stornello:
(https://i.ibb.co/pjbcQzt/409-C9457-ADA5-44-D8-802-A-7-C32613-AD15-D.webp) (https://ibb.co/pjbcQzt)
-
Looking at the photo below, given the info above, noting the heads, valve covers, piston style, single throttle body on the bottom left, and throttle body air manifold, you can see this belongs to a V7 Special, Stone, Racer, or V7 II Stone, Special, Racer, or Stornello:
(https://i.ibb.co/pjbcQzt/409-C9457-ADA5-44-D8-802-A-7-C32613-AD15-D.webp) (https://ibb.co/pjbcQzt)
Excellent visual references, but I have a question - IS that last pic a V7 I, I.5, or II?!?
I can't tell, as I haven't been inside the front cover of the 1.5 or II ... and I really didn't look that closely the other week when I was turning the crank on the MkI to set the valves.
So what say ye or those who know it better? Wet or Dry Alt?
-
2016 wet alternator. You turn the back wheel to set the valves..
-
Apropos the several comments about foot peg position, etc. ... FWIW, with recognition that it's hardly ... erm ... scientific. :rolleyes:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-t4pCqK5/0/261373bc/L/i-t4pCqK5-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-nRfS32r/0/dd82da3c/L/i-nRfS32r-L.jpg)
I notice little difference in ergos when I'm riding.
Bill
-
Apropos the several comments about foot peg position, etc. ... FWIW, with recognition that it's hardly ... erm ... scientific. :rolleyes:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-t4pCqK5/0/261373bc/L/i-t4pCqK5-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-nRfS32r/0/dd82da3c/L/i-nRfS32r-L.jpg)
I notice little difference in ergos when I'm riding.
Bill
For giggles, if you get a chance, take a tape measure and check the distance vertically up from the top of a peg on each one to the frame/bottom of seat/back-bottom of tank on each. That will tell us for certain (assuming the pegs are stock) if there is a difference and how much.
When I did this on my I and III, the III was in the same position fore-aft, but was a further distance away from the seat/frame/tank.
I'm curious about the II and how it played into BD's perception. But as I noted there could be other things at play as well.
BrandX -yeah, I know the valve adjust part... the roller insert in my lift makes it easier for such things. But I still prefer spinning the crank directly with a socket on my MkI - I've also got timing marks on the rotor that I made with a sharpie years ago that speeds up the process too.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AM-JKLWz27nBQ5AJWEIYarnk77Z9xLdYBBuEsY_6v0DOa7haif6AI5-a8utF6O3OZQxtlqxBO2wbg0cQ1IGfFgunzgKOfSoxZAAxbVS4wH6Y40TYu633W8cT30oTZyHuYzf9JhElIzKZLiBI_6OdUW8r0Pcu0A=w1204-h903-no?authuser=0)
-
BrandX -yeah, I know the valve adjust part... the roller insert in my lift makes it easier for such things. But I still prefer spinning the crank directly with a socket on my MkI - I've also got timing marks on the rotor that I made with a sharpie years ago that speeds up the process too.
I believe BrandX only mentions this because it's pretty much the only method for the wet bath alternators, as removing the front cover would lead to oil getting out (that's only an assumption--I've never removed the alternator cover because of this assumption).
Dirk
-
And none of V7 variants ever had a sub400# wet weight.
My 2015 V7 Racer was listed at 394.5 lbs. I never actually weighed it..
-
I'm pretty sure BrandX only mentions this because it's pretty much the only method for the wet bath alternators, as removing the front cover would to oil getting out (that's only an assumption--I've never removed the alternator cover because of this assumption).
Dirk
Correct,
My lift does not have a insert, but I never had a issue with not having one.. Probably because it will also lift other things well . Have to give up something for versatility :wink: The prices have doubled in the 4 years I have owned it $2,450 out the door That is with the extra truck rails, and adapters. Guess there is more then one way to skin a cat, and just like motorcycles whatever works for you is the best option.. As mentioned in this thread earlier wonder if the RE-650 is also something of a option to get similar performance to a V7 1/2/3..
