Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: canuguzzi on August 28, 2015, 11:46:47 AM
-
I am not trying to start a flame war or denegrate the MG engine, I happen to like the one in the Norge.
The big makers have all refined their engines to very high degrees. Take Honda for example but this can apply to Kawasaki or BMW as well and not just their large bikes but also bikes like the KLR and so on. Honda has refined their V4 engines to the nth degree, having gone through teething issues with cams, valves, fueling and heat management but they've also stuck with the V4 engine as a basic design. The difference though between the V4s of the early 80s to what they stuff into an ST1300 is amazing to say the least.
Forgetting for a moment the economics of it all (probably the most important factor in all this) where do you see that MG could really refine the current engine design while maintaining what makes a MG a MG? I'm not talking about water cooling as that would be a major change, just considering refinement. Is it even possible within the scope of what MG could do?
I used Honda as an example because if you take the early V4s of the 80s and stick them next to the ST1100 and then ST1300 you can see the linear progression of refinement and especially with the ST series, see not so much a radical change as to make them animals of a different species.
Where could MG refine their engines without throwing what we mostly like about them to the wind?
-
Refinements in what way? Basic design has the lifespan. Probably not "engine" - but get the cooling of the cylinders refined through whatever. Love jug type fans. Change in cooling air ducting. Younger riders I meet on consumer type bikes really like self-adjusting valves.
I'm very curious as to what folks think might be an improvement. I like the rawness of a twin.
-
Ride a 1967 model Guzzi. Then get back on your Norge and tell us what hasn't been refined.
Seriously? What is your definition of 'refinement' ?
-
Ride a 1967 Triumph, then a V700. Then a 1400 California. Define refinement .
-
Ride a 1967 model Guzzi. Then get back on your Norge and tell us what hasn't been refined.
Seriously? What is your definition of 'refinement' ?
I don't have a definition which is why I posted the question for discussion. Seriously, is the current 8V the epitome of what the engine could be or could it be tweaked to make it even better? Could the valve train be improved? Maybe there are people who know what goes into the design that could contribute, that was all I was asking.
Maybe I should start another oil thread? Just sayin.
-
I'll take this question seriously, because I think there are some things worth noting.
First, the most current versions of the engine are fairly fully refined, as far as the internals go. Other than the roller v tappet question, I', not sure how much more can be done before edging into what your description seems to define as major (water cooling, maybe changing the actual materials). Pete and some others can probably speak to whether better oil galleries or such would be good.
In my mind, the things that could best be refined are all the things attached to the engine. Oil pressure sensors (type and locations), wiring and switches, alternators, oil coolers on some models, and so on - these are the things that people keep identifying as pain points.
For the engine, I think the next thing is the much rumored water cooled 1300, if and when it arrives. But for a 'better' MG, cleaning up all the external annoyances would be where I'd ask the team to spend its time.
-
Ride the V11 series and the current bikes and I'll take the visceral qualities of the V11 series. They have smoothed things out and tightened things up since that time. you need to ride some of the earlier stuff.
-
I don't have a definition which is why I posted the question for discussion. Seriously, is the current 8V the epitome of what the engine could be or could it be tweaked to make it even better? Could the valve train be improved? Maybe there are people who know what goes into the design that could contribute, that was all I was asking.
Maybe I should start another oil thread? Just sayin.
It seemed as though you started from the position of viewing the current engine as unrefined.
The design is much "refined" from the original of 1967, much like Harley's engines are much refined from the original Knuckle Heads of the late 1930s. Same basic architecture refined continuously over decades.
Any more refinements to the Guzzi engine will require major changes: Overhead Cams instead of "high cams", liquid cooling, or major changes in architecture of the block.
I suppose the biggest "refinement" I can think of, that most modern engines have, is hydraulic lifters. Pretty much every automobile has them, and many motorcycles do. Guzzi failed miserably at this refinement ten years ago and hasn't tried it again. I don't know how they f'd it up, as the American auto makers have been doing hydraulic lifters for over 60-years.
So there you have it: Hydraulic Lifters to eliminate valve adjustments.
That's my refinement request.
And yes, hydraulic roller lifters exist. No reason Piaggio couldn't make them work in a Guzzi engine.
