V85 new engine design?

[Peter949]

I simply wanted to ask the group if the V85tt has a truly new engine design?

Of course it now has a normal cylinder head with roller cam followers etc ... but until I see a modern 'spin on' oil filter on the crankcase, I will pass on a new purchase.

The V85 reminds me of the old V50, that was for sale at our local dealer some 40 years ago! 

[rocker59]

I simply wanted to ask the group if the V85tt has a truly new engine design?

Of course it now has a normal cylinder head with roller cam followers etc ... but until I see a modern 'spin on' oil filter on the crankcase, I will pass on a new purchase.

The V85 reminds me of the old V50, that was for sale at our local dealer some 40 years ago! 

The V85 is a further development of the small block line that began life as the V50 and V35, forty years ago...

For what it's worth, spin-on filters for motorcycles are not "modern".  The cartridge filters are more common and more modern. 

[Kev m]

What the hell does "truly new" mean in terms on an engine design these days?

For F's sake it's an AIR-COOLED 2V pushrod motor, I mean how can that be in any way "truly new"?!?

That said, if you like such things, this one sounds like a nice evolution of the breed. Lightened components, changes throughout the internals, and a good bit more power than its predecessors.

Why get stuck on an oil filter design? (Especially one that is so relatively common)?

[Diploman]

The V85 indeed should remind you of the V50 "smallblock" introduced in the late 70's:  the V85 is a highly-evolved derivative of the V50 engine, but it is still a "smallblock".  As such it does not feature "a normal cylinder head with roller cam followers", as you assume, but rather has roller tappets on the single camshaft located in the "V" between the cylinders.  These tappets actuate aluminum pushrods which - via traditional rockers -open and close a single intake and a single exhaust valve.  An evolved feature of this very traditional Guzzi valve train is an intake valve made of lightweight titanium. In the past Guzzi has in fact produced engines with cams located in the cylinder head, more similar to the majority of modern engine designs, but the V85 retains the time-honored Guzzi pushrod format.  In terms of function, this time-proven valve actuation mechanism works very, very, well:  it is simple, proven, lightweight, easier to produce than overhead cams, and effective.   Guzzi apparently saw no need to change the valve actuation format on the V85 in order to increase power from about 52HP and 55HP on the preceding V7 and V9  lines, respectively, to about 80HP on the V85.   Other significant changes to the V85's evolved smallblock design include dual oil pumps in a semi dry-sump configuration and a reinforced crankcase that allows the engine to be used as a stressed member in the chassis.  The V85 is in fact a very modern motorcycle. 

[Wayne Orwig]

I'm still not clear on how a valve material change can get that big of a HP bump. I have to wonder what else goes with that change.

The oil filter thing confuses me. With the right tool, removing the cover to swap the filter is a pretty simple task. I can do it faster than changing the oil and filter in my Honda. It is up there with the tube versus tubeless. I've patched a few tube tires on the side of the road. I've plugged a few tubeless tires along the road. I would never base owning a bike on one way or the other.

[Kev m]

I'm still not clear on how a valve material change can get that big of a HP bump. I have to wonder what else goes with that change.

It's not just that. There are a number of internal material and design changes which are designed to supposedly reduce frictional losses and allow for higher rpm operation. The sum total results in increased hp output. I'm still waiting to see dyno charts though for the details (and to steal a ride on Cam's when it comes in  ).

[janguzzi]

I'm still waiting to see dyno charts though for the details

Performance measured and featured in the Italian magazine Motociclismo:
http://forum.animaguzzista.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57495&start=7000

I think the big midrange dip is disappointing.



It seems that they have measured 69,6 HP at the wheel which means 76,3 HP at 7700 rpm

[Kev m]

Performance measured and featured in the Italian magazine Motociclismo:
http://forum.animaguzzista.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57495&start=7000

I think the big midrange dip is disappointing.

Wait, since when is 2-3k on a Guzzi motor "mid-range" - I though the actual RANGE was 3 - 7k (and now 3-8k on this "new" motor)?

Pedantics aside, this chart doesn't look bad.



Is this conversion correct 69.6 CV = 69.6 rwhp?

That's essentially 70 rwhp from a smallblock!

And 60+ Nm or at least 44 ft. lbs. of torque by about 3300 rpm and about 65+ Nm or 48 ft. lbs. from 3500-7000 rpm.

EDIT - I'm slow.

So if we're talking 70 rwhp / 48 Torques as peak figures that means this thing compares favorably to our Ducati Monster 696 which is a little lower at 67 / 44!

It about matches the Duc 700-series Scramblers at 70 / 47

[janguzzi]

Yes ... not bad but it is advertised with 80 HP and 80 Nm.
It seems that they have almost reached 80 HP at 7750 rpm but what about 80 Nm at 5000 rpm?
http://discoverv85.motoguzzi.com/download/Tech_chart_Moto_Guzzi_V85_TT_eng.pdf

[Kev m]

Yes ... not bad but it is advertised with 80 HP and 80 Nm.
It seems that they have almost reached 80 HP at 7750 rpm but what about 80 Nm at 5000 rpm?
http://discoverv85.motoguzzi.com/download/Tech_chart_Moto_Guzzi_V85_TT_eng.pdf

No one with half a wit actually expected that they were "advertising" REAR WHEEL power - and they might not have been fibbing too badly on crankshaft rating there. Well at least on the hp, they had to be smoking something on the torque figure, so you're right there.

But see my edit about how this compares to air-cooled Duc monsters and scramblers of same size - VERY well.

[janguzzi]

Yes ...here in Germany/Europe the shown performance data are always measured at the crank ("DIN-PS"), so what you measure on a Dyno at the rearwheel is always a bit less.

I am not sure if the dip a caused by Euro4 restrictions.
Other Guzzis also had this dip (my V11 RC with the first mapping and 8V A5 engines).

[lrutt]

Does the small block still only take like 2 qts of oil? Just don't like any road bike design that relies on so little oil.

[Kev m]

Does the small block still only take like 2 qts of oil? Just don't like any road bike design that relies on so little oil.

Can't say about the V85, but the V7III and I believe the V9 both take 2.0L = 2.11 qts.

That said that 06 Sporty in your signature only takes about 2.5-2.75 qts (most people who fill to 3.0 capacity find it pisses out the breathers more if you do that).

I did install a sump spacer on my MKI Stone which made me feel warm and fuzzy. But I don't think I'm gonna bother on the III, I suspect it will be just fine.

[M0T0Geezer]

Does the small block still only take like 2 qts of oil? Just don't like any road bike design that relies on so little oil.

Remind me...  How many quarts of oil does your 6-Litre GMC V-8 take?  Only 6 ??? 
Seems like 2 quarts of oil for a Moto Guzzi 0.85 litre motor would be ample.

Also, 100 hp from a 1 litre non-turbo motor is pretty much unobtanium.  To get 35 hp or so from each of two 425cc 2-Valve pushrod, normally aspirated cylinders seems pretty decent to me.   Sheesh, I'm more than happy with the 44 hp from each of my pair of 575cc 2-Valve Norge cylinders. 

That gets me down the road just fine, thank you, in full comfort and gravitas without peer.  Still... there is the Unending Agony of not being able to do tire-melting burnouts or pull 4th gear throttle wheelies.

'Geezer

[fossil]

Regarding the absolute figures of the power/torque diagram depicted: who knows how exact this thing is? It would be interesting to see the figures of other, comparable bikes measured with exactly this dyno. Then we could talk.

[Tusayan]

Real data at last.  My initial posted guess was 65 RWHP max, later increased to 68 RWHP after Piaggio released a flywheel power graph showing just under 80 HP.  Apparently there was sufficient “fairy dust”   to bring the very simple small block engine to a much higher power level: 69.6 CV is 68.6 HP.  And still with a no-synchs required single throttle body. Fantastic.

Typically the midrange hole on late model bikes can be at least alleviated with mapping and exhaust mods, but time will tell.  Meanwhile I haven’t heard of any complaints, nor any complaints voiced about shaft jacking without a anti-torque linkage. The latter really surprises me.

[Turin]

That's impressive. I seriously doubted the HP claims and am glad to be proven wrong.

My Dyno Tuned Quota 1100 makes 66 RWHP and 65 ft lbs of torque. It's plenty fast for the kind of bike it is. Considering the V85TT weighs significantly less, it should be a hoot to ride and could be a winner for Guzzi. ( fingers crossed ).

[benebob]

Considering the V85TT weighs significantly less, it should be a hoot to ride and could be a winner for Guzzi. ( fingers crossed ).

I looked up the wet weight and 504lbs isn't exactly all that light for a mid-weight adventure.  My Tiger 800 tips the scale at 460 wet.  I was hoping the V85tt would be within that range.  504 closer to what my 955i Tiger weighed and it was a bear in the sand and anytime it took a cat nap.

[John Croucher]

For comparison, look back at some old argument 10 years ago about the medium and big valve V11 engine hp.  People were writing about the engine being maxed out on hp potential.  Now we are offered a smaller displacement 90 degree air cooled v twin engine and more hp.  What changed?  Where did the extra hp per cc come from? 30% increase in hp and 30% reduction in displacement.

[pete roper]

It didn't. A well set up V11 makes about 76-78 RWHP. The V85 apparently makes a bit under 70. Knock off a couple for an optimistic dyno and voila. Pretty much exactly what I predicted.

[Tusayan]

A well set up V11 makes about 76-78 RWHP. The V85 apparently makes a bit under 70. Knock off a couple for an optimistic dyno and voila. Pretty much exactly what I predicted.

76-78 RWHP is a good number for an 1100 Sport or V11 Sport, subsequently reduced to about 72 RWHP for the 1100 Breva etc.  Here's what you actually said in response to an estimate of 65 RWHP for the V85TT:

80hp at the crank will be about 65 at the rear wheel. That looks possible...

How so?

And then shortly after:

How can you see Guzzi 'Doing it'? Magic wand? Faery Dust? Sorry, unless we can see what this new 'Wonder Engine' consists of we'll know nothing.

We have no real idea of the engine's architecture, we have no information on the engine management system. All we have is some pictures of a mock-up for a show! Get a grip!

Look, I don't know either but I'm not willing to pull figures out of my arse by comparing them to other, cosmetically, similar engines.

As I've said before I think what will be offered will be an 8V, pushrod, version of the V9 motor. A 'Back to the future' 'Nuovo Lario' motor. I simply can't see that making the figures they are spruiking, either at the rear wheel or the crank.

Pete

And then six months later this:

It's not going to make anywhere close to 80hp. Doesn't mean it won't be a nice thing to ride but it will be eviscerated in the press if it doesn't make the right, or even the suggested, numbers and to make that sort of power it would have to be reving at 10,000 rpm plus.

It's a 2V pushrod motor. It would have to be fueled by some pretty special unicorn farts to make anything close.

In reality, it makes 80 HP at the crank and 68 HP at the rear wheel. I am no fan of Piaggio as a company but the fact is that Piaggio is delivering exactly what they claimed from Day 1 with a 2V per cylinder engine, only incremental changes from the V9 engine and no necessity to do anything except what you repeatedly said was impossible based on your intuition.

[pete roper]

Comparing apples to oranges. Crank and rear wheel. I still think 80 at the crank is fanciful. I'm surprised they've kept the losses to enough to get 65 rear wheel.

[Tusayan]

Yes ...here in Germany/Europe the shown performance data are always measured at the crank ("DIN-PS"), so what you measure on a Dyno at the rearwheel is always a bit less.

Yes

No one with half a wit actually expected that they were "advertising" REAR WHEEL power - and they might not have been fibbing too badly on crankshaft rating there.

Of course, but Piaggio actually was fibbing...  but by less than 1 HP on their dyno.  The actual number is 79-and-change which is now validated by being completely consistent with 68 RWHP measured by Motociclismo...  and apparently exactly as "possible" as Sheepdog's conservative 80 flywheel, 65 RWHP guess above, and my own, indicated it might be.

It's quite an increase from the 41 RWHP ouput of the MY 2013 'V7' (smallblock) - 66% increased power from the same basic engine, over maybe 6 years of development.  Similar to what Ducati did with the 2V/cylinder aircooled Pantah over a similar period in the late 80s and early 90s.

[pete roper]

Well it does have a 52mm throttlebody rather than the weedy (?) 32 mm one used on the MUIG3 bikes.

[Huzo]

Who gives a bugger ?
All Guzzies are slugs compared to fast stuff, but some choose not to care.
We know what we’re buying,(hopefully), and it’ll be just fine for me.
The power to weight ratio would be in the same park as my old Norge wouldn’t it ?
Incidentally, I don’t have any trouble getting up the Stelvio Pass on the old whale..
All this humming and harring is meaningless..
Even @ 70 Hp, the power/weight ratio is almost identical to my Norge.




The figure on the calculator is the ratio for the V85,and the ratio for the Norge is the same near enough

[ScepticalScotty]

Very well said Huzo - many positive road tests over here in Europe, MCN (!), BIKE, are the two I have read and had a lot of praise for the motor. Plus we have real world riders on them here now and they are pleased and impressed with the whole thing.

39hp has been OK for me for 15 years, touring all over the place, so I reckon 68 will be enough to see me right when they bring the naked/standard versions out.

[Muzz]

I'm sure Beetle will have that annoying little dip fixed in no time and will probably get to the full 80 at the crank as well!

[Peter949]

Thank you everyone for the replies to my post on the V85tt.
Here is a great link that well describes this 'new' engine:
       
http://www.motoguzzi.com/mediaObject/motoguzzi-sites/US/V85-brochure/Moto-Guzzi-V85TT_digital-1-/original/Moto%20Guzzi%20V85TT_digital%5B1%5D.pdf

[Tusayan]

Who gives a bugger ?

The journalists and market which would have competely rejected the V85TT if it made the same power as a V9 or V7.  Piaggio having increased the small block power output by 66% over six years, with more possibly to come if they do an OHC version, will I think prove to be the single most decisive factor in Guzzis future.

[Wayne Orwig]

Thank you everyone for the replies to my post on the V85tt.
Here is a great link that well describes this 'new' engine:
       
http://www.motoguzzi.com/mediaObject/motoguzzi-sites/US/V85-brochure/Moto-Guzzi-V85TT_digital-1-/original/Moto%20Guzzi%20V85TT_digital%5B1%5D.pdf

Interesting info.

I can't help but think back not that many years ago. Virtually EVERY magazine article about a Guzzi had some nasty comment about how the torque reaction of the flywheel would cause a Guzzi to flop over on its side in a corner if you touched the throttle. Now it isn't even mentioned.