Wildguzzi.com

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Litre1000 on May 25, 2018, 05:31:59 AM

Title: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 25, 2018, 05:31:59 AM
The local dealer has a 2009 Stelvio in stock. It has a little over 6000 miles on the clock. I asked if it was rollerized. Dealer said no. We spoke about the issue and they said it wasn’t necessary. That the failure rate was low. And that it would be covered under warranty if it did happen. I’ve seen local dealers give up the Guzzi brand lately. Slow sales I imagine. If this shop decides to give up the brand, then my ability to get the kit covered under warranty greatly diminishes. I’m thinking, no kit, no sale. My research shows rollerization is a necessity. I should probably just walk away from this dealer and this sale. They seem to not appreciate the situation regarding this tappet issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on May 25, 2018, 05:44:47 AM
Quote
I should probably just walk away from this dealer and this sale. They seem to not appreciate the situation regarding this tappet issue.

They either don't appreciate it or don't care. Run, don't walk.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: molly on May 25, 2018, 05:46:17 AM
They are in denial, ignorant of the facts or dishonest walk away for sure.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pebra on May 25, 2018, 06:02:41 AM
The local dealer has a 2009 Stelvio in stock. It has a little over 6000 miles on the clock. I asked if it was rollerized. Dealer said no. We spoke about the issue and they said it wasn�t necessary. That the failure rate was low. And that it would be covered under warranty if it did happen. I�ve seen local dealers give up the Guzzi brand lately. Slow sales I imagine. If this shop decides to give up the brand, then my ability to get the kit covered under warranty greatly diminishes. I�m thinking, no kit, no sale. My research shows rollerization is a necessity. I should probably just walk away from this dealer and this sale. They seem to not appreciate the situation regarding this tappet issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've drawn the sensible conclusion  -  there's no need for you to take the risk.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: John A on May 25, 2018, 06:07:08 AM
Yep, just ease on out the door. That one could become a nightmare unless you get it at a substantial discount.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 25, 2018, 06:08:49 AM
Offer them the sale price if they rollerise it, else the sale price minus the cost of the kit (say $2k?) if they don’t.  If they want the sale they may come round else run like hell[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 25, 2018, 06:12:00 AM
PS exceptional bike once the Rollerization is completed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: markw on May 25, 2018, 06:23:01 AM
Perhaps you could mention who this "Dealer" is , then others will also know who not to go near with a barge pole !
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Lannis on May 25, 2018, 06:33:00 AM
Perhaps you could mention who this "Dealer" is , then others will also know who not to go near with a barge pole !

I would think that ID of this dealer, or at least his location, would be a "Justified" dealer comment and would not come under the category of "bashing".   

It's not a matter of "ignorance" on their part.   They don't know that what they're saying is true at all, they're just saying it to sell the bike, and we all know it's NOT true ....

Lannis
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 25, 2018, 07:25:33 AM
Alas this is not the case. All flat tappet bikes are going to fail. It’s not a matter of if, just when.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: egschade on May 25, 2018, 07:41:13 AM
If you feel capable of doing the rollerization (with forum help) by yourself or a different mechanic then I would go with Paul's suggestion to make an offer that discounts the cost of the upgrade. They'll probably say no but at least they have your offer. You never know - they may get desperate in a couple months...
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: oldbike54 on May 25, 2018, 07:41:50 AM
 No , let's not mention the dealer. You are welcome to do so by PM , but they may very well be acting out of ignorance .

 

 Dusty
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: guzzisteve on May 25, 2018, 07:58:21 AM
They know about it, they just want you to spend the money on the fix not them. Plenty of Stelvio's out there for sale.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Unkept on May 25, 2018, 08:04:08 AM
They either don't appreciate it or don't care. Run, don't walk.

 :1:

I'd keep looking elsewhere.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pyoungbl on May 25, 2018, 09:04:13 AM
Hummm, a bike built in '09 is now almost 10 years old.  There is a good chance the flatties are already failing and that swarf is now doing its best to contaminate the rest of the engine.  I'd want to inspect the tappets for wear before making a purchase.  In my case the rollerization WAS NOT covered by Guzzi so I do not think you can count on that as a certainty.....parti cularly given the age of the machine.  At some point Guzzi is just going to say 'too bad, Charlie'.  In essence the bike is totaled because the cost of repair is greater than the retail value of the machine.

Peter Y.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Lannis on May 25, 2018, 10:28:52 AM
They know about it, they just want you to spend the money on the fix not them. Plenty of Stelvio's out there for sale.

"We spoke about the issue and they said it wasn�t necessary. That the failure rate was low. And that it would be covered under warranty if it did happen."

This isn't ignorance.   This is an attempt to defraud a potential customer.   If they were "ignorant" of it, they wouldn't make false positive statements about "failure rate", "necessary", and "warranty".

These people are lying weasels and they deserve to be out of business.

Lannis
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: not-fishing on May 25, 2018, 11:13:27 AM
Alas this is not the case. All flat tappet bikes are going to fail. It�s not a matter of if, just when.

This is what I always remember when looking at an 8v that is older than 2013.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: TimmyTheHog on May 25, 2018, 11:34:14 AM
Rollerized it or you will be cursing on the side of the road wishing you did...
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Wayne Orwig on May 25, 2018, 11:35:33 AM
"We spoke about the issue and they said it wasn�t necessary. That the failure rate was low. And that it would be covered under warranty if it did happen."
This isn't ignorance.   This is an attempt to defraud a potential customer.   If they were "ignorant" of it, they wouldn't make false positive statements about "failure rate", "necessary", and "warranty".
These people are lying weasels and they deserve to be out of business.

True.
It is a 2009 long out of warranty. And even if the parts are covered, the labor is not. Which is a good bit on a 2009 which includes pulling the heads to shim the valve springs.
And unless you park it, or only ride it 50 miles a year, it will eventually fail. So it IS necessary. Been there, done that.

So yea, if you believe the dealer you are out over $1000 if all goes well, maybe much more if it does not.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 25, 2018, 11:45:32 AM
True.
It is a 2009 long out of warranty. And even if the parts are covered, the labor is not. Which is a good bit on a 2009 which includes pulling the heads to shim the valve springs.
And unless you park it, or only ride it 50 miles a year, it will eventually fail. So it IS necessary. Been there, done that.

So yea, if you believe the dealer you are out over $1000 if all goes well, maybe much more if it does not.
Being a professional mechanic , I realize the seriousness of the situation. In 1984 I bought a new Interceptor 1000. The cams went flat in a couple of months. HONDA  covered everything. I still have that bike today. I can do the work. I just feel the kit should come with the bike...
Or, they should install the kit to show their intent on being a legit Moto Guzzi dealer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Wayne Orwig on May 25, 2018, 11:55:29 AM
Being a professional mechanic , I realize the seriousness of the situation. In 1984 I bought a new Interceptor 1000. The cams went flat in a couple of months. HONDA  covered everything. I still have that bike today. I can do the work. I just feel the kit should come with the bike...
Or, they should install the kit to show their intent on being a legit Moto Guzzi dealer.

Odd.
I have a 1983 Honda XL600. The cam of course failed, in 1985. Honda refused to cover anything out of warranty, and I had to do it all.
A 1988 Kawasaki had an electronic ignition issue. It damaged the starter and starter system. Big $$$. They cover it 100% seven years later.
My 2004 EV, Moto Guzzi covered the cams and such 100%, parts and labor years later, even though it did not fail.
My 2009 Stelvio, Moto Guzzi covered parts only, but only after it started to fail.

Odd how sometimes the money counters do, and sometimes they don't.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 25, 2018, 05:20:06 PM
I don’t know how much they are asking for it but it’s probably too much.

I was seriously, really seriously, thinking about this for our upcoming trip to North America.

https://www.af1racingaustin.com/used-inventory/2012-moto-guzzi-stelvio-1200-1

If the link doesn’t work just go to the AF1 site and check out the used inventory. It’s fairly priced, it’s a roller model, and it’s loaded with goodies including a cruise control!

Go nuts! We’re hiring a car for the trip. :thumb:

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: LowRyter on May 25, 2018, 05:24:40 PM
assclowns
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: dave1068 on May 25, 2018, 05:27:05 PM
I am a former 2009 Stelvio owner, and never had that problem that I know of, I had about 16k miles on it and the dealer I traded it in, still has it but they dont draw a big MG crowd.

I would think going with a used Triumph Tiger 1200 Explorer might be a safer and more reliable bet if you want an ADV bike w/ character
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Rough Edge racing on May 25, 2018, 05:59:15 PM
  What models and years were affected by cam problems?
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 25, 2018, 06:03:33 PM
Any of the Nuovo Hi-Cam 8V’s made prior to mid 2012. That includes Stelvios, Grisos, Norges and Sports. There are NO exceptions. The problem isn’t ‘Rare’ it is, unfortunately, universal.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 25, 2018, 06:07:35 PM
I am a former 2009 Stelvio owner, and never had that problem that I know of, I had about 16k miles on it and the dealer I traded it in, still has it but they dont draw a big MG crowd.

I would think going with a used Triumph Tiger 1200 Explorer might be a safer and more reliable bet if you want an ADV bike w/ character

That’s the relevant sentence. You did have the problem Dave, you just didn’t know about it.

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: dave1068 on May 25, 2018, 06:18:50 PM
Hey Pete,

Probably, but im not sure as im sure others are what the indicators are? Does engine sound different, are there strange noises, clicking, etc.  Really too bad that if MG knew about it dating back to 2010 and did nothing, I know some dealers dont even know about this but they should, Not sure if MG was proactive and notified all their dealers of this-like a good dealer is or rolled the dice and hoped it would be sporadic. Speaks volumes about their integrity of a major brand or lack there of...just my .02
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Green1000S on May 25, 2018, 06:33:54 PM

If a Guzzi dealer has THIS LITTLE knowledge of the bikes they sell and service.....

RUN........ (far)....
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 25, 2018, 06:55:08 PM
One of the big problems has always been that until things get really quite bad performance and overall running are seemingly unaffected. After six years of rollerising anything that comes through the shop I�ve learnt to detect some early tell-tales but for the layman you�d probably not notice until they start to rattle and by then it�s far too late.

For some reason I never saw early failures in the shop. I knew they were happening, even the then dealer in Canberra was experiencing them but they were sticking the same mineral 10/40 they used in Ford Falcons into them so I was unsurprised! Sadly it appeared that in reality it was just luck and, I think, the sort of usage they were getting. As soon as I saw a failed one that I�d serviced from new I started inspecting every one that came into the shop and to my horror found that my assumptions had been completely wrong and the failure rate was 100%! That was six years ago now and since that time I�ve dedicated a lot of time and effort to trying to get the word out. It�s a tough business as even now there are a host of people who have never heard of the problem and unfortunately a lot of shops that are either in denial or don�t care.

Thing is inspecting the tappets requires the cambox to be removed, a simple, fifteen minute task. Sadly, for whatever reason it seems that many shops are either reluctant or incapable of performing this very simple procedure and worse yet lie to the customer saying they have and their was either �No damage� or �Acceptable wear�. There is no such thing as �Acceptable wear!�

Anything with flats should be inspected and rollerised. No exceptions. To suggest otherwise is to choose to live in a fools paradise.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 25, 2018, 07:14:05 PM
This shop that has the Stelvio primarily sells Harleys. They have 1/3 of the showroom dedicated to European bikes. So, they don’t specialize in MG’s. If they have knowledge regarding this issue, I’ll bet a hotdog they beat the guy up about his bike not being rollerized. Saying something about how it’s gonna be hard to sell, blah, blah, blah....
I’ve had dealers try to beat me up over my tires being too worn and how they can’t give me what I want, because they’re gonna have to put tires on it before they put it on the floor. And then I notice many of their used bikes have REALLY worn tires on them .....
Dealerships..[emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: LBC Tenni on May 25, 2018, 07:30:04 PM
6000 miles eh?  Here is what mine looked like at that same point. Hard to believe they could still be in the dark about this. So they are either idiots or crooks, quite possibly both.


(https://thumb.ibb.co/gGOtao/EDB1929_B_00_AB_48_DF_AD66_D9_EE3552_FE2_F.png) (https://ibb.co/gGOtao)

(https://thumb.ibb.co/cXm1T8/09_A6953_E_8_F36_4_C50_9141_46_D2_D8_AB84_B1.png) (https://ibb.co/cXm1T8)
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 25, 2018, 07:39:56 PM
6000 miles eh?  Here is what mine looked like at that same point. Hard to believe they could still be in the dark about this. So they are either idiots or crooks, quite possibly both.


(https://thumb.ibb.co/gGOtao/EDB1929_B_00_AB_48_DF_AD66_D9_EE3552_FE2_F.png) (https://ibb.co/gGOtao)

(https://thumb.ibb.co/cXm1T8/09_A6953_E_8_F36_4_C50_9141_46_D2_D8_AB84_B1.png) (https://ibb.co/cXm1T8)

I’m really not surprised to see your tappets in that condition at such a low mileage. My research has taught me this is spread throughout the entire production run of these initial units. Sure, there was a change. But I wonder if a small company like MG builds a set amount of engines, and then spreads them over several model years? Which explains why it was a several year issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 25, 2018, 08:27:44 PM
Errr? No. Sorry but they aren’t that small. You don’t understand the problem, it’s not as simple as it seems.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: jacksonracingcomau on May 25, 2018, 08:48:02 PM
One of the big problems has always been that until things get really quite bad performance and overall running are seemingly unaffected. After six years of rollerising anything that comes through the shop I�ve learnt to detect some early tell-tales but for the layman you�d probably not notice until they start to rattle and by then it�s far too late.

For some reason I never saw early failures in the shop. I knew they were happening, even the then dealer in Canberra was experiencing them but they were sticking the same mineral 10/40 they used in Ford Falcons into them so I was unsurprised! Sadly it appeared that in reality it was just luck and, I think, the sort of usage they were getting. As soon as I saw a failed one that I�d serviced from new I started inspecting every one that came into the shop and to my horror found that my assumptions had been completely wrong and the failure rate was 100%! That was six years ago now and since that time I�ve dedicated a lot of time and effort to trying to get the word out. It�s a tough business as even now there are a host of people who have never heard of the problem and unfortunately a lot of shops that are either in denial or don�t care.

Thing is inspecting the tappets requires the cambox to be removed, a simple, fifteen minute task. Sadly, for whatever reason it seems that many shops are either reluctant or incapable of performing this very simple procedure and worse yet lie to the customer saying they have and their was either �No damage� or �Acceptable wear�. There is no such thing as �Acceptable wear!�

Anything with flats should be inspected and rollerised. No exceptions. To suggest otherwise is to choose to live in a fools paradise.

Timeline of your discovery different on the internet
Not quite 3 years ago you wrote this
http://wildguzzi.com/forum/index.php?topic=77697.0

At the time you were surprised your own had failed at 50000 +miles
So surely not impossible others have done same
They just do not post here
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: bpreynolds on May 25, 2018, 09:13:57 PM
Folks.  Should this really, truly surprise anyone here with a good bit of dealer experience?  I�ve gotten pushback on this issue even from dealers who LOVE the bikes, let alone multi brand dealers who don�t even view Guzzis as anything but leftover inventory from a brand they now know was a mistake to ever pickup and won�t be carrying next year.  These latter folks aren�t Mr. Roper by a long shot and while you shouldn�t give them your Guzzi business, I personally can almost understand them shooing folks off about it.  I vaguely recall this job, depending on the kit, takes Pete about 5ish hours?  This is from someone who is well practiced and versed at it.  How long you think it�s gonna take that Ninja mechanic to do it?  You think they are gonna wanna do it when they got more profitable jobs piling up behind it in service area where they�ll be making parts and labor profit on those?  Maybe I�m just too soiled on so many bad dealers over the years but not only does what the op was told NOT surprise me; rather, it is actually what I WOULD expect a non-Guzzi enthusiast dealer to say. 
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 25, 2018, 11:30:03 PM
Timeline of your discovery different on the internet
Not quite 3 years ago you wrote this
http://wildguzzi.com/forum/index.php?topic=77697.0

At the time you were surprised your own had failed at 50000 +miles
So surely not impossible others have done same
They just do not post here

Yes, and I’d been regularly inspecting bikes for long before that I’d guess but there again I’m not trying to prove anything. It amazes me that you have the time to pursue this petty vendetta against me.

In the end it turned out I’d waited too long as my motor had already lunched it’s bottom end and I had to replace it whollus bollus. As I’ve stated many times before my belief in the integrity of the flat tappet design was wrong. My defence of it was something I regret and have tried to encourage others not to make the same mistake. There is no shame in being wrong. What is shameful is living in a world of denial and trying to convince others you are right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 26, 2018, 12:46:28 AM
Pete
I know this will be a "how long is a piece of string" discussion but ....
In your considered opinion...
If the Stelvio in question was bought for, say, $10k (Australian)
What would a roller kit cost?
Are the kits available?
How many chargeable hours to install?
How many non-chargeable hours would the mechanic need to absorb?

Converting to $US would give the OP a handle on the real value of a non-rollerised (and hopefully salvageable) Stelvio/Griso/Norge

I realise that you would need to get the bike at a very low price to make it a commercial consideration, but with end of production for the CARC range it maybe a reality for someone looking to pick up good condition non-rollerised bike




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 26, 2018, 05:44:32 AM
If anyone spent $10k Oz on a flat tappet Stelvio they’d have to be off their rocker. The fully loaded big tank NTX listed above is less than that. Also anyone thinking of buying it and bringing it over here is dreaming. You can’t.

As for the actual cost of rollerising etc? That very much depends on who and where.

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Rough Edge racing on May 26, 2018, 05:53:18 AM
  So..Is the failure a result of lifter failure or both cam and lifter? Could this have been prevented by different materials and or heat treating? Will a high ZDDP oil prevent this as it helps to prevent lifter/cam failures on performance OHV non roller cam V8 engines?
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 26, 2018, 05:57:39 AM
If anyone spent $10k Oz on a flat tappet Stelvio they’d have to be off their rocker. The fully loaded big tank NTX listed above is less than that. Also anyone thinking of buying it and bringing it over here is dreaming. You can’t.

As for the actual cost of rollerising etc? That very much depends on who and where.

Pete
LOL Pete
Let’s say I was looking at a unrollerised 8v bike in Australia.
I am confident that I can install the kit.
There are several rollerised 8v’s being advertised at the moment for between $12k & $14k.
What I am trying to get a handle on is:
If the factory says no to any claim, then how much will it cost me to buy a kit?
How much would someone like yourself charge to supply and install to someone who isn’t confident to undertake the job.
Somewhere between those three prices is the value of an unrollerised 8v.
(Assuming the bike is salvageable and the flat tappet issue hasn’t done additional damage)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 26, 2018, 06:00:56 AM
The cost will depend on model and year. OK, I’ll go through it again, but not tonight as I’m about to go to sleep.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 26, 2018, 06:01:37 AM
The cost will depend on model and year. OK, I’ll go through it again, but not tonight as I’m about to go to sleep.
Cheers Pete
Much appreciated
Sleep well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: dave1068 on May 26, 2018, 06:40:21 AM
Just as an aside, I remember when I bought my 2009 Stelvio as a leftover in 2011, the dealer volunteered to me that the cam/cam follower work was done. Years later my fork seals went, the o rings on the wheels were cracked and another issue with the pinch bolts. The dealer documented everything but the MG dealer rep was not overly helpful so I wrote a letter to the CEO of Piaggio and everything was covered and they even put on the new updated forks.

Even with all that, theres now this tappet issues which im not sure all dealers are familiar with as are many bike owners prior to 2012 models are.

If this was broadcast more it might bring the issue to light and force MG to address this issue kind of like how VW paid out big money over their most recent issue-
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 26, 2018, 06:46:15 AM
I agree that they might Dave1098
However I’ve fallen so much in love with the 8v motor that I am looking to add to my Stelvio NTX for a commuter / weekend warrior bike. Happy to buy a rollerised 8v at the right price but as a second bike I am also looking forward to the challenge of bringing it up to speed myself.
Neither the Stelvio or the potential new bike are seen as an investment, just a shrewdly bought brace of pure enjoyment and self satisfaction


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Lannis on May 26, 2018, 07:19:22 AM
LOL Pete
Let�s say I was looking at a unrollerised 8v bike in Australia.
I am confident that I can install the kit.


Hi Paul, I can give you the USA numbers for an '09 Stelvio in 2016.

To buy the "C" kit (the most complex one but required for the 2009) would have been $1450.    However, my shop negotiated it for free.

To install the kit and download the new map, my shop charged 9 hours @ $90/hour, or about $800.  Some say it can be done for fewer hours; this was my shop's very first one, they did a good careful job, and 10K miles later it's quiet, pulling hard, and running well.

Lannis
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 26, 2018, 07:26:26 AM
Hi Paul, I can give you the USA numbers for an '09 Stelvio in 2016.

To buy the "C" kit (the most complex one but required for the 2009) would have been $1450.    However, my shop negotiated it for free.

To install the kit and download the new map, my shop charged 9 hours @ $90/hour, or about $800.  Some say it can be done for fewer hours; this was my shop's very first one, they did a good careful job, and 10K miles later it's quiet, pulling hard, and running well.

Lannis
Thanks Lannis

Hopefully I can get a good project bike at a price that is not in the “tell him he’s dreaming” price range. (Australian film reference).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Wayne Orwig on May 26, 2018, 09:44:35 AM
  So..Is the failure a result of lifter failure or both cam and lifter? Could this have been prevented by different materials and or heat treating? Will a high ZDDP oil prevent this as it helps to prevent lifter/cam failures on performance OHV non roller cam V8 engines?

When my 2009 Stelvio was new, I had to wait a week to ride it, because there was a recall to upgrade the lifters to DLC coated lifters. And if I rode it, the lifters AND the cams had to be replaced. As we now know, the DLC was not an upgrade. There were other issue, like maybe too much spring pressure, or something.
Mine lasted over 50,000 miles. I was using a ZDDP additive at every oil change. I thought I was golden.
For some people, if they had a problem, the replacement cam and lifter would often fail again quickly.
Then suddenly, at over 50,000 miles, my valve clearances changed. Oops. It was gone.
And the more people talked about it, and the more people checked, the more we found that there is DLC damage, often well before 10,000 miles. And sending that DLC through the motor is not a good thing.

IMHO, they are running the spring pressure and cam profile just a bit over what the materials can stand. Roller lifters cure the issue. They should have been rollers from day one.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Rough Edge racing on May 26, 2018, 10:00:23 AM
When my 2009 Stelvio was new, I had to wait a week to ride it, because there was a recall to upgrade the lifters to DLC coated lifters. And if I rode it, the lifters AND the cams had to be replaced. As we now know, the DLC was not an upgrade. There were other issue, like maybe too much spring pressure, or something.
Mine lasted over 50,000 miles. I was using a ZDDP additive at every oil change. I thought I was golden.
For some people, if they had a problem, the replacement cam and lifter would often fail again quickly.
Then suddenly, at over 50,000 miles, my valve clearances changed. Oops. It was gone.
And the more people talked about it, and the more people checked, the more we found that there is DLC damage, often well before 10,000 miles. And sending that DLC through the motor is not a good thing.

IMHO, they are running the spring pressure and cam profile just a bit over what the materials can stand. Roller lifters cure the issue. They should have been rollers from day one.

 Ok thanks.. with flat tappet  OHV  US auto engine the lifters are ground to a slight dome shaped surface and not flat...This,along with the lifters being off set to the cam lobe and or a slight lobe taper is done for lifter rotation while the engine is running for even wear patterns...And because of this, during the initial camshaft brake in period, the lifter to cam lobe contact is almost a point so to speak with high pressure loading and requires proper lubrication...That the deal about running a flat tappet engine for 20 minutes at 2000 rpm after a cam /lifter change to insure plenty of oil.....High lift auto flat tappet cams can survive if all goes well during the break in period.. If not, the cam and or lifters will fail within 500-1000 miles...
  I'm not saying this similar to the Guzzi, just mentioning it from experience....The Chevy LS V8 and Dodge Hemi are the only OHV "performance" engines left and they have roller lifters...
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Wayne Orwig on May 26, 2018, 10:39:22 AM
..That the deal about running a flat tappet engine for 20 minutes at 2000 rpm after a cam /lifter change to insure plenty of oil.....High lift auto flat tappet cams can survive if all goes well during the break in period.. If not, the cam and or lifters will fail within 500-1000 miles...

I've heard that the ZDDP does a lot of the work during that breakin period.
And I suspect the DLC coating does not go through that breakin. So the ZDDP is probably meaningless. But I wanted to try something. I'm sure some salesman for the DLC coating made a nice commission. But now is long gone.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Rough Edge racing on May 26, 2018, 10:54:30 AM
I've heard that the ZDDP does a lot of the work during that breakin period.
And I suspect the DLC coating does not go through that breakin. So the ZDDP is probably meaningless. But I wanted to try something. I'm sure some salesman for the DLC coating made a nice commission. But now is long gone.

 Yes, ZDDP is essential for cam life with high performance stuff during and after break in..I prefer, right or wrong, to use an oil with enough ZDDP in the additive package rather than a supplement... Some oil chemists claim that pour in ZDDP additives can upset the balance of the existing additive packages....The amounts various detergents, moly and so on are varied depending on the zinc and phosphorous amounts in the oil.. Opps ,sorry to turn this into an oil thread ................... .....
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 26, 2018, 10:19:05 PM
Yes, ZDDP is essential for cam life with high performance stuff during and after break in..I prefer, right or wrong, to use an oil with enough ZDDP in the additive package rather than a supplement... Some oil chemists claim that pour in ZDDP additives can upset the balance of the existing additive packages....The amounts various detergents, moly and so on are varied depending on the zinc and phosphorous amounts in the oil.. Opps ,sorry to turn this into an oil thread ................... .....

In this case the ZDDP issue is a red herring. In fact some studies have found it can actually be counter effective in the interface between DLC and other materials. FWIW the oil I have been using for the life of the 8V has had a high ZDDP content and it hasn’t saved the system.

My research would seem to indicate that the problem is not rooted in the lubrication per se but is down to a purely mechanical inadequacy.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 26, 2018, 11:12:45 PM
LOL Pete
Let�s say I was looking at a unrollerised 8v bike in Australia.
I am confident that I can install the kit.
There are several rollerised 8v�s being advertised at the moment for between $12k & $14k.
What I am trying to get a handle on is:
If the factory says no to any claim, then how much will it cost me to buy a kit?
How much would someone like yourself charge to supply and install to someone who isn�t confident to undertake the job.
Somewhere between those three prices is the value of an unrollerised 8v.
(Assuming the bike is salvageable and the flat tappet issue hasn�t done additional damage)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To address the question of cost one has to understand the various machines, their different needs and the choices on offer.

Firstly let’s look at the machines.

The Griso, Stelvio and 1200 Sport from 2008-2010 mostly use the ‘C’ kit although there are a few 2009 plated models that take a ‘B’ kit too so the actual numbers are rubbery. From the middle of 2010 the Norge also came on line and to the best of my knowledge those made between mid 2010 and the end of 2011, with the exception of the 1200 Sports, all use the ‘B’ kit.

From the end of 2011 through to the end of manufacture of flat tappet models in mid 2012 they all, once again with the exception of the 1200 Sports, need the ‘A’ kit. Sports from this later period need the ‘D’ kit.

So what are the differences and how do you know for sure which kit you require? Well it’s really quite easy.

First look at the inner face of the cylinder head that faces into the valley of the motor. Close to the banjo that feeds the cooling oil to the head galleries there is a manufacturing date stamp. This looks like a small ‘Sun’ with a number stamped in the middle and twelve sections around it that have punch marks in. By counting the punch marks you can ascertain the month of manufacture. On early models, the black paint of the head will be unblemished and these machines will require a ‘C’ kit.

If though, in the paint there is a drill mark like so.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1492/24055727989_9082784aa1.jpg)

It will need either a ‘B’ or an ‘A’ kit if it is post mid 2011.

Now the way to make certain you get the right kit for bikes with the drill mark in the paint, (1200 Sports are different. We’ll cover them at the end.) you need to know what sealing method is used on the rocker covers to prevent oil escaping into the plug tube.

On early and mid period bikes, that is those requiring both a ‘C’ kit and the later ‘B’ kit there is a ‘Long’ plug tube that pokes up from the cylinder head, through the rocker carrier/cambox casting and then seals in the rocker cover by means of an o-ring and the cover appears like this.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1509/24172522846_6804aa60dd.jpg)

On later engines that require an ‘A’ kit the rocker carrier/cambox casting is machined differently and there is only a ‘Short’ plug tube that goes between the head and the rocker carrier casting and the top of the casting is sealed to the rocker cover by a circular neoprene gasket of the same cross-section as the rocker cover gasket itself.

Like so.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1700/24090573292_1692a45074.jpg)

So, to recap. On all apart from 1200 Sport if there is no drill mark in the paint? ‘C’ kit. If there is a drill mark in the paint lift the rocker cover and see if it needs an ‘A’ or a ‘B’ kit.

With the 1200 Sports none were ever manufactured with roller top ends and likewise none ever had the required shims inserted under the inlet valve seats so they all require the heads removing which is the big difference in the work required for a’C’ or ‘D’ kit compared to an ‘A’ or ‘B’. Because they didn’t have the shims the heads likewise are not marked with a drill mark in the paint BUT the final run of Sports used the later rocker cover/Short plug tube combination and for these models only there is the stand alone ‘D’ kit.

I gotta go and do chores right now but a bit later I’ll explain the differences and relative costs for both purchase and installation of the various kits.

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 26, 2018, 11:40:24 PM
Outstanding Pete, just outstanding.
Thank you
Bookmarked for future reference


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 27, 2018, 01:10:22 AM
Getting on to what is included and involved in the various kits they all include tha major componentry off the fully assembled camboxes complete with cam, roller tappets, preload system etc. and the hemispherical ‘Pads’ and earth tang that fits on the central rocker retaining plate bolts. The original rockers and adjusters have to be swapped from the flat tappet camboxes/rocker supports and the hemispherical ‘Pads’ inserted in the rockers, otherwise they are a straight drop-in. Also included in all the kits are are rocker cover gaskets, o-rings for the plug tubes and in the case of ‘A’ and ‘D’  kits the circular neoprene ring gaskets for sealing the plug hole in the rocker casting to the rocker cover.

After this you get to the other ‘Extra’ bits included in the ‘C’ and ‘D’ kits.

Because on these models the heads have to come off to insert the shims under the inlet valve spring seats you also receive four shims, four valve guide oil seals, inlet and exhaust gaskets and six head gaskets! Why six? Because the squish is set using differentialy thicknessed head gaskets. You only use two, the other ones are surplus to requirements.

Moving on to cost things start to get a bit weird. As far as I can make out all of the kits needed cost the same at about $1500US. I have no idea what the importer in Oz charges but they don’t keep them in stock and the supply timeline seems to be in the region of six to eight weeks at the shortest. I bring kits in direct from Europe and endeavour to keep both an ‘A’ and a ‘B’ kit along with all the parts required to *Extend* them to a ‘C’ or ‘D’ kit on the shelf although at the moment I am awaiting both as I sold my stock last week and the next ‘B’ kit which should be here in a few days is already spoken for so the ‘Stock’ timeline is, hopefully, about three weeks. (It takes three days for parts to get here from Europe. It then takes 14-21 days for the scroll beetles at Border Force to process them and get them to me :rolleyes: ). Pricing is weird.

‘A’ kit-$AU 1269.38

‘B’ kit-$AU 998.32

‘C’ kit- $AU 1850.02

‘D’ kit-$AU North of $2,000!!!

Those are exclusive of freight and GST but as you can see there is a huge and weird dichotomy between the price of even the ‘A’ and ‘B’ kits! I have no idea why? What is silly though is the difference between the ‘Head off’ and ‘Head on’ kits. My answer to this is simple. If I have a customer who has a bike that requires a ‘C’ or a ‘D’ kit I simply supply the required ‘A’ or ‘B’ kit and all the individual parts needed to convert it to a ‘C’ or ‘D’ kit. I supply all three thicknesses of head gasket and simply ask that the unused ones be sent back. Since they are by far the most expensive parts of the ‘Extras’ than in and of itself is a saving of over $200AU. Incidentally the cost to the customer will be the same if they buy direct. I make my profit on trade discount. That’s how business works.

Now, as for the time requirements for fitting this will once again vary from model to model. On all of them you have to remove the tank to access the RH cylinder’s cam chain tensioner. On models like big tank Stelvios and Griso’s this is easy-peasy. On Sports, Norges you need to remove the airbox as well which is a bit of an embuggerance and on small tank Stelvios you need to disassemble all the fiddle little plastic bits and panels to get to the tank which is a king sized pain in the arse and Norges have their much easier to remove plastics to remove or work around.

Times for a Griso or big tank Stelvio are easy, about four and a half hours, a bit more if you let us drop the sump, replace the sump spacer gasket and give it a good scry and clean out which we recommend for a ‘B’ or ‘A’ kit. For a ‘C’ kit? Add another hour and a bit. Needless to say if it doesn’t go smoothly costs will escalate.

For Sports? Add an hour and a half/ two hours roughly for airbox out and heads off, for Norges, as long as they don’t need the heads off about an hour and a bit extra. For a small tank Stelvio? (Shudder!) chuck on a couple of hours at least because some of the fasteners are bound to be seized and there are a zillion tiny screws and grommets that are all aneurism inducingly awful and tedious!

I don’t doubt that there are people who can claim to do it quicker. Maybe they can! Sorry, don’t give a shit. Michael and I are as quick as we can be while still being careful. We also have a LOT of practice. A first timer attempting it may well take considerably longer.

I’ll review this later and see what I’ve missed. For now it’s beer o’clock! :thumb:

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 27, 2018, 01:14:53 AM
Thanks Pete [emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 27, 2018, 04:00:12 AM
You’re welcome. Any questions? Fire away.

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Rough Edge racing on May 27, 2018, 05:20:35 AM
In this case the ZDDP issue is a red herring. In fact some studies have found it can actually be counter effective in the interface between DLC and other materials. FWIW the oil I have been using for the life of the 8V has had a high ZDDP content and it hasn�t saved the system.

My research would seem to indicate that the problem is not rooted in the lubrication per se but is down to a purely mechanical inadequacy.

 Ok, I'm getting a better picture of this problem...MG put the hard coating on the lifters to avoid premature wear but it's the coating that failed .....I took a look at the head design closely for the first time....Are the timing belts on "short" replacement schedule like Ducati?
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 27, 2018, 05:33:31 AM
No belts on the Nuovo Hi-cam. Look at the failed components. Look at the valve springs.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Rough Edge racing on May 27, 2018, 06:41:24 AM
  OK, there's no belt drive on the engines with the failures?  There's more than one four valve type engine?
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Lannis on May 27, 2018, 07:44:04 AM
  OK, there's no belt drive on the engines with the failures?  There's more than one four valve type engine?

Yes.   The 90's "Centauro" and "Daytona" had cam belts with a recommended 18,000 mile change interval (although based on the excellent condition of the belts being replaced, we started pushing those intervals for bikes not used on a track).

The later 4V Stelvios, Grisos, etc don't have belts .....

Lannis
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Rough Edge racing on May 27, 2018, 08:31:06 AM
Yes.   The 90's "Centauro" and "Daytona" had cam belts with a recommended 18,000 mile change interval (although based on the excellent condition of the belts being replaced, we started pushing those intervals for bikes not used on a track).

The later 4V Stelvios, Grisos, etc don't have belts .....

Lannis

  Thanks.. I'm poking around at later Guzzi's for sale getting some info on the 4 valve problems...So the belt cam drive Guzzis don't have the problems
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Wayne Orwig on May 27, 2018, 09:39:26 AM
  Thanks.. I'm poking around at later Guzzi's for sale getting some info on the 4 valve problems...So the belt cam drive Guzzis don't have the problems

I do recall a small number of people had problems with their Centauro cams. Not a big issue, but then they didn't make as many.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Rough Edge racing on May 27, 2018, 10:20:30 AM
 I don't mind buying a bike needing mechanical repairs if the price is right and the parts are available....But I don't want an engine with junk from failed cam lobes or lifters floating around inside... I've torn down in the past a hot rod car engine that suffered a cam lobe failure . The oil filter captured some of it but the debris was embedded in all the bearings requiring a full engine strip ,honing, cleaning ,new rings and bearings...
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 27, 2018, 10:34:01 AM
Since the ‘80’s Guzzi have made several. The smallblock 4V used in the Lario/Imola and a couple of other models, the earlier big block Hi-Cams used in the Daytona/Centauro series and then the ‘Nuovo Hi-Cam’ used in the CARC series and California 1400.

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: guzzisteve on May 27, 2018, 11:32:33 AM
If they built a DOHC head I would bet the shims would be soft.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: tonyduc on May 27, 2018, 11:56:13 AM
I have a 2011 Stelvio with 8,000 miles I bought new in 2014 from a dealer in NJ. Hearing about these issues I talked to another Guzzi dealer closer to where I live about a year ago because I wanted him to service the bike. He is a Guzzi factory trained mechanic for many years, recently turned owner. He also is very familiar with the flat tapper issue and said that the percent incidents of this happening is very low and that he has only seen a couple of bikes having this problem. Now since he is not the dealer that sold me the bike, he has every incentive to tell me failure is imminent and have me pay for the service. Rather, he told me to change the oil regularly and examine it for any unusual fragments and keep an eye on valve clearance. But essentially his message was that the incidents are so low it does not pay to spends thousands. I know this is contrary to what most people on this site are saying but it has 8,000 + miles and runs perfect.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: John A on May 27, 2018, 12:18:21 PM
I have a 2011 Stelvio with 8,000 miles I bought new in 2014 from a dealer in NJ. Hearing about these issues I talked to another Guzzi dealer closer to where I live about a year ago because I wanted him to service the bike. He is a Guzzi factory trained mechanic for many years, recently turned owner. He also is very familiar with the flat tapper issue and said that the percent incidents of this happening is very low and that he has only seen a couple of bikes having this problem. Now since he is not the dealer that sold me the bike, he has every incentive to tell me failure is imminent and have me pay for the service. Rather, he told me to change the oil regularly and examine it for any unusual fragments and keep an eye on valve clearance. But essentially his message was that the incidents are so low it does not pay to spends thousands. I know this is contrary to what most people on this site are saying but it has 8,000 + miles and runs perfect.


Id ask him to learn the procedure on rollerizing and pay him to do it before it comes to a point where it damages the rest of the engine. If he can get any warranty help that would be a plus but I wouldn't hold up because of it. the damage is hidden and because it runs well is not an indicator that it does not have this problem. please read all of Pete's posts on it
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Lannis on May 27, 2018, 02:34:34 PM
I have a 2011 Stelvio with 8,000 miles I bought new in 2014 from a dealer in NJ. Hearing about these issues I talked to another Guzzi dealer closer to where I live about a year ago because I wanted him to service the bike. He is a Guzzi factory trained mechanic for many years, recently turned owner. He also is very familiar with the flat tapper issue and said that the percent incidents of this happening is very low and that he has only seen a couple of bikes having this problem.

If he thinks that the percent incidents of this happening is "very low", then he is NOT in fact familiar with the flat tappet issue.

And if he's that ignorant about a subject around which he purportedly makes his living, I wouldn't trust him to do anything else on my motorcycle either.

Lannis
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 27, 2018, 02:35:14 PM
I have a 2011 Stelvio with 8,000 miles I bought new in 2014 from a dealer in NJ. Hearing about these issues I talked to another Guzzi dealer closer to where I live about a year ago because I wanted him to service the bike. He is a Guzzi factory trained mechanic for many years, recently turned owner. He also is very familiar with the flat tapper issue and said that the percent incidents of this happening is very low and that he has only seen a couple of bikes having this problem. Now since he is not the dealer that sold me the bike, he has every incentive to tell me failure is imminent and have me pay for the service. Rather, he told me to change the oil regularly and examine it for any unusual fragments and keep an eye on valve clearance. But essentially his message was that the incidents are so low it does not pay to spends thousands. I know this is contrary to what most people on this site are saying but it has 8,000 + miles and runs perfect.

It will fail. No ifs or buts. Unfortunately there will always be those who choose to believe otherwise. One of the things Piaggio is counting on is people like yourself who don�t ride your bike often or far not checking. By the time the damage becomes apparent by noise they�ll be able to shrug their collective shoulders and say it was age or neglect that caused it. It takes fifteen minutes to pull a cambox. Unless you do that you know nothing. By 8,000 miles wear is usually evident.

Yeah, really rare.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5700/23335841095_3a6aafe937_z.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/613/22674894787_0704159378_z.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/710/23605432340_68e6f0b38a.jpg)

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1683/24196892056_332e62ec20_z.jpg)

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1570/24370804619_f891610f2d.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7741/26896408256_00ccb6e38e.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7415/27467667665_d51864ee75.jpg)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8608/28178204063_8602ea1bb1.jpg)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8194/29038620875_41e14d781e.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/643/32370207790_2d5af6bfea.jpg)

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2844/33994267872_c1ccc23822.jpg)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4404/36570053104_476c91a67b.jpg)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4351/36570048544_be71f4f684.jpg)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4453/23772002678_470b3db8f8.jpg)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4517/38884371031_b75acd287a.jpg)

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4764/27955386769_578c380cb6.jpg)

And that’s just a few chosen randomly from my photostream! It’s not like I have to go searching :D
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: guzzisteve on May 27, 2018, 02:56:28 PM
The dealer knows the procedure if he changed the original ones that did not spin, if not, they will wear square holes in the tops. Maybe they never sold any early 8V's till recently.
I guess they(dealer) doesn't read or do the stuff in the Tech Bulletins.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Wayne Orwig on May 27, 2018, 06:06:50 PM
He also is very familiar with the flat tapper issue and said that the percent incidents of this happening is very low and that he has only seen a couple of bikes having this problem.

The worse part of that comment is that YOUR motor is getting filled with DLC shrapnel.

Sadly, he is very wrong.

Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Lannis on May 27, 2018, 06:24:05 PM
I know this is contrary to what most people on this site are saying but it has 8,000 + miles and runs perfect.

They run perfect right up until the DLC material wears completely away and starts filling the motor with shrapnel.

Mine ran perfect for 39,000 miles until it was taken apart and found that the tappets were on the ragged edge of failure ....

Lannis
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 27, 2018, 06:29:32 PM
As I keep trying to explain you won’t know unless you LOOK. They will continue to run fine-ish and the valve clearances change very little until all the DLC is gone and the cam starts abrading the parent metal of the tappet. They only start making a noise when they are totally ‘Donald Ducked’!

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: LowRyter on May 27, 2018, 07:51:01 PM
I have a 2011 Stelvio with 8,000 miles I bought new in 2014 from a dealer in NJ. Hearing about these issues I talked to another Guzzi dealer closer to where I live about a year ago because I wanted him to service the bike. He is a Guzzi factory trained mechanic for many years, recently turned owner. He also is very familiar with the flat tapper issue and said that the percent incidents of this happening is very low and that he has only seen a couple of bikes having this problem. Now since he is not the dealer that sold me the bike, he has every incentive to tell me failure is imminent and have me pay for the service. Rather, he told me to change the oil regularly and examine it for any unusual fragments and keep an eye on valve clearance. But essentially his message was that the incidents are so low it does not pay to spends thousands. I know this is contrary to what most people on this site are saying but it has 8,000 + miles and runs perfect.

perhaps he's only serviced a couple of bikes? 

It's not like there are many bikes on the road and probably fewer owners with the  info to even ask.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Lannis on May 27, 2018, 07:54:59 PM
perhaps he's only serviced a couple of bikes? 

It's not like there are many bikes on the road and probably fewer owners with the  info to even ask.

That doesn't square up with the "percent incidents being very low".   How would he know that unless he's serviced LOTS of motorcycles and only a couple of them had the problem?   

He'd have to have had 50 or 100 bikes in the shop that did NOT show a problem to be able to make that statement. 

It's bad enough that Guzzi screwed the pooch and wouldn't admit it.   It's worse, 4 years after it became obvious to the world, when people getting paid to work on these things spread B.S. about them ....

I'll shut up about it now unless further encouraged.   

Lannis
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: tonyduc on May 27, 2018, 08:09:41 PM

(https://thumb.ibb.co/g02HNd/9722_EFE9_03_DC_4_D1_A_8_E9_A_FD52_C2423_EB4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/g02HNd)

On a more positive note, after 6 years I just finished the rebuild/restoration of my 76 T3 and it’s ready for a ride !
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Lannis on May 27, 2018, 08:23:59 PM

(https://thumb.ibb.co/g02HNd/9722_EFE9_03_DC_4_D1_A_8_E9_A_FD52_C2423_EB4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/g02HNd)

On a more positive note, after 6 years I just finished the rebuild/restoration of my 76 T3 and it�s ready for a ride !

I'll bet installing the roller tappets on THAT was a beast of a job ....
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Gliderjohn on May 27, 2018, 09:57:05 PM
From tonyduc:
Quote
On a more positive note, after 6 years I just finished the rebuild/restoration of my 76 T3 and it�s ready for a ride !
:thumb:
They are great bikes. Had mine (75) since fall of 89.

(https://thumb.ibb.co/dFkPky/DSCN0485_2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dFkPky)

GliderJohn
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Old Jock on May 28, 2018, 05:37:34 AM
  Thanks.. I'm poking around at later Guzzi's for sale getting some info on the 4 valve problems...So the belt cam drive Guzzis don't have the problems

Well err yes they can.

Not this particular issue, but there were some Centauros and Daytona RS engines fitted with dodgy cam followers and the Hi Cam's are notorious for the oil pumps which, due to their insane design, fail and sometimes the alloy gears too.

I've also heard whispers about the valves too, but not sure on the details.

This is before we get to the gearbox, but I'm depressed enough at it is

Sorry a little off topic
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 28, 2018, 06:43:39 AM
When I was a General Motors technician, we did warranty work on trade-ins. It was easy money. What’s stopping them from doing the same?
Unless they know Guzzi won’t pay for it. Which means they lied to me about how I shouldn’t worry about it if it goes south after I buy it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: John A on May 28, 2018, 06:45:20 AM
I remember the low failure rate of chrome plated aluminum cylinders in the '70s. I'd also like to point out that we are not the only manufacturer with occasional problems. The internet has made it possible for the more knowledgeable to help the rest of us who have the ability to grasp the concepts. We can fix it if we know about it and don't stick our head in the sand. When I worked at a big four Japanese motorcycle store we had discussions about how emotional some people would get over mechanical problems on what was loosely described as a toy. It's understandable because we care about our machines.Maintain it to your own standards.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: severely on May 28, 2018, 07:26:36 AM
I have a 2011 Stelvio with 8,000 miles I bought new in 2014 from a dealer in NJ. Hearing about these issues I talked to another Guzzi dealer closer to where I live about a year ago because I wanted him to service the bike. He is a Guzzi factory trained mechanic for many years, recently turned owner. He also is very familiar with the flat tapper issue and said that the percent incidents of this happening is very low and that he has only seen a couple of bikes having this problem. Now since he is not the dealer that sold me the bike, he has every incentive to tell me failure is imminent and have me pay for the service. Rather, he told me to change the oil regularly and examine it for any unusual fragments and keep an eye on valve clearance. But essentially his message was that the incidents are so low it does not pay to spends thousands. I know this is contrary to what most people on this site are saying but it has 8,000 + miles and runs perfect.
   I purchased a used 09 Stelvio that already had the dealer recall already performed at around 8K miles. At 11K miles, after speaking with Pete Roper I disassembled the cam boxes and to my surprise found all 4 of the recalled tappets had coating missing. What is it about a person who won't listen to the experiences of others? Good luck brother, you're gonna need it.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pebra on May 28, 2018, 07:31:55 AM
As I keep trying to explain you won�t know unless you LOOK. They will continue to run fine-ish and the valve clearances change very little until all the DLC is gone and the cam starts abrading the parent metal of the tappet. They only start making a noise when they are totally �Donald Ducked�!

Pete

What's the risk that a mechanic will misinterpret what he observes?
"Tappets look ok, hardly any wear  -  valve clearances ok, hardly changed  -  bike's running fine" = No problem

While the correct interpretation is ANY wear = failed part and possible damaged engine?

Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on May 28, 2018, 07:43:39 AM
What's the risk that a mechanic will misinterpret what he observes?
"Tappets look ok, hardly any wear  -  valve clearances ok, hardly changed  -  bike's running fine" = No problem

While the correct interpretation is ANY wear = failed part and possible damaged engine?

I'd say it's pretty likely if he doesn't know what he doesn't know.. <shrug>
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: bpreynolds on May 28, 2018, 07:54:51 AM
I have a 2011 Stelvio with 8,000 miles I bought new in 2014 from a dealer in NJ. Hearing about these issues I talked to another Guzzi dealer closer to where I live about a year ago because I wanted him to service the bike. He is a Guzzi factory trained mechanic for many years, recently turned owner. He also is very familiar with the flat tapper issue and said that the percent incidents of this happening is very low and that he has only seen a couple of bikes having this problem. Now since he is not the dealer that sold me the bike, he has every incentive to tell me failure is imminent and have me pay for the service. Rather, he told me to change the oil regularly and examine it for any unusual fragments and keep an eye on valve clearance. But essentially his message was that the incidents are so low it does not pay to spends thousands. I know this is contrary to what most people on this site are saying but it has 8,000 + miles and runs perfect.

Bull.  Let�s assume your bud is the biggest dealer mechanic in all of US Guzzidom.  When he says the �percentage� of bikes this is happening with is low what in the world is he basing this on, some kind of X ray vision he�s using to check the bikes out?  Because I know there�s not been a bulletin telling him it�s low and I know, even if he�s the biggest Guzzi dealer in America, he�s still not seeing enough bikes to base this claim upon.  So I guess he�s torn down a lot of bikes to inspect them and report no wear?  Cause that�s what he�s basically saying.  Or maybe not many folks with 8V tappet problems are showing up in his shop and he thinks that�s a valid basis?  Still bull. 

But take him at his word. I�m no expert, but I have had a ton of service experience with various and many dealers.  I guess one could say I�m a little tarnished.  I read this above as the total opposite of him having inventive.  First, if he�s familiar with the issue then he really does NOT have every incentive to get you to pay for it; in fact, he�s got more incentive NOT to do it.  If he�s familiar then he knows what a pita it is.  He knows the 6-8 hours or more involved, the documentation and pictures he�ll have to submit, and in the end he won�t be making profit on anything but straight labor whereas the majority of bikes he�s probably servicing he�ll make labor and some measure of parts and be done with those bikes in small hours.  If he is the responsible person you say and finds wear and he�s concerned at all about being held accountable for it, then he�ll be obligated to do the job.  That means he�s gonna have to let your bike sit there in his shop torn down until documentation process is approved and kit ultimately sent.  All the while, other more profitable and or more pressing jobs (warranty claims for bikes he actually has sold) await.  How do I know all this?  Because I�ve been told basically the same thing you have, but a bit more honest, by a trusted dealer who was covered up in service work and just flat told me, �It�s a big job, we can�t get to it right now, bring it back to us in the Fall.�  I appreciate them being straightforward with me about it and not telling me, �Ah, don�t worry about it.�  If it is/was a so called �profitable� job for a dealer to do - it�s not - then he�d be squeezing me in to get it done over the warranty and labor/parts work that awaits him.  Of course, Pete gets these done way faster than most folks, but maybe ask him if he�s lining his pockets with profit from rollerization work?  Long story short, I don�t believe any dealer has a lot of incentive to report wear or even volunteer to check a bike out when they have more profitable and less troublesome jobs that await; rather, it�s way easier to just tell someone, �Internet jabber, not happening with many bikes� etc., etc. 
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Kev m on May 28, 2018, 07:58:20 AM
When I was a General Motors technician, we did warranty work on trade-ins. It was easy money. What’s stopping them from doing the same?
Unless they know Guzzi won’t pay for it. Which means they lied to me about how I shouldn’t worry about it if it goes south after I buy it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wasn't one of the problems with dealer retention that MGNA wasn't paying cash for warranty repairs and instead issuing parts credit?

If that was or is true yes, it's possible they are lying to you or just don't know better.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: bpreynolds on May 28, 2018, 08:42:49 AM
When I was a General Motors technician, we did warranty work on trade-ins. It was easy money. What�s stopping them from doing the same?
Unless they know Guzzi won�t pay for it. Which means they lied to me about how I shouldn�t worry about it if it goes south after I buy it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I might be misunderstanding your post but the roller job is not a warranty claim, they are merely honoring claims when filed.  In similar manner they didn't issue a warranty claim on the single, dual plate clutch repair job on a former California I owned; they paid for parts and I paid for labor. 
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: LowRyter on May 28, 2018, 08:47:38 AM
That doesn't square up with the "percent incidents being very low".   How would he know that unless he's serviced LOTS of motorcycles and only a couple of them had the problem?   

He'd have to have had 50 or 100 bikes in the shop that did NOT show a problem to be able to make that statement. 

It's bad enough that Guzzi screwed the pooch and wouldn't admit it.   It's worse, 4 years after it became obvious to the world, when people getting paid to work on these things spread B.S. about them ....

I'll shut up about it now unless further encouraged.   

Lannis

two of a couple = 100%
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: guzzisteve on May 28, 2018, 09:23:24 AM
Every single one I pulled apart was bad, from 6Kmi to 40Kmi.  They wear at different rates but they are all going to fail. First it's a discolored circle then it starts to break down and comes off.  Running good oil and changing every 1500mi just prolongs the end.
I had 1 Stelvio that got 3 set's of flatties to make it to 50Kmi. The 1st swap was at 10Kmi and one tappet was ground down terrible.
AND you can do both sides in 2hrs NOT 8 or 10, pretty easy to do it IF you want to work & get parts. More time if you pull heads(max would be 6hrs total)
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 28, 2018, 09:48:44 AM
What's the risk that a mechanic will misinterpret what he observes?
"Tappets look ok, hardly any wear  -  valve clearances ok, hardly changed  -  bike's running fine" = No problem

While the correct interpretation is ANY wear = failed part and possible damaged engine?

One poor sod in Finland has had his bike in two shops. First one blew him off saying they were no longer a dealer so it wasn’t their problem. Second one says there is *little* wear and it’s just down to a *Broken* lash adjuster.

(https://i.servimg.com/u/f62/19/90/79/43/20180521.jpg)[/url]

If you look at that pic you can see that the top of the tappet is well below the surface of the cambox. Before they fail they sit about a mm proud. It’s so badly degraded that enough material has worn off the foot of the tappet that the pushrod is on the point of dropping out of the rocker cup. According to the dealer there is “Little damage” and all it requires is a new lash adjuster!

They obviously haven’t removed the cambox or examined the tappet faces! It’s a fifteen minute job FFS! But no, instead they will simply close up the valve lash and send him on his way on an unsafe machine that is destroying itself.

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Nic in Western NYS on May 28, 2018, 10:02:13 AM
Strange thread, I thought the fact that the flatties will fail was settled a couple of years ago.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Wayne Orwig on May 28, 2018, 10:11:13 AM
Strange thread, I thought the fact that the flatties will fail was settled a couple of years ago.

It was. But some mechanics or owners are in denial.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: guzzisteve on May 28, 2018, 11:22:22 AM
I thought it was 2012 the bulletins came out and they changed the engine to rollers. Factory knows they all fail but dealers could care less about their customers. Bet they say Hydro motors are good too.
Guzzi could start jacking up the price for parts anytime now then there won't be any at all.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 28, 2018, 04:19:13 PM
Yup, bulletins first came out about the ‘A’ kit bikes in late 2012 then the earlier models were covered in a bulletin in about March 2013 and a supplementary one in about May. (From memory.). It was around that time I started inspecting them ‘Just because’ but since a lot of bikes were only coming in for early services not all of them showed damage. Some did but it was hit or miss. The further they’ve gone the more likely the damage will be detectable. Usually by 15-20,000km they will all be showing some wear.

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: jacksonracingcomau on May 28, 2018, 08:16:29 PM
Yes, and I�d been regularly inspecting bikes for long before that I�d guess but there again I�m not trying to prove anything. It amazes me that you have the time to pursue this petty vendetta against me.

In the end it turned out I�d waited too long as my motor had already lunched it�s bottom end and I had to replace it whollus bollus. As I�ve stated many times before my belief in the integrity of the flat tappet design was wrong. My defence of it was something I regret and have tried to encourage others not to make the same mistake. There is no shame in being wrong. What is shameful is living in a world of denial and trying to convince others you are right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Pete
Vendetta ? Please do not flatter yourself
I enjoyed your denial days, trying to find what problem was, I would have done same, flattties work for countless other makes. The just in time thread of 2015 changed all.
But OT, figures for failures will only be on kits sold or given on warranty. Factory know how many kits they have made . % of bikes sold.
If 15%, that is the number of failures they can prove. Therefore 85% did not fail
Accountants logic but if they sell another 40%, accountants laughing, dare say it is good money spinner now.
Figures for early models possibly twisted too by people fitting cheaper kits
A not putting spacer in
B using compressed air to hold valve shut and fitting a spacer without removing heads ,  saving a lot of dosh and time, still doing it right. Same way people do valve stem seals

Another option at least here in oz is to trade for new, unsold new grisos abound, if dealer says no problem with the old one he has to say it is worth a fair trade in.
I saw one advertised as 2018 model, is that possible ?
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: oldbike54 on May 28, 2018, 08:33:12 PM
 I don't normally step into these tech discussions , but in this case I am compelled to speak up .

 The flat tappet 4 valve engines are going to fail , there is no question about this . Do we understand this ? It doesn't matter what Pete said 3 years ago , his research into the issue lead him to a different conclusion , one which Guzzisteve is in total agreement with . Stop with the personal attacks , WG is not the place for that . Do we understand this ? Good .

 For you doubters , seems Pete and Steve should stop wasting their efforts , you don't want to believe them , well , then don't . Doesn't mean they aren't right .

 Carry on .

 Dusty
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 28, 2018, 08:58:43 PM
Vendetta ? Please do not flatter yourself
I enjoyed your denial days, trying to find what problem was, I would have done same, flattties work for countless other makes. The just in time thread of 2015 changed all.
But OT, figures for failures will only be on kits sold or given on warranty. Factory know how many kits they have made . % of bikes sold.
If 15%, that is the number of failures they can prove. Therefore 85% did not fail
Accountants logic but if they sell another 40%, accountants laughing, dare say it is good money spinner now.
Figures for early models possibly twisted too by people fitting cheaper kits
A not putting spacer in
B using compressed air to hold valve shut and fitting a spacer without removing heads ,  saving a lot of dosh and time, still doing it right. Same way people do valve stem seals

Another option at least here in oz is to trade for new, unsold new grisos abound, if dealer says no problem with the old one he has to say it is worth a fair trade in.
I saw one advertised as 2018 model, is that possible ?

Can’t be done but we won’t let that get in the way of a good story will we.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: molly on May 29, 2018, 04:06:06 AM
For us who have lived through the whole sorry roller tappet saga and those who haven't it should be remembered it was Piaggio/Guzzi who cocked up the design and the subsequent failed modifications. The factory did not do the right  thing and recall all bikes for a roller conversion but instead adopted  a wait and see approach which let down the owners and created a lot of bad feeling even from dealers who were stuck trying to sell products doomed to failure.
I even wrote to UK Bike magazine to correct their review of used Grisos, saying they were misleading readers and potential buyers by not mentioning tappet failure, which they failed to rectify.
Pete Roper has more than made up for his early defending of the design when nothing was forthcoming from the factory on the subject and most people were in the dark. If it wasn't for forums such as this and the people who contribute to them there would be a lot more bikes with trashed engines by now.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Markcarovilli on May 29, 2018, 05:31:56 AM
Molly - well said...

Mark
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: tris on May 29, 2018, 05:56:32 AM
I don't normally step into these tech discussions , but in this case I am compelled to speak up .

 The flat tappet 4 valve engines are going to fail , there is no question about this . Do we understand this ? It doesn't matter what Pete said 3 years ago , his research into the issue lead him to a different conclusion , one which Guzzisteve is in total agreement with . Stop with the personal attacks , WG is not the place for that . Do we understand this ? Good .

 For you doubters , seems Pete and Steve should stop wasting their efforts , you don't want to believe them , well , then don't . Doesn't mean they aren't right .

 Carry on .

 Dusty
.

After talking to Pete, the mere POSSIBILITY of the tappet issues on a 4V engine was sufficient to make sure I didn't get one and went the 2V 1100 Breva route

Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: jacksonracingcomau on May 29, 2018, 06:59:37 AM
.

After talking to Pete, the mere POSSIBILITY of the tappet issues on a 4V engine was sufficient to make sure I didn't get one and went the 2V 1100 Breva route
:1:
Excellent advise Pete, no brainer really
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 29, 2018, 07:09:24 AM
OK. Do you want to address the question of how you could easily and simply use compressed air or the rope trick to insert shims under the seats of the valve springs on the Nuovo Hi Cam or are you just going to continue deliberately misinterpreting other people’s posts?

I’m looking forward to your solution to this issue because your trolling is really very, very tiresome. It is obvious you know nothing of the 8V and certainly have never actually worked on one so please, tell us how you can insert the required shims in a less labour intensive way than simply removing the heads? I’m all ears Martin! I’m sure others are also interested.

Money?

Mouth?

.........
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: jacksonracingcomau on May 29, 2018, 07:29:09 AM
OK. Do you want to address the question of how you could easily and simply use compressed air or the rope trick to insert shims under the seats of the valve springs on the Nuovo Hi Cam or are you just going to continue deliberately misinterpreting other people�s posts?

I�m looking forward to your solution to this issue because your trolling is really very, very tiresome. It is obvious you know nothing of the 8V and certainly have never actually worked on one so please, tell us how you can insert the required shims in a less labour intensive way than simply removing the heads? I�m all ears Martin! I�m sure others are also interested.

Money?

Mouth?

.........
Sorry mate time constrained
Use google someone may have posted vid
Did you say extra $1K for head off ?
Tool cheap
No vendatta, wish for best, maybe v85 is it
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 29, 2018, 07:40:40 AM
So I was right. Your assumptions were based on ignorance. Thank you.

Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: jacksonracingcomau on May 29, 2018, 07:57:21 AM
[quote author=pete roper link=topic=96174.msg1522139
Pricing is weird.

�A� kit-$AU 1269.38

�B� kit-$AU 998.32

�C� kit- $AU 1850.02

�D� kit-$AU North of $2,000!!!


Pete
[/quote]
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: luthier on May 29, 2018, 08:33:29 AM
Oh for Christ sake, someone ban this Jackson Racing fool please.  He is just a troll.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: oldbike54 on May 29, 2018, 09:32:42 AM
 Time to put our egos in our pockets fellas . This is a settled issue , the debate is over . Are we clear on this ?

 Dusty
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 29, 2018, 09:57:12 AM
Time to put our egos in our pockets fellas . This is a settled issue , the debate is over . Are we clear on this ?

 Dusty
Yes....I should stay away from ANY 8V that hasn’t been already rollerized. And since the dealer wants NADA prices for the Stelvio and Norge....it’s a no-go. I just wanna ride the dang things. Don’t need no more projects.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: tris on May 29, 2018, 10:16:52 AM
:1:
Excellent advise Pete, no brainer really

Please don't include Pete in a decision that I and I alone made

Pete just provided one opinion that helped in my understanding

Plus the experience of one guy I know that has a 8V Stelvio that ate 2 sets of tappets before it was rollered and the issue better understood

That together with my own additional research on the issue across multiple sites and multiple replies enabled me to make a grown up decision that the risk was too great for me

Personally,if I was in the market now for any 8V CARC bike, unless I unequivocally knew the history of the bike and that the rollerisation had been done by a mechanic who would ensure that there was no DLC lurking about I'd still make the same decision.



Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 29, 2018, 12:46:27 PM
[quote author=pete roper link=topic=96174.msg1522139
Pricing is weird.

�A� kit-$AU 1269.38

�B� kit-$AU 998.32

�C� kit- $AU 1850.02

�D� kit-$AU North of $2,000!!!


Pete

What relevance does the price of the kits have? I’m struggling to see your point???
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on May 29, 2018, 01:10:20 PM
Time to put our egos in our pockets fellas . This is a settled issue , the debate is over . Are we clear on this ?

 Dusty

Uhh, yeah. We are here to pick up knowledge about the machines we all love, and get some entertainment in the process. I consider everyone here to be my sometimes gloriously dysfunctional family..and like all families we have occasional disagreements. There's no need to air our squabbles in public.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: rjamesohio on May 29, 2018, 01:30:12 PM
"We spoke about the issue and they said it wasn�t necessary. That the failure rate was low. And that it would be covered under warranty if it did happen."

This isn't ignorance.   This is an attempt to defraud a potential customer.   If they were "ignorant" of it, they wouldn't make false positive statements about "failure rate", "necessary", and "warranty".

These people are lying weasels and they deserve to be out of business.

Lannis

Love you Lannis and you may very well be right but this is why Dusty is wise to advise the dealer name is taken off line. All Internet forums face this challenge of protecting the dealers that support our chosen brand. Without those resources we’d be screwed in Guzziland in terms of keeping these bikes on the road.

But sadly the council to walk away here is probably good unless they discount the bike by the amount of the repair kit and installation. Now if I was that dealer I might consider the sale price INCLUDING the kit at my cost but with the buyer taking responsibility for installation...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Kev m on May 29, 2018, 02:38:39 PM


Love you Lannis and you may very well be right but this is why Dusty is wise to advise the dealer name is taken off line. All Internet forums face this challenge of protecting the dealers that support our chosen brand. Without those resources we’d be screwed in Guzziland in terms of keeping these bikes on the road.


I don't see your logic at all.


Why should we protect/preserve the lousy dealers?!?
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: oldbike54 on May 29, 2018, 02:45:17 PM
 <sigh>

 No one is protecting a lousy dealer , but there is more to this that goes on behind the scenes than you might know .

 Let go of this guys , we have settled the flat tappet issue . Fact is , all anyone needs to do is search WG for the answer , and if a prospective buyer doesn't participate here they won't read any of this anyway . Understand ? Outing a dealer accomplishes nothing except causing that dealer to send me a nasty email .

 Dusty
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: rjamesohio on May 29, 2018, 02:52:54 PM

I don't see your logic at all.


Why should we protect/preserve the lousy dealers?!?

I don’t condone protecting dealers any more than I condone trashing them. Their business is up to them.

the internet has become a very unfriendly place for vendors who should not have to continuously defend themselves.

So all I’m saying is that the forum rules here make sense. Especially when we’re talking about very few places that cater to the Guzzi world.

As for this particular discussion : it seemed to me that a simple question was asked and before long we had indicted the dealer. It’s true that there are bad dealers out there and they deserve to fail but I think the best way is to let the customer and dealer work it out.

I thought my potential solution would be a good one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 29, 2018, 03:08:59 PM
But it seems to me that this particular bike is a lemon and it is being sold on the pretense that some fail and some don’t. That just seems wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Kev m on May 29, 2018, 03:21:47 PM
I really don't see the problem here. If we're being told accurately what the dealer's staff has said people can judge for themselves. If there's some misrepresentation then it wouldn't take a potential customer long to figure the out too.

So "Outing" the dealer (what a silly phrase in this case) would simply provide readers of a way to judge for themselves if they want to do business with them. Or help them be aware of what potential questions they might want to ask them.

Though I'm sure someone who cared enough could figure it out from the info already provided.

So I fail to see how hushing the name accomplishes anything. And certainly I don't see how mentioning the name would violate board policies.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt as it obviously isn't any dealer near me.

It was just that reading the conversation it all comes across a bit juvenile, but as you wish.

Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: oldbike54 on May 29, 2018, 03:27:15 PM
 <SIGH> Anyone who is curious about the identity of the dealer can PM the OP . This was suggested way early on , no idea why some are so intent on continuing an incredibly unproductive discussion .

 Dusty
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: oldbike54 on May 29, 2018, 04:12:32 PM

Unproductive why?

Because someone disagrees with you?

All I was going to do was comment on how silly it sounded and leave it at that.

 No , because the issue is settled . Why is that so hard to understand ?

 Dusty
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Huzo on May 29, 2018, 05:54:39 PM
assclowns
Just a little more so I can get your point Low Ryter..
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: jacksonracingcomau on May 29, 2018, 06:08:24 PM
What relevance does the price of the kits have? I�m struggling to see your point???

Apologies if you or anyone thought I was being contentious
Point was only that kit for taking head off is prohibitive
Using cheap kit and air to fit spacer (or not fit spacer at all) possibly common
Therefore factory figures on kits sold possibly inconclusive as to years of failures

Kits sold the only possible way that factory determine how many actually have failed
Even though they know all could, many will never do any miles.
Your detruction test took 50k odd miles, 40 year old bikes are turning up on this site with way less.
No reason to believe same won�t happen
Parked they are safe as houses.
Until.............
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: guzzisteve on May 29, 2018, 06:11:59 PM
"Bailiff Wack His Pee Pee"
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Huzo on May 29, 2018, 06:14:40 PM
For us who have lived through the whole sorry roller tappet saga and those who haven't it should be remembered it was Piaggio/Guzzi who cocked up the design and the subsequent failed modifications. The factory did not do the right  thing and recall all bikes for a roller conversion but instead adopted  a wait and see approach which let down the owners and created a lot of bad feeling even from dealers who were stuck trying to sell products doomed to failure.
I even wrote to UK Bike magazine to correct their review of used Grisos, saying they were misleading readers and potential buyers by not mentioning tappet failure, which they failed to rectify.
Pete Roper has more than made up for his early defending of the design when nothing was forthcoming from the factory on the subject and most people were in the dark. If it wasn't for forums such as this and the people who contribute to them there would be a lot more bikes with trashed engines by now.
He (or anyone else) does not have to "make up" for anything.
There are a couple of gems laying around here in the Aussie dirt and some (mores scarce) ones overseas.
Last time I checked, none of us had paid anything for their advice and we're not compelled to take it.
Anyone who wants to tear these guys down in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are correct, is just trying to assume the same level of credibility without having to work to attain it.
Maybe the only reason some of these flatties haven't failed, is that they're not ridden..
I trust the mechanical life of my Norge on the word of two Aussies and would do so if it were an early Stelvio or 8V Norge just as readily.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on May 29, 2018, 06:25:07 PM
<Not bashing the motor company>
Quote
Maybe he only reason some of these fatties haven't failed, is that they're not ridden..
Harley did exactly that a few years ago, knowing that many if not most of those poser's  :evil: bikes wouldn't fail before the warranty ran out..
Don't remember the exact issue, but Kev can probably fill us in. Doesn't matter. It sucks when a company treats their customers like that.
Oh never mind.. let's move on.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Huzo on May 29, 2018, 06:31:48 PM
<Not bashing the motor company>Harley did exactly that a few years ago, knowing that many if not most of those poser's  :evil: bikes wouldn't fail before the warranty ran out..
Don't remember the exact issue, but Kev can probably fill us in. Doesn't matter. It sucks when a company treats their customers like that.
Oh never mind.. let's move on.
99.5% of us have Chuck...
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Paul Brooking on May 29, 2018, 06:59:35 PM
Well said Huzo
I was very happy to buy an 8v knowing that the roller/flat issue had been rectified with direct input from two Australian “Gentlemen” and the combined wit of the Guzzi Geezer community.
Will probably buy another 8v as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: LowRyter on May 29, 2018, 07:03:11 PM
<Not bashing the motor company>Harley did exactly that a few years ago, knowing that many if not most of those poser's  :evil: bikes wouldn't fail before the warranty ran out..
Don't remember the exact issue, but Kev can probably fill us in. Doesn't matter. It sucks when a company treats their customers like that.
Oh never mind.. let's move on.

oil pumps for the first twin cams, I am guessing.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 29, 2018, 07:35:23 PM
Look, enough of this nonsense. If anybody wants to save themselves a whole lot of hassle chasing down the rabbit hole of using compressed air to seal the valves while compressing the springs send me a PM and i’ll Explain why it won’t work on the 8V. Yes, you could do it, but it would be infinitely more work than just removing the head.

The end.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Kev m on May 29, 2018, 07:36:27 PM
<Not bashing the motor company>Harley did exactly that a few years ago, knowing that many if not most of those poser's  :evil: bikes wouldn't fail before the warranty ran out..
Don't remember the exact issue, but Kev can probably fill us in. Doesn't matter. It sucks when a company treats their customers like that.
Oh never mind.. let's move on.
Slightly different but I get the comparison.

The early Twin Cam motors used spring loaded timing chain tensioners that were a bit too strong and if they weren't checked periodically and replaced before failure they could lunch the motor by fragging the oil pump.

By the next iteration of the TC motors they changed the design to a variable pressure tensioner that still required periodic inspection and replacement, but would last much much longer.

The original design could last 50k or fail by 20k. The revised design may last past 100k.

The early bikes are fine if you keep an eye on it or you might choose to retrofit the new design on your dime. It means new camshafts, timing chain, tensioners, oil pump and some related sundry.

I was (and maybe remain) pretty pissed about the original design. I think it's pretty unforgivable to have to replace timing chain tensioners in normal service (or at least below a couple hundred thousand miles).

But it's way worse to eat camshafts. They really should be lifetime components for gawd's sake.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Rough Edge racing on May 30, 2018, 05:23:13 AM
 I just had an ongoing conversation with Pete about the flat tappet failures and I can say he has done extensive investigation on  the problem from  first hand experience...

 Honda V-4's in the 80's had premature cam wear issues. I believe there were recalls, I don't know if the problem was ever completely resolved.... Valve train issues are not unheard of in the automotive world..
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on May 30, 2018, 06:08:52 AM
Quote
Honda V-4's in the 80's had premature cam wear issues. I believe there were recalls, I don't know if the problem was ever completely resolved...

I had one of those bad boys. Honda fooled with it for *quite* a while. Oil to the top end eventually got there after the transmission was done with it. Very low pressure. I eventually tapped into the main oil gallery and ran a dedicated pressure line to the top end using brake line fittings. Another case of complex engineering to do a simple job.. :smiley:
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Huzo on May 30, 2018, 06:44:51 AM
I had one of those bad boys. Honda fooled with it for *quite* a while. Oil to the top end eventually got there after the transmission was done with it. Very low pressure. I eventually tapped into the main oil gallery and ran a dedicated pressure line to the top end using brake line fittings. Another case of complex engineering to do a simple job.. :smiley:
Cool...! :bow: :thumb:
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: John A on May 30, 2018, 06:57:04 AM
Lycoming aviation engine camshaft and lifters come to mind. They have had problems for years. Continental aviation engines had similar problems. Mostly solved by roller lifters by the time I retired, except for the stuck exhaust valve issues, which I came to believe was predominantly caused by cylinder head temps over 375F and not keeping airspeed up for cooling air while heavy loads were put on the engine. It was my learning  that around those head temps the alloys used in heads have lost up to fifty percent of their strength. Think of exhaust valve guides flopping around like a fish. Some of that must affect our engines but it's a testament to their strength that it's not a bigger problem. My point being there are engine problems in materials and design that affect all of them to some degree. Some manufacturers  have had poor after purchase support.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Kev m on May 30, 2018, 07:05:06 AM
Lycoming aviation engine camshaft and lifters come to mind. They have had problems for years. Continental aviation engines had similar problems. Mostly solved by roller lifters by the time I retired, except for the stuck exhaust valve issues, which I came to believe was predominantly caused by cylinder head temps over 375F and not keeping airspeed up for cooling air while heavy loads were put on the engine. It was my learning  that around those head temps the alloys used in heads have lost up to fifty percent of their strength. Think of exhaust valve guides flopping around like a fish. Some of that must affect our engines but it's a testament to their strength that it's not a bigger problem. My point being there are engine problems in materials and design that affect all of them to some degree. Some manufacturers  have had poor after purchase support.
Come on guys how long ago do you have to go back for obstract examples?

No modern machine should eat it's camshafts and one manufacturer shouldn't have essentially the same problem more than once.

Either points to internal problems.

Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: John A on May 30, 2018, 07:08:08 AM
Come on guys how long ago do you have to go back for obstract examples?

No modern machine should eat it's camshafts and one manufacturer shouldn't have essentially the same problem more than once.

Either points to internal problems.


Agree
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: guzzisteve on May 30, 2018, 08:03:35 AM
Look, enough of this nonsense. If anybody wants to save themselves a whole lot of hassle chasing down the rabbit hole of using compressed air to seal the valves while compressing the springs send me a PM and i’ll Explain why it won’t work on the 8V. Yes, you could do it, but it would be infinitely more work than just removing the head.

The end.
Pete, I had looked into doing it this way. No tooling made for it and you would have to do this first before you took the cam towers off. All that messing around didn't look like it would save any time.  I'm sure Guzzi did a study on it before they came out w/procedure for early 8V.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 30, 2018, 12:34:41 PM
I’d looked at the possibility too and almost instantly discarded it. Even writing off the hours to make the tooling you’d still be farting about bolting stuff on and unbolting it, (Twice!) and then there’s the risk of loosing one or more of the tiny collets down the camchain tunnel after you’ve managed to break the taper!

The alternative is to remove six more easy fasteners and just flip the head off and do it all on the bench where it is swift, easy and there’s no risk of loosing or damaging stuff. The stud nuts are removed anyway to remove and replace the cambox. You can't remove the rockers with the cambox in-situ and without the cambox on there is no way, (Without building dedicated tooling.) to clamp the head so if you pressurised the cylinder the head would just lift!

The whole idea is an exercise in futility!

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: bad Chad on May 30, 2018, 05:59:39 PM
Wow, I can't  believe i read this entire thread, I really need to get a life!
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Markcarovilli on May 30, 2018, 06:31:43 PM
Wow, I can't  believe i read this entire thread, I really need to get a life!

No you just need a rollerized 8V......

Mark
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 30, 2018, 07:17:11 PM
Wow, I can't  believe i read this entire thread, I really need to get a life!
It’s a fantastic read....
Lots of high-quality information!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: TN Mark on May 30, 2018, 08:01:07 PM
I haven't owned any Moto Guzzi since March of 2013 and I also read this entire thread. I've always loved reading what Guzzi Steve and Pete Roper have written. I have no idea if the subsequent owner(s) of my 2009 Grisio had this issue covered under warranty or not. But if does sadden me to know I traded it off at a dealer in Ohio who , at the time,likely didn't understand the severity of this issue either. At least when I sold the V10 Centauro I also offered the buyer the brand new V11 style oil pump and timing chain kit.
 
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: twowings on May 30, 2018, 08:15:28 PM
(https://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BZWYwZjE3YWQtMWE2OC00NWI0LTgwMGMtZTgwNTIyZDVlYWI1L2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTE2NzA0Ng@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1178,1000_AL_.jpg)

THE THREAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Dave Swanson on May 30, 2018, 08:17:48 PM
No you just need a rollerized 8V......

Mark

I have a 2015 Norge,  and even though the majority of the thread stirred up dust that had settled years ago, I  still found this thread riveting!   I really need a life!

(https://s20.postimg.cc/ndgz1l9od/DSCN4464.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/tr624uek9/)
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on May 30, 2018, 08:39:01 PM
^^^^ That's a pretty bad ride right there, Dave..  :thumb:
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: PJPR01 on May 30, 2018, 10:13:59 PM
Very nice chocolatey Norge! 

This thread has been very lively, perhaps a live demo could be done by each, posted to Youtube for further visual entertainment!



Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 31, 2018, 02:08:07 AM
^^^^ That's a pretty bad ride right there, Dave..  :thumb:

That will eat slab like you wouldn’t believe but still won’t be embarrassed when you get somewhere interesting. 8V Norges are rare as hen’s teeth over here. A bit like big tank Stelvios, those who have them are hanging on to them.

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 31, 2018, 05:16:05 AM
So, knowing all this 8V tappet drama, has anyone just bought the damn bike and dove right in to righting the issue? Sure, if the buy-in price is right, go ahead. But what if the price isn’t right? Do people pay “top-dollar” just to have the bike? And then dump 2 grand into it? I know it’s a stupid question ....but Moto Guzzis are rare to find....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on May 31, 2018, 05:28:07 AM
People pay what they think they’re worth. The problem is very few people actually do much research so they don’t know issues and also a lot of vendors have stars in their eyes and think their bikes are worth far more than they will actually bring.

Do people buy them at top dollar and then spend money fixing them? Sure, a lot of the rollerisations we do nowadays are done on the owners dime because either the bike doesn’t have a full service history or they can’t get their dealer to even look at the tappets. They love the bike, roll their shoulders in and just go ahead and deal with it. Sure there are some who will learn of the problem and then flick the bike on with no disclosure but arseholes are ten a penny, you’ll never get past that. On the whole though our customers are very happy after rollerisation and a re-map and keep their bikes.

Pete
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: molly on May 31, 2018, 05:32:00 AM
So, knowing all this 8V tappet drama, has anyone just bought the damn bike and dove right in to righting the issue? Sure, if the buy-in price is right, go ahead. But what if the price isn�t right? Do people pay �top-dollar� just to have the bike? And then dump 2 grand into it? I know it�s a stupid question ....but Moto Guzzis are rare to find....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was very close to buying a new 1200 8V Sport on the premise that the dealer would immediately put in a claim for a roller conversion. I did trust the dealer and he is well versed in getting Guzzi to pay for roller work. He has a pile of scrap cam gear which matches Pete Roper's collection.
At the end of the day I pulled out of the deal and bought a Triumph Tiger 1200 Sport which I quickly got bored with and replaced with a 1100 GRISO.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Dave Swanson on May 31, 2018, 05:40:25 AM
Very nice chocolatey Norge! 



I prefer Bill Hagan's color description, espresso and grappa.   :grin:

Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Dilliw on May 31, 2018, 07:44:58 AM
So, knowing all this 8V tappet drama, has anyone just bought the damn bike and dove right in to righting the issue? Sure, if the buy-in price is right, go ahead. But what if the price isn�t right? Do people pay �top-dollar� just to have the bike? And then dump 2 grand into it? I know it�s a stupid question ....but Moto Guzzis are rare to find....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bought a Griso knowing it was a flattie.  I inquired about a number of bikes advertised online: 1. None of the sellers had any clue about the issue (or said they didn't have a clue) and 2. there was no way I was going to negotiate a fair price on a bike that required a "C" kit (see No. 1). 

It's also tough because there isn't a huge spread in used prices between roller bikes ('12 and above) and "B" kit flatties.  It's just that since used Griso's aren't on every corner I bought an '11 close by (within 200mi) knowing I'd have to haul it straight to a dealer and spend up to $1500 to get her righted.  It ended up costing me $450 so all was good.

Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Markcarovilli on May 31, 2018, 09:56:27 AM
I prefer Bill Hagan's color description, espresso and grappa.   :grin:

 :1:
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Litre1000 on May 31, 2018, 12:28:39 PM
I bought a Griso knowing it was a flattie.  I inquired about a number of bikes advertised online: 1. None of the sellers had any clue about the issue (or said they didn't have a clue) and 2. there was no way I was going to negotiate a fair price on a bike that required a "C" kit (see No. 1). 

It's also tough because there isn't a huge spread in used prices between roller bikes ('12 and above) and "B" kit flatties.  It's just that since used Griso's aren't on every corner I bought an '11 close by (within 200mi) knowing I'd have to haul it straight to a dealer and spend up to $1500 to get her righted.  It ended up costing me $450 so all was good.
So, did you ride the bike at all before taking it in for repairs? Was the bike making any ticking or clattering noises? Or, did you just take it straight to the dealer/repair shop suspecting the worst and found you had worn tappets?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Wayne Orwig on May 31, 2018, 12:45:43 PM
He rode it about 12 miles to my place and we found this.


(https://thumb.ibb.co/kDTO5y/20160206_140317.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kDTO5y)
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Zoom Zoom on May 31, 2018, 05:23:37 PM
Scientists have discovered that any flat tappet 8 valve Guzzi engine will fail. It is only a matter of time.

End of story! Non negotiable! People can be an ostrich and bury their head in the sand or just deal with it. Or, buy a roller motor 8V.

Wayne, did you notice how I worded this? :evil: :grin:

John Henry

edit: Good grief, 6 pages and 3500 reads. This is being beat to death on a subject that was settled some time ago! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: The question can be asked over and over. The answer is not going to be what you want to hear!
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Huzo on May 31, 2018, 05:42:30 PM
Scientists have discovered that any flat tappet 8 valve Guzzi engine will fail. It is only a matter of time.

End of story! Non negotiable! People can be an ostrich and bury their head in the sand or just deal with it. Or, buy a roller motor 8V.

Wayne, did you notice how I worded this? :evil: :grin:

John Henry
I usually follow these 8V tappett threads although it doesn't apply to my bike.
It's a bit odd really, because where's the argument?
If you have a flat tappet 8 and it's failed and you say it's failed....then you're right..,!
If you are one that claims that there's nothing to worry about, and yours has done 100,000 trouble free miles.... then you're right..!
If yours has done 10,000 miles and is relatively new, and you claim it is not going to fail, you are still right.. until you find you're wrong, (as you will), then you will pay the $$$$$ price for your ignorance and pig headeadness.
Were I Roper, I'd just start asking people to forgive me for my Paul Revere style flag waving, and maybe I don't know what I'm talking about after all, let the tools who want to tell me I'm wrong, come back with their collective tails between their legs and ask for help to fix their bikes and empty their wallets.
How much damn proof do some people need.
They just won't accept his word, because it's not them that did the work.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: bpreynolds on May 31, 2018, 07:52:13 PM
I ain’t ufraid a no flatties!  Put’em up!

(https://thumb.ibb.co/cpDPvy/BACA0_EA9_BF99_48_DD_8009_2_FA6_CA7_E43_D8.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cpDPvy)

Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: rjamesohio on May 31, 2018, 08:32:32 PM
This thread has well and truly morphed like no other thread has ever done in the history of forums.

;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Huzo on May 31, 2018, 08:44:39 PM
This thread has well and truly morphed like no other thread has ever done in the history of forums.

;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Well alrighty then...!
Must be a good one. :thumb:
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: OldMojo on June 01, 2018, 01:10:37 PM
Does anyone have a handle on the availability of the various roller kits in the US?

If this has been answered somewhere already please direct me.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: guzzisteve on June 01, 2018, 01:16:42 PM
This thread has well and truly morphed like no other thread has ever done in the history of forums.

;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
You forgot steel cut oats.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on June 01, 2018, 01:37:07 PM
Does anyone have a handle on the availability of the various roller kits in the US?

If this has been answered somewhere already please direct me.

Yes they’re available but at the moment, with the $US being strong, it’s almost certainly cheaper to bring them in from Europe.

Just bung the part # into the search box an the site of your supplier of choice.
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on June 01, 2018, 01:44:47 PM
You forgot steel cut oats.

Mmmm... SCOs
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c294/elwood59/001_zps6d61d812.jpg)
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: bpreynolds on June 01, 2018, 03:38:01 PM
You forgot steel cut oats.

Perfect country and western song will have mama, trains, trucks, rain, prison, and getting drunk.
Perfect Wildguzzi thread will have rollers, steel cut oats, heated disagreements, and...?
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: PJPR01 on June 01, 2018, 04:09:09 PM
Perfect country and western song will have mama, trains, trucks, rain, prison, and getting drunk.
Perfect Wildguzzi thread will have rollers, steel cut oats, heated disagreements, and...?

:)  What do you get when you play country music backwards?.....

You get back your girlfriend, pick up truck, dog, house etc.!

Perfect WG thread - must have an oil component for sure, riding gear, to GPS or not to GPS, Guzzi Marketing or lack thereof, Geezer vs. Hipster, a healthy dose of curmudgeonisms, and of course, some limoncello!

 :grin: :grin:
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on June 01, 2018, 06:35:04 PM
Oooo, Limenchello..
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: guzzisteve on June 01, 2018, 06:56:24 PM
Mmmm... SCOs
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c294/elwood59/001_zps6d61d812.jpg)
That looks like puke in a pan!!!
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Chuck in Indiana on June 01, 2018, 07:09:37 PM
<sigh> Great artists are never understood..  :smiley:
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: Huzo on June 01, 2018, 08:00:07 PM
Probably tasted better coming up than going down..!
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: John A on June 01, 2018, 08:14:26 PM
Healthy people just don't have that coming out of them...
Title: Re: Rollerization not necessary?
Post by: pete roper on June 02, 2018, 12:49:10 AM
Looks like bits of the big island of Hawaii right now....