-
Good lord
"I am not trying to start a flame war or denegrate the MG engine, I happen to like the one in the Norge."
My first words.
Refinement is a never ending process.
I thought that was clear but in the back of my mind I knew it would go sideways. Got it, delete the thread, we're all riding as good as it will ever get.
-
I'd say that MG is the poster child for refinement - even beyond HD.
I look at the issue of refinement this way - I revel in long term continued production/improvement and appreciate it materially when looking at my current vehicles:
Land Rover Discovery - 1960's Buick v-8 after decades of development.
7.3 liter F-250 - again, decades of gasoline then diesel development.
4.0 liter Cherokee - something like 3 decades of refinement.
Guzzis, big and small block - long term shared architecture showing direct lineage and development over decades.
IHC 345 & 392 in two different Binders... Now there's refinement for ya and "modularity" to boot. The 392 is an "Improved cooling" model. I further the "refinement" with aftermarket TBI and digital ignitions.
The Honda - is the ST motor even remotely connected to the old Magna/Interceptor line?
In motorcycles, only HD really rivals MG in continual basic architectural refinement though there are the nostalgic re-visits of UJMs from the likes of Honda and Kawasaki to consider. Some of those may never have fallen out of production in other parts of the world - I dunno.
Todd.
-
I suppose the biggest "refinement" I can think of, that most modern engines have, is hydraulic lifters. Pretty much every automobile has them, and many motorcycles do.
I might want to take you to task on that.
I'm not sure that is true.
I know there are a good number of EU and Asian offerings have solid lifters, but here's the crux, that have no periodic valve adjustments (or very rare ones). But I'm not sure how many these days.
I was shocked to find that say the Subaru 2.5L motor was using solid lifters with no periodic check or adjustments. There were just notes in the SM to perform an adjustment IF a valve got too noisy.
I will add that there are almost no hydraulic lifters being used on 4-stroke outboards. And there are obviously still a ton of solid lifter motorcycles.
So I don't know, but I do wonder what the split is in the automotive world.
-
My Miata had hydraulic lifters. Every GM vehicle I've owned has had them. As I recall, even my 1984 Alfa Romeo had them!
I know that advances in metals have allowed a lot of OHC and DOHC engines to be fitted with shims that basically don't wear out. Many Asian motorcycles, too.
But, American V8 and American V-twins (save the V-rod) have hydraulic lifters. And we're talking a metric shite-tonne of vehicles on the roads with just those two examples.
I'd say hydraulic roller lifters would be a refinement of the current air-cooled high-cam Guzzi V-twin.
Anything that would eliminate the valve adjustment. (not that it's a big deal, but it's something that 'could be' improved on).
-
refinement vs character
anymore, it's a matter of taste vs technology. I don't think anyone wants a Norge to feel like a Honda ST.
-
The more one of our European petrol car engine is advanced the less you will find a hydraulic lifter. They no longer have a throttle but they govern the engine by the throw of the intake valves. Think BMW Valvetronic or the nice little Fiat Twinair two cylinder car engine (I know there are throttle plates but they are only used in emergency operation).
-
I don't think anyone wants a Norge to feel like a Honda ST.
To me, it already does. LOL! :evil:
-
Fair question Mr.Pilot. With all that heat pouring onto my left knee, give my Guzzi.. ready for it?-------- Parade Mode ! :cool:
Seriously, how about eliminating Guzzi "crabs" by putting the clutch up front like BMW.
I have heard people point this out as one reason why they would not consider a Guzzi.
-
My Miata had hydraulic lifters. Every GM vehicle I've owned has had them. As I recall, even my 1984 Alfa Romeo had them!
I know that advances in metals have allowed a lot of OHC and DOHC engines to be fitted with shims that basically don't wear out. Many Asian motorcycles, too.
But, American V8 and American V-twins (save the V-rod) have hydraulic lifters. And we're talking a metric shite-tonne of vehicles on the roads with just those two examples.
I'm not arguing that eliminating valve adjustments wouldn't potentially be a boon for Guzzi owners or a refinement to the motor.
I'm just pondering the "pretty much every" and I'm thinking that might never have been true (without further clarification - in the US MAYBE, or US manufacturers, ok sure... but majority, in the WORLD? I'm leaning towards not).
Now that said, I think I assumed otherwise till maybe half a decade ago.
-
I'd love to have a sport-touring big block Guzzi with hydraulic lifters but I'm not sure that would be in the best interest of Guzzi dealers. They seem to have a hard enough time making a go of it. Doing away with some required maintenence that a lot of folks have done by a dealership can not be for their bottom line. Plus, every time a bike owner has to go to a dealership, the dealer has an opportunity to sell them something.
-
Having had a cal 1400 after years of carbed guzzis, I can say it is very refined. Since selling the 1400 and buying a CalVin, I can say tbe 1400 is light years ahead of the 1100. The FI on the 1400 was flawless. Much like my Honda. I attribute this to Piaggio's deep pockets, which guzzi/aprilia never had.
-
I'm not arguing that eliminating valve adjustments wouldn't potentially be a boon for Guzzi owners or a refinement to the motor.
I'm just pondering the "pretty much every" and I'm thinking that might never have been true (without further clarification - in the US MAYBE, or US manufacturers, ok sure... but majority, in the WORLD? I'm leaning towards not).
Now that said, I think I assumed otherwise till maybe half a decade ago.
Typical dirty American, here: Think Locally, Act Globally. :evil:
Yes, I know my "pretty much every" was some hyperbole. :boozing:
-
Having had a cal 1400 after years of carbed guzzis, I can say it is very refined. Since selling the 1400 and buying a CalVin, I can say tbe 1400 is light years ahead of the 1100. The FI on the 1400 was flawless. Much like my Honda. I attribute this to Piaggio's deep pockets, which guzzi/aprilia never had.
But, the Cal Vin was a Piaggio product... :wink:
-
The cali is a great example of MG continuing to refine there current design, It is above and beyond just about every cruiser in its class in terms of technological offerings. The elastic engine mounting and frame rigidity are fantastic improvements. Also the recent change to 8 valve heads and then to roller tappets are another example. As is the change to led lighting. I think they are walking a fine line between modernizing there designs and not loosing what we all love most about the brand, the raw, vibratory, torque laden twin. When they start following the pack instead of doing it there way, is when I'll lose interest in MG's. Although the factory fueling leaves a lot to be desired, I think most of that is because of emission regs. Thanks to those who understand it, ( Beetle), and others, the fueling is now easily corrected. I was recently tempted to take the leap into the modern era and purchase a Tuono, but I really dislike chain drives and decided that I would wait with baited breath for MG's next new offering. Perhaps a v4 Griso. :evil:
-
This may be a heretical statement for some but the small block is actually a refinement of the original, in its more optimized assembly and particularly the smaller volume of the crankcase.
That is if you want to talk about design refinement as opposed to refined character. The 8 valve setup sure looks more refined than the Daytona system. And as MT says the 1400 is amazingly refined in character.
-
I personally love that the Guzzi engines are a bit behind on the tech curve.. I hate being bleeding edge so I am the first one to discover how that breaks.
I also love that the Guzzi engines are over-engineered to be tougher than needed. While engineering to bare spec may make things lighter and therefore faster I personally prefer heavier and more durable.
I can easily live with a few extra seconds to get to 100mph if it means my engine and drive train last years longer.
-
Titanium bolts and isolastic engine mounts ;)
-
But, the Cal Vin was a Piaggio product... :wink:
True, but the calvin is a warmed over ev. I doubt guzzi was benifiting from piaggio ownership at that that time.
-
This thread is pointless.
-
Whats your point? :popcorn:
-
Wait , WHAT ?! Always thought you guys were attracted to Guzzi because of their LACK of refinement, and now you're telling me they should be more refined :huh: WTF ?
Dusty
-
I like my pushrod twin...
Maybe they realize that they can't out-Kawasaki Kawasaki. For the high tech performance market they have Aprillia. It would make sense if they kept Guzzi as the more emotional muscle-bike brand akin to a Euro Harley.
-
I was thinking about this topic today.
I was riding the V7 first, and then the Spprty later.
To the OP, I get what you're asking. What can be improved? You're not asking if there's a better configuration, you're asking if components or design of the assembly can be improved upon.