(https://i.ibb.co/3kYZyjv/KONICA-MINOLTA-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3kYZyjv)
image host (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/hFMydpg/KONICA-MINOLTA-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hFMydpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/9Wjbp1R/KONICA-MINOLTA-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9Wjbp1R)
(https://i.ibb.co/x5BmZyv/KONICA-MINOLTA-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/x5BmZyv)
-
I'm pretty sure BrandX only mentions this because it's pretty much the only method for the wet bath alternators, as removing the front cover would to oil getting out (that's only an assumption--I've never removed the alternator cover because of this assumption).
Dirk
Of course, though sort of off-topic to the question I was asking.
My 2015 V7 Racer was listed at 394.5 lbs. I never actually weighed it..
That was DRY (also known to many as "lie weight"), not wet.
Someone here has recently weighted one, it was 429# shy a gallon or two of gas IIRC.
But here are some examples of claimed dry vs wet weights (some wet weights verified by the press):
V7C: Dry 401# / Wet 444#
V7 MkI: Dry 395# / Wet 436-443# (depending on model or source)
V7II: Dry 417# / Wet 453# (Stone, but others similar)
V7III: Dry 432# / Wet 461# (various models listed at this, I suspect small variances)
V7 850 (MKIV): Dry 437# / Wet 481#
So even comparing smaller plastic tank 2TB models with the biggest/heaviest metal tank latest model we're only talking a difference of 37# fully fueled and ready to go.
As long as we're digging into specs/minutia here's hp/torque peaks by model, as measured rear wheel (not claimed OEM engine numbers):
V7 2TB: 39 rwhp / 38 torques
V7 MkI: 40 rwhp / 41 torques
V7 II: 42 rwhp / 40 torques
V7 III: 48 rwhp / 44 torques
V7 850 (MKIV): ??? / ??? haven't seen one yet - looking forward to it
V9 (first gen, not current EUV): 51 rwhp / 46 torques
The charts show torque that are generally thick and pretty flat. Even when they have slight dips the torque never drops much, certainly not below the lower rpm level where it started.
HP curves show slow but steady increases till they eventually drop off.
I know none of these numbers are in any way impressive in the big picture of things. But as lovers of Guzzis and smallblocks they tell a story and hide some surprises.
I LOVE my Mk I - it's modest, airhead-like power but is fun to ride in most conditions (except highway droning, but that's fair).
I was very surprised how much more punch I could tell from the MK III model. Enough of an additional factor that it feels more comfortable even at highway speeds.
I was even MORE surprised by how the V9 felt, it reminded me very much of a big-block Cali. I bet if the chassis was comfortable on longer runs I wouldn't hesitate to drone some highways when needeed.
I was less surprised by the V7 850. It still feels great, and I like it, but judging from the claimed crankshaft numbers I was expecting a bigger jump from the V7III models. There's a jump, just it didn't feel as big as the numbers suggested.
What does this all mean - probably jack unless you're trying to figure out which one is right for you, or unless you're a little nutz about the smallblock (like me).
-
Of course, though sort of off-topic to the question I was asking.
That was DRY (also known to many as "lie weight"), not wet.
Sure, but as long as we're talking about relative weight (I compared with II or III) it doesn't matter so long as all are either dry or wet. A 37 lb difference sounds about right with regard to feel, which is to say, a difference you can feel on these small blocks.
With regard to my experience with the mark II Racer vs the mark III Anniversario, I test rode them back to back at a dealer, and it was the first time I had ever ridden any Guzzi, and I had not seen any performance or weight numbers. All I can say is that after riding the Racer I turned to the salesperson and said, "man, that's a fun bike." After the Anniversario I said, "well, not bad." I suppose it was a combination of slightly lower weight (15 lbs or so in this case), riding position, and lower end torque with different gearing.
I am a more or less happy owner of a V7III Stone S now, so I've got no interest in badmouthing the mark III, but that was my clear experience at the time.
-
WOW! Ok, Bill and Kevin are the closest to what you needed to know.
Having owned a 2015 I and a 2017 III I can promise you will be happy with either or. Both need front and rear suspension work if you want full enjoyment. The 2015 or 16 will need a Beattle map. Simple, cheap cures. The 5 speed is a lot nicer in tight, twisty NC. mountains. Less shifting, etc. Then of course the V85 is even better.
The stator on the 2017+ sucks and just might fail. Even if it doesn't it has pathetic output. The 15 might need a new regulator because some put out too much juice.
Buy one, enjoy!
It would be easier to compare an apple to a avacado! Radically different steeds!
But, it does compare to a V85 very well. Size, handeling, etc. But, again two totally different engines. The Versys 650 needs to be kept spinning. Never less than 4500 rpm in lower gears and 5K plus in 5&6. The V85 has torque much lower.
-
Sure, but as long as we're talking about relative weight (I compared with II or III) it doesn't matter so long as all are either dry or wet. A 37 lb difference sounds about right with regard to feel, which is to say, a difference you can feel on these small blocks.
With regard to my experience with the mark II Racer vs the mark III Anniversario, I test rode them back to back at a dealer, and it was the first time I had ever ridden any Guzzi, and I had not seen any performance or weight numbers. All I can say is that after riding the Racer I turned to the salesperson and said, "man, that's a fun bike." After the Anniversario I said, "well, not bad." I suppose it was a combination of slightly lower weight (15 lbs or so in this case), riding position, and lower end torque with different gearing.
I am a more or less happy owner of a V7III Stone S now, so I've got no interest in badmouthing the mark III, but that was my clear experience at the time.
Yeah I hear that, and I'm not doubting your impression, but I ride them back to back OFTEN and anytime I want, and I sorta disagree with your conclusions.
I mean, add a centerstand and some luggage and you've added that 37# to the MK I right?
That's an RCH to ME... but then again my wife (5' 4" and sub 140#) often rides the MK III (sometimes with our son on the back) and I'm 5' 10" in the 240s, and sometimes carry our daughter or son too. That's another world right?
But most of the time I hop on them solo.
My wife's Ducati isn't quite sub 400# either at 408# wet. Again, maybe I'm the 600# gorilla in all this cause I don't think it feels that much different (in mass only) from the MKIII. For a difference in mass that you really feel I'll reference my Jackal or our old Sporty, both were pushing 600#, my Breva 1100 was sub 600 (mid 500's wet) but felt just as heavy at those two because it was taller. And hell, want a difference in mass that matters, hop on my 800# RK.
No matter... I guess we're debating perspectives. One man's RCH is another man's yard I guess.
More fun - I won't argue at all, that's cool, that's totally subjective.
Different gearing? Maybe, I'll take your word, never bothered to check and only noticed that Chris or someone mentioned it earlier. But that doesn't jive with my experience (or maybe I am just enough mass to overcompensate for any difference there).
But I do take issue with the oft repeated (in this thread) myth of "more torque down low" it doesn't, unless a gearing difference giving that impression. But certainly that's not what is seen on the dynos. Maybe we could say the MK I or II makes "more of THEIR" torque down low, but even then it's not more than the III is making at the same rpm.
Motorcyclist.com has dyno charts on the MK I, MKII, and MKIII (we saw the II and III earlier).
The MKI was part of a hipster shoot out with some other brands.
IT's very high level, so taken with a grain of salt (and obviously arguably varies with day and dyno etc), but
the MKI shows approximately the following:
starts at 2600 rpm ~36 ft lbs.
climbs to it's peak of 39.7 ft lbs by 2800 rpm (I should note earlier I said 41 ft lbs, that was from MCN, but no dyno chart attached)
it's falling by 3500 rpm, but never really gets below 35 ft lbs till past 6000 rpm or so when it is starting end.
In contrast the MK II shows:
starts at 2200 rpm ~35 ft lbs
climbs to it's peak of 39.8 ft. lbs by 3000 rpm
It's also falling by about 3500 rpm, but also never really seems to get below 35 ft lbs by past 6000 rpm or so when it is starting end.
and lastly MK III shows:
starts at 2200 rpm ~36 ft lbs (or some rch more than the II)
climbs about identically till around 3000 rpm where the II peaks and drops slightly but the III keeps climbing already over 40 ft lbs to its peak of 44.3 ft lbs @ 4800 rpm
More importantly it stays clearly above the II from ~3000 till the end when they both drop off as they approach 7000 rpm
So the MK I and MK II never make more than the III, and if anything feels like it does that could be small differences in the lower gear ratios.
Keep in mind I keep saying I love my MKI and I do, I enjoy it. I don't think it is "better" quicker, more powerful, more anything. If anything it's obviously less. But I like doing more with less. Even though when it's time to stretch its legs it obviously accelerates more slowly.
But I do believe most of these things are RCHs.... so YMMV and all that.
-
But I do take issue with the oft repeated (in this thread) myth of "more torque down low" it doesn't, unless a gearing difference giving that impression. But certainly that's not what is seen on the dynos. Maybe we could say the MK I or II makes "more of THEIR" torque down low, but even then it's not more than the III is making at the same rpm.
But I do believe most of these things are RCHs.... so YMMV and all that.
I had to Google "RCH" -- fortunately my wife wasn't looking over my shoulder... It's funny, I think for the most part I am not a particularly sensitive rider, that is I often can't tell differences that others notice, but I do notice when weight is cut. Like you say, it's very subjective, but 37 lbs is a lot to me. I also remember being blown around by trucks on the highway on my V7I Racer in a way I never noticed on other bikes. Though truth is I tend to stay off the highways so that's a limited pool of data.
And to be clear, I am not saying that the I and II engines make "more low end torque," only that having peak torque on the lower end feels different when riding, esp in town and on the country lanes. It's partly why I still like single cylinders so much.
Anyway, I honestly am completely open to being wrong about everything I've said! It's so hard to judge "feel."
-
I had to Google "RCH" -- fortunately my wife wasn't looking over my shoulder... It's funny, I think for the most part I am not a particularly sensitive rider, that is I often can't tell differences that others notice, but I do notice when weight is cut. Like you say, it's very subjective, but 37 lbs is a lot to me.
Very valid point, and I think this is worth considering—small weight gains can be felt, especially by riders smaller in stature or strength. I’m 5’ 8”, 145-160 lb (fit versus making too many batches of beef jerky). Not a lot of muscle mass on this frame. My KZ400 felt perfect to push around in the driveway, take off-road, and hit the highway. The V7II feels just a tad heavier than I prefer, but I deal with it. That said, I stay hung up on the weights of newer bikes because I just don’t want to have to push around, lift, or take off-road anything that’s even heavier than what I’ve got.
Anyway…back to the engine difference…
-
OK, thanks everyone. But, color me still confused--- Dirk, thanks! Given your photo guide, I clearly have twin throttle bodies:
(https://i.ibb.co/bgDVqQt/Guzzi1-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bgDVqQt)
Which means the statement at:https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/moto%20guzzi/moto_guzzi_v_7_12.htm
about the 2012-13 V7 Classics being the first Guzzis with single throttle bodies is wrong. So my 2012 has twin throttle bodies and a steel tank (not the twin throttle bodies/plastic tank combo referred to in this thread).
And in this thread I've seen references to V7 1, 1.5, II, and III. What is the 1.5?
-
All fair points... :thumb:
(except that torque thing, it would make sense if that torque thing. Even if it's a higher percentage of it's own torque the raw numbers are still so much less. And if it was gearing then how the hell does the V7III accelerate so much better with ME on it as it sounds like I'm approaching twice the size of some of you guys?).
Maybe I should explain something too, living in the Pinelands a LOT of our roads are maddeningly straight and flat and empty. So it's no uncommon for me to spend the better part of a 100 mile afternoon ride at 65-75 mph. That's NOT where the V7I shines. I liked it much better on the rolling, twisty, foothills of PA horse country. Slower speeds, more rowing and less top gear droning, the V7I was great.
The V7III does that well too (the opportunities I get to play out there), but I do think it much more effortlessly does that 65-75+ mph droning. Which is why I probably think it's a better highway bike when the need arises.
I can see why if one was 100# lighter than me they might notice the weight difference more.
I wonder about how the weight influences feel on the highway though. Again just MY weight difference would then suggest I would think the V7I would be fine on the highway, but I think it's twitchy. And it can't just be weight because I think the lighter Duc 696 is just fine on the highway from a stability standpoint. Yeah, I do think the III is better, there, but I don't think that's just weight. Gotta be more factors at play.
Gentleman, please understand, I'm enjoying this conversation and examination of minutia. No offense or disregard meant at all. I am actively looking to learn from the different perspectives. :thumb:
OK, thanks everyone. But, color me still confused--- Dirk, thanks! Given your photo guide, I clearly have twin throttle bodies:
(https://i.ibb.co/bgDVqQt/Guzzi1-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bgDVqQt)
Which means the statement at:https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/moto%20guzzi/moto_guzzi_v_7_12.htm
about the 2012-13 V7 Classics being the first Guzzis with single throttle bodies is wrong. So my 2012 has twin throttle bodies and a steel tank (not the twin throttle bodies/plastic tank combo referred to in this thread).
And in this thread I've seen references to V7 1, 1.5, II, and III. What is the 1.5?
I thought I explained the answer to both, but it's probably my fault. I tend to over-explain hoping that if I throw enough something will stick. :angel:
That crappy bike spec site isn't completely wrong. The 2012 models other than North America (US/CA) were the first of the V7 Stone single throttle body bikes. I believe it was only NA that got the twin throttle body V7C, mostly metal tank models that year. The V7C (classic) was only ever sold as a dual-throttle body model.
My 2013 V7 Stone I ordered from FBF in late 2012 and it was delivered in December 2012 as a 2013 V7 Stone was one of the first MK1 bikes in NA.
MKI is the nomenclature some of us have used to delineate the difference between the first production years of the 1TB model and the latter ones that received the name V7II or V7III from Guzzi.
The MK1.5 is the ~1 year only, tail end of the MKI production - 1TB, 5-speed, but for only ~2015 that bike got a wet alternator with lower power output than the previous model years of the 1TB 5-speed. Again, just a quick way of explaining the difference.
So
2TB V7C/Cafe/Racer - through 2011 in EU and 2012 in US/NA
1TB V7 Stone/Special/Racer (MKI) - started 2012 in EU, 2013 in US/NA. Continued same for 2014, went to MKI wet alternator by 2015.
V7II Stone/Special/Racer/Stornello (MK II) was 2016 in US/NA, not sure about EU, could have debuted earlier there or elsewhere in the world. It was the start the 6-speed, ABS/TC, and possibly some frame or engine mounting differences.
V7III was 2017+ in US (again not sure if EU got this earlier or if the US was finally caught up and getting this stuff at the same time).
V7 MKIV (850 - EU-V) I guess started in 2021? (it's already getting foggy, maybe I'm just trying to forget the last 2 years).
That make sense?
-
Kev m, THANKS! The (my) darkness is growing lighter thanks to your knowledge (and patience). You just made it easier for me to understand what I'm seeing in the ads for used V7s over here (Italy).
-
The Mkll engine has a 4 degree cant forward and 10 mm lower ,cardan shaft output 50 mm lower and foot pegs 25 mm lower compared to Mk1 according to specs .
For me my Mk2 Stornello handles better than my Breva 750 . Feels very sure footed through the corners . Maybe the Mkll changes helped and 18" front wheel . However the archaic suspension didn't get any improvement over the older models but I'm working on that issue installing fork emulators and some 2810 Hagon shocks on the back when they arrive . Hoping for at least acceptable suspension .
-
Guys, just dropping back in to wave my pompoms in gratitude!
This thread is hugely helpful to me, and I hope will serve as a resource for others on V7 variation.
It's got the kind of great anecdotal/subjective experiences I was initially seeking but also—thanks to Kev and others—a wealth of objective/measured data as well now!
Awesome! :thumb:
-
The Mkll engine has a 4 degree cant forward and 10 mm lower ,cardan shaft output 50 mm lower and foot pegs 25 mm lower compared to Mk1 according to specs .
For me my Mk2 Stornello handles better than my Breva 750 . Feels very sure footed through the corners . Maybe the Mkll changes helped and 18" front wheel . However the archaic suspension didn't get any improvement over the older models but I'm working on that issue installing fork emulators and some 2810 Hagon shocks on the back when they arrive . Hoping for at least acceptable suspension .
Excellent. Did the emulators on my MKII along with Hagons at the rear. Amazing! If I had limited $, I’d fix the front first, but many seem to do the rear only. I guess it depends on how fast you want to go… yes, I know it’s a V7, but it’s still fun to go fast in the twisties.
-
Guys, just dropping back in to wave my pompoms in gratitude!
This thread is hugely helpful to me, and I hope will serve as a resource for others on V7 variation.
It's got the kind of great anecdotal/subjective experiences I was initially seeking but also—thanks to Kev and others—a wealth of objective/measured data as well now!
Awesome! :thumb:
Prego, Jeff.
But nothing answers the questions you ask better than a demo.
If you can't find one or both locally, watch for several days in a row of dry weather >50º. That probably means March around here. Then take a drive up to the top of Virginia. Arden's about 400 and change miles/7 or so hours from Cross Junction. It's a scenic drive ... with lots of helpful marked and unmarked LEO's along the way. :rolleyes:
Then, take out both the Stornello and III on some of the (mighty fine) local roads. You'll know in <30 miles which is The Right One. :grin:
You can spend the night and head to dealer or private seller of your choice in the morning.
Bill
-
Just to revisit this thread. I put over 100 miles on each of my V7 MkI Stone and V7III the past two days. While doing so I was thinking about this thread. I still can't say if there's a difference between the MkI and MkII, but I'm doubling down in my impressions of the MkI vs MkIII.
The III does everything better than the MkI, with an emphasis on more power, more effortless acceleration, and more comfortable and capable power at highway speeds.
Yesterday afternoon I found myself taking in the late afternoon warm sea air at the shore when I realized I had to make my way inland over an hour away to pick up the wife's repaired iPhone and I had no idea when the store closed. I double-timed it back largely at 70-75 and noted just how much more was left in the throttle when wanted.
I still truly love my MkI and have no plan to get rid of it.
I was telling my wife at dinner last night that I've never ridden two bikes that are so similar yet different in every way. They are both Guzzi through and through. They feel and act the "same" but the III is just more or just a little different in everything from power to sound, from feel to suspension and handling.
So much so that if I could only have one the III is more versatile and would be my pick.
I'm really glad that I don't have to pick.
-
Just to revisit this thread. I put over 100 miles on each of my V7 MkI Stone and V7III the past two days. While doing so I was thinking about this thread. I still can't say if there's a difference between the MkI and MkII, but I'm doubling down in my impressions of the MkI vs MkIII.
The III does everything better than the MkI, with an emphasis on more power, more effortless acceleration, and more comfortable and capable power at highway speeds.
Yesterday afternoon I found myself taking in the late afternoon warm sea air at the shore when I realized I had to make my way inland over an hour away to pick up the wife's repaired iPhone and I had no idea when the store closed. I double-timed it back largely at 70-75 and noted just how much more was left in the throttle when wanted.
I still truly love my MkI and have no plan to get rid of it.
I was telling my wife at dinner last night that I've never ridden two bikes that are so similar yet different in every way. They are both Guzzi through and through. They feel and act the "same" but the III is just more or just a little different in everything from power to sound, from feel to suspension and handling.
So much so that if I could only have one the III is more versatile and would be my pick.
I'm really glad that I don't have to pick.
Thanks, Kev. Interesting compo.
You also got up mighty early to write that review. :wink:
Bill
-
Thanks, Kev. Interesting compo.
You also got up mighty early to write that review. :wink:
Bill
Got up early? $10 says he was up all night writing that soliloquy ....... :evil: :cool:
-
Got up early? $10 says he was up all night writing that soliloquy ....... :evil: :cool:
:boozing: