V85TT Dyno by Cycle World

[TimmyTheHog]

Some number for V85TT from Cycle World.

I know not everyone cares about how much HP & Torque bike makes, but I find numbers interesting.

I know there are also some private testing done already...

Dyno by CycleWorld

For those TL:DR, "We measured the V85 TT's performance on the Cycle World dyno, recording horsepower and torque measurements. The Moto Guzzi produced 66.71 hp at 7,980 rpm and 48.99 pound-feet of torque at 5,160 rpm."

[Gliderjohn]

Interesting. Look at the spread between HP and torque on my T-3 with a somewhat modified motor. Much narrower.



GliderJohn

[TimmyTheHog]

Interesting. Look at the spread between HP and torque on my T-3 with a somewhat modified motor. Much narrower.



GliderJohn

Interesting indeed.

I guess it concur with some people feel V85TT require some more "twist in the throttle" to get all the horses out,  but rather it isn't about lack of it, it is just so spread out and takes longer to get there.

But I do like how consistant the torque output is starting from ~3500RPM.

[oldbike54]

 What happened to the 85 HP Guzzi was claiming ? This is why lying about specs is a bad move .

 Dusty

[Rough Edge racing]

What happened to the 85 HP Guzzi was claiming ? This is why lying about specs is a bad move .

 Dusty

 and considering a DynoJet dyno is about 10% optimistic compared to what manufacturers use...The 85 from Guzzi is likely at the crankshaft, not rear wheel

[oldbike54]

and considering a DynoJet dyno is about 10% optimistic compared to what manufacturers use...The 85 from Guzzi is likely at the crankshaft, not rear wheel

 Likely nearer 72 HP at the crank . That 85 figure was nothing more than some made up number .

 Dusty

[lucian]

Oh oh, your gonna wake up the bear!

[oldbike54]

Oh oh, your gonna wake up the bear!

 I am THE bear .

 Dusty

[Kev m]

What happened to the 85 HP Guzzi was claiming ? This is why lying about specs is a bad move .

 Dusty

I thought they said 80?

And no one thought they meant 80 rwhp.

And this is in the ballpark considering frictional losses.

Hell I think Ducati originally claimed ~80 hp for our 696 and it dynos similarly, but I think with a little less torque than the V85.

Edit looks like Duc 696 - 66 hp/44 ft lbs

Included in this article about Street 750

https://www.cycleworld.com/2014/04/02/2015-harley-davidson-street-750-versus-competitors-on-cw-dynojet-dyno/

I really don't see the problem here.

[oldbike54]

 ^^^Of course you don't .

 Dusty

[lucian]

Amazing what a heavy flywheel can do to smooth out a torque curve. It's the rotating/reciprocating mass that makes  guzzis so sweet.  H.P. not a real important number in street riding. Torque is where its at. Thanks for sharing, can't wait to get a ride on the new 850, maybe next spring. Butt dyno is what counts!

[oldbike54]

Interesting. Look at the spread between HP and torque on my T-3 with a somewhat modified motor. Much narrower.



GliderJohn

 Not unlike an old XR 750 HD motor , the same falling torque curve , Another 25 HP it would make a good production class dirt track engine .

 Dusty

[JohninVT]

Ummm...I’m pretty sure we had this discussion ad nauseam.  80 at the crank and 65-68 at the wheel is all you can expect from this engine design and displacement. 

The V85TT has roughly the same performance as a 650 V-Strom.  Those of you who aren’t eye-talian bike snobs know the Strom is widely regarded as one of the greatest ADV bikes ever made because it has decent, usable power, relatively light weight, a good seat and weather protection.  All of those reasons are also why the V85TT is getting great reviews.  Add in the fact it’s handmade in Italy, has an electronics package, has much better brakes and handling than a V-Strom AND it’s CHEAP for what you get.

Anyone surprised by the fact it has 65hp wasn’t paying attention.

[Turin]

My Quota 1100 (dyno tuned) makes 66 horsepower and 65foot lbs of torque.

The V85s' numbers are impressive for a 2V smallblock. I bet it's a hoot.

[Roebling3]

The high engine speed had something to do with the hp produced. Not what I would call a sweet spot. Anyone know the road speed at peak hp?  R3~

[beetle]

Torque curve looks good on the graph. Bit of a dip at ~2700. Might explain why people keep asking me for V85 maps.

[molly]

Too under powered for me, great on small roads but to put in the hard motorway miles more is required.

[Kev m]

Amazing what a heavy flywheel can do to smooth out a torque curve. It's the rotating/reciprocating mass that makes  guzzis so sweet.  H.P. not a real important number in street riding. Torque is where its at. Thanks for sharing, can't wait to get a ride on the new 850, maybe next spring. Butt dyno is what counts!

Fwiw I've said many times since riding the V85 that it doesn't feel the same as other Guzzis, even the relatively light flywheel smallblocks. It feels more like our Duc mentioned above which might be a great thing to many people.

If you're looking for that heavy flywheel/torquey feel in a modern Guzzi smallblock, the answer is the V9.

[Rough Edge racing]

 On a Dynojet inertia dyno, the flywheel weight affects the power reading.. A bike with a lighter flywheel can accelerate the roller faster and give a higher power reading....In reality there is no power difference.
  Dynos are for tuning or bragging rights, the real test is on the road or track....

[Huzo]

 

On a Dynojet inertia dyno, the flywheel weight affects the power reading.. A bike with a lighter flywheel can accelerate the roller faster and give a higher power reading....In reality there is no power difference.
  Dynos are for tuning or bragging rights, the real test is on the road or track....

[TimmyTheHog]

ya, I am having a seat with you on this debate..

but just kind of interesting how we perceive the dyno and what actually came out of it.

[richthib]

Moto Guzzi never claimed 85 HP.  They claimed 80 Hp and that is at the crank, not rear wheel like a dyne shows.  Quite a difference between crank HP and rear wheel Dyno HP.   I saw a dyno chart from Mistral calming 79 HP with the cat delete Y pipe, Mistral muffler and V Twin Power Boost hook up.  I have that on my V85TT and by the seat of the pants, it feels pretty close. 

[Gliderjohn]

I am kind of surprised that my T-3 HP started dropping off in the early 6K range with the mods I have. I thought it would have peaked closer to 7K. Maybe need go up a bit on the main jets.
GliderJohn

[oldbike54]

I am kind of surprised that my T-3 HP started dropping off in the early 6K range with the mods I have. I thought it would have peaked closer to 7K. Maybe need go up a bit on the main jets.
GliderJohn

 I would leave it alone John , how often do you spin it past 6K ?

 Dusty

[Gliderjohn]

From oldbike54:

I would leave it alone John , how often do you spin it past 6K ?

I am not planning to change anything at this time as it is such a tractable motor, just musing.
GliderJohn

[mobiker]

Ten to fifteen percent loss from crank to rear wheel is typical. I've noticed that a lot of newer bikes seem to be closer to 10%. Don't know if its due to more efficient drivelines or manufacturers downplaying crank HP (kinda of doubt that myself). 66.71 is about 83.5% of 80, so a 16.5% driveline loss. A little high, but not that bad and could easily be due to that particular dyno or the humidity that day or a number of other factors.
Its enough for me considering its about 16 or 17 more horsepower than my 1000cc BMW and it seems to get me where I'm going.

[beetle]

Quoting HP at crank is a complete wank. Who cares? RWHP is what counts, if at all. If RWHP really counted, no one would ride a V7.

79 RWHP? Ha ha. You're funny, Mistral. I believe Mistral as much as I do Piaggio. 

Q haters.

[Texas Turnip]

In a million plus miles I've never cared about dyno reports. In fact, at most rallies we are talking about gas mileage, tire life, roads, weather etc. I guess you can say that there are for the most part two groups, one of the specs and the other of the roads. Did I tell you about the ghost town Zabcikville that I recently went to?

Enjoy the numbers that concern you and I'll like mine and we are still friends
 Love,
Tex

[oldbike54]

Quoting HP at crank is a complete wank. Who cares? RWHP is what counts, if at all. If RWHP really counted, no one would ride a V7.

79 RWHP? Ha ha. You're funny, Mistral. I believe Mistral as much as I do Piaggio. 

Q haters.

 In the end it doesn't matter much does it Mark . Guessing on a real accurate water brake dyno the new motor makes about 62 RWHP and an equal decrease in torque . That would translate to 71 crankshaft HP , not even the 80 some seem to be claiming . That would still be sufficient , just don't tell me it makes more than it really does because you want it to , right ?

 Dusty

[Kev m]

Jez, it's not all black and white all the time.

Yeah none of us RIDE spec sheets. They're just data which can be fun to compare and contrast when talking about bikes.

In this case I think the data supports my riding impressions.

Other times I've been surprised when my impressions showed something different (good or bad) from the spec sheet.

Either way what's that harm?

It's not like anyone here is looking towards specs for any sort of bragging rights.