But that got me thinking about why I enjoy Harleys and Guzzis in particular. And I've owned and ridden other brands like BMW and JAPanInc. but they've usually not captured my imagination or soul.. And why the difference?
It's mechanical, but it translates to something emotional.
The MORE refined you get, the more the rider losses physical touch/feedback with the bike.
The smoother it gets, the more the disconnected you feel.
The traction control, ride by wire, ABS, active suspension, etc. all take steps to remove you from the experience of riding an internal combustion driven cycle.
We all have different levels of tolerance for those things. But there's a point for all of us when a bike becomes to antiseptic, too isolating from the heartbeat of the motor or the conditions of the environment. I think that's part of the success of Harley... And why so many shun JAPanInc. products that are technically "superior" but lack "soul".
A certain about of visceral connection through vibration, or non-isolating suspension adds to the overall experience and the connection between the rider and bike.
So a balance should be struck.
-
I like my pushrod twin...
Maybe they realize that they can't out-Kawasaki Kawasaki. For the high tech performance market they have Aprillia. It would make sense if they kept Guzzi as the more emotional muscle-bike brand akin to a Euro Harley.
So do I. Just got home an hour or so ago after putting in 325 miles on some of SE Ohio's finest roads. Even making a wrong turn and 'getting lost' for a few miles only added to the fun. Love the BB 1200 2v pushrod twin.
-
My Norge just lets through enough pleasant vibration to let you know that you are riding a substantial V twin, but without a tach and rev limiter one could easily over rev it. . My police model T-3 does not have a tach but one really does not need to have one as it telegraphs its happiness or not clearly to you if one is at all listening. They both can make me grin however. :grin:
GliderJohn
-
Oh the other hand, you guys could just try to get some sleep.
-
I don't need more HP, I don't need more speed. I went from a GS1100 Suzuki to a V65, then a Cal II. Moto Guzzi to me is a different animal. I wasn't looking for the most efficient refrigerator I could find. I've never climbed on or off one thinking I'd like some other motor. It's pleasurable, fun, gets curious eyes when parked, starts conversations. Better doesn't always trump different, and reliability is still there anyway. I don't see what's not to like. I've seen an awful lot of Honda/Harley/BMW/Triumph riders show up at our Guzzi rallies. Must be something that they like in our world.
-
kev m makes some good points. My V7 really provides a fantastic riding experience because it feels like a machine and not some computer controlled gizmo.
I guess that makes me an old geezer. But chasing the last quarter second, 48 levels of traction, and such, well, just why? I get that folks want it so the market provides it-but some of us don't want that.
Anyway, good discussion.
-
I was reading this thread and thought everyone has done a reasonable job of stating their opinions about the level of refinement in the MG engine. So, I think I will add my thoughts on the subject. I have both a 2012 Norge and a 2014 BMW R1200RT. You might say they are two versions of the same thing and I would be the first to agree with you. However, there is significant room for improvement of the Norge design in my opinion. Certainly the engine is one of the areas that needs specific attention so I will mention that first. The engine feels especially visceral and in a very positive way. I like everything about how the engine feels and I connected I feel to the bike because of it. However, it would be foolish to think there are legions of people that will write off a bike because of how it stacks up in the specifications. If MG can find a way to keep the feel and add power (self adjusting valves, water cooling, etc.) it will ultimately attract more people to the fold. That's good for MG and ultimately we will appreciate it as well. When thinking about the other areas where the Norge falls short relative to the RT, handling is an area and gadgets. Now I don't believe the Norge needs all of the gadgets that currently adorn the RT but it is woefully behind. I'm sure there is a broad spectrum of opinion on this but certainly it affects the appeal and consequently the sale of the bike. Sure, there are those of you that say it is perfect the way it is but MG can't survive solely on what the few of us think. They need product with a wider appeal. That means more sales and ultimately a better product for us all. While they are at it, they could modernize other aspects of the bike as well, LED lighting (all lights), better panniers (waterproof please), more travel on the windshield (or save the money and remove the electric bits), modern dash, etc. They have a great foundation and I believe all of us here will agree with that. Just get the other items completed and this bike will cross the finish line in super great shape.
I'll stop now and go to bed. Keep the comments coming. Hopefully someone at MG (Piaggio) will read and heed.
Eric
-
When thinking about the other areas where the Norge falls short relative to the RT, handling is an area and gadgets. Now I don't believe the Norge needs all of the gadgets that currently adorn the RT but it is woefully behind. I'm sure there is a broad spectrum of opinion on this but certainly it affects the appeal and consequently the sale of the bike.
What is wrong with the Norge's handling, as compared to the RT ??
What are these "gadgets" you speak of ??
-
Cruise control :)
-
Hey, I like my Norge (made by Caterpiller) Cruise control. Simple yellow oring that looks like...
(http://www.triumphrat.net/photogallery/d/65046-2/aac.jpg)
-
I think MG is pretty much at the refinement limit. Hydraulic lifters (I've got those!) would be nice and maybe a shorter wheelbase. I don't see the need to reduce much weight, improve ground clearance, or anything like that. ABS on the Griso would be nice.
Once you remove the self imposed limitations of the Guzzi formula, an air cooled V-twin with shaft drive, then you could go all sorts of places. But why do that with this brand? Probably best for all involved to let Guzzi fade into the sunset and put the innovation and refinement into the Aprilia line.
-
R59- Regarding handling, I've ridden the Norge and RT and can comment that the telelever Beemer is like power steering. This makes the bike very agile. Whether telelever handles better is of course subjective. Basically the trade-off is ease of steering vs road feel. Ease of steering is nothing to sneeze at when you can maneuver a big touring bike like a scooter.
-
R59- Regarding handling, I've ridden the Norge and RT and can comment that the telelever Beemer is like power steering. This makes the bike very agile. Whether telelever handles better is of course subjective. Basically the trade-off is ease of steering vs road feel. Ease of steering is nothing to sneeze at when you can maneuver a big touring bike like a scooter.
Yeah. I've ridden Telelever bikes and found them a bit strange. Of course, BMW faithful find standard forks strange.
-
What is wrong with the Norge's handling, as compared to the RT ??
What are these "gadgets" you speak of ??
The Norge is a good handling bike. I actually like it. The plain simple truth is the RT is wayyyy better! It has a slightly lower CoG and is less weight and the Telelever enables it to have a telepathy the Norge just can't muster. I am not throwing salt at the Norge, I love the feel of it. The RT is just better.
On the gadget front, almost everything. The RT has a radio (w/satellite and iPod USB stick capability) built in Bluetooth, electronic suspension and traction control, integrated GPS, etc. Way more gadgets than the Norge. I realize MG doesn't have the volume or budget to design all of these things in but they make the difference for many buyers. I'd gladly part with a few extra bucks for the Norge to have these things.
Eric
-
If they go next gen on the Norge it'll probably use the 7SM like the Calis and then it will get all the fruit.
-
The Norge is a good handling bike. I actually like it. The plain simple truth is the RT is wayyyy better! It has a slightly lower CoG and is less weight and the Telelever enables it to have a telepathy the Norge just can't muster. I am not throwing salt at the Norge, I love the feel of it. The RT is just better.
On the gadget front, almost everything. The RT has a radio (w/satellite and iPod USB stick capability) built in Bluetooth, electronic suspension and traction control, integrated GPS, etc. Way more gadgets than the Norge. I realize MG doesn't have the volume or budget to design all of these things in but they make the difference for many buyers. I'd gladly part with a few extra bucks for the Norge to have these things.
Eric
Less weight? Are you sure? Telepathy? I don't think so.. it steers very lightly, but there is no front end feedback to speak of. Lots of electronic widgets to fail that I don't use. The Norge is just better.. at lots less money.. and .. you can actually work on it yourself. YMMV, of course.. :)
-
How about a better combustion design? Smaller valve inc. angle, lighter rockers, more compact cchamber, central plug, better squish, better port design. Thats all easily done and you can keep the pushrod setup. It might offer better MPG and slightly more power.
While we are on the topic, i'd actually love to see a new motor. One that favors the original Guzzi vtwin layout w OHC. You know the design that the other Italian bike maker stole?
(http://www.italiaonroad.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Guzzi-03-bicilindrica.jpg)
-
Small block. :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu