V85TT Dyno by Cycle World

[Kev m]

 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

Not for nothing but how are you so certain about the exact percentage of frictional losses?

You remember a few years back due to some changes to EU standards for OEM testing and reporting of such things Ducati was forced to publish (and had it on their website for a few years) revised (lower) crankshaft numbers for their entire line and a good number of model years.

Presumably Guzzi has followed these guidelines and therefore their crank numbers from some years might not be apples to apples with later.

We definitely see, confirmed by multiple sources, that there's are differences in claimed crank and it's relationship to Dyno runs on various other late-model 2TB and 1TB smallblocks.

That said, I don't think it particularly matters to anyone here or most of the general riding public unless the individual in question never gets past spec sheets or magazines.

[oldbike54]

 Maybe because accuracy matters , dunno .

 Dusty

[bad Chad]

It’s kind of funny too me, I remember reading on this forum several years back about if only the small block made more power.    At the time the 744cc v7 series were putting down around 41-42hp.  So many guys were saying if they would make one with 60-65hp they would buy one yesterday!

So now they have done it, and now some folks are complaining.  It never ends.

[oldbike54]

Not for nothing but how are you so certain about the exact percentage of frictional losses?

You remember a few years back due to some changes to EU standards for OEM testing and reporting of such things Ducati was forced to publish (and had it on their website for a few years) revised (lower) crankshaft numbers for their entire line and a good number of model years.

Presumably Guzzi has followed these guidelines and therefore their crank numbers from some years might not be apples to apples with later.

We definitely see, confirmed by multiple sources, that there's are differences in claimed crank and it's relationship to Dyno runs on various other late-model 2TB and 1TB smallblocks.

That said, I don't think it particularly matters to anyone here or most of the general riding public unless the individual in question never gets past spec sheets or magazines.

 Was being generous and allowing 15% loss , it gets even worse at only 10%

 Dusty

 

 
 

[Tusayan]

This is great data.  A European V85TT test measured 68 RWHP some months ago, CW now at 67 RWHP, almost the same number and consistent with Piaggio’s 80 HP at the crank number that has never changed and is clearly accurate.  That amount of power with a flat power spread from a small block is phenomenal...  A 4-cam, 8 valve water cooled Suzuki 650 makes the same power with the disadvantages that come with more complexity, a bit less torque and so on.

For comparison, rear wheel horsepower on a small valve Guzzi 949 cc big block (for example a 1000 SP) is typically about 48 RWHP, a big valve LeMans 1000 with B-10 cam makes around 62 RWHP stock and a BMW R100R made 51 RWHP.  Those ‘stone axe’ bikes are actually more complex and more difficult to maintain than this engine, which also meets 2019 regulatory standards.   

[Kev m]

Maybe because accuracy matters , dunno .

 Dusty

I'm not so certain it's Piaggio who was bring inaccurate.

[Kev m]

This is great data.  A European V85TT test measured 68 RWHP some months ago, CW now at 67 RWHP, almost the same number and consistent with Piaggio’s 80 HP at the crank number that has never changed and is clearly accurate.  That amount of power with a flat power spread from a small block is phenomenal...  A 4-cam, 8 valve water cooled Suzuki 650 makes the same power with the disadvantages that come with more complexity, a bit less torque and so on.

For comparison, rear wheel horsepower on a small valve Guzzi 949 cc big block (for example a 1000 SP) is typically about 48 RWHP, a big valve LeMans 1000 with B-10 cam makes around 62 RWHP stock and a BMW R100R made 51 RWHP.  Those ‘stone axe’ bikes are actually more complex and more difficult to maintain than this engine, which also meets 2019 regulatory standards.

 

[Kev m]

Here's another CW Dyno of a similar market, popular, similar CC, air-cooled, 2V motor (though Desmo not Pushrod) and low and behold it's making similar numbers

https://images.app.goo.gl/UeFxpRmZ1ygMyKwv6

So that's another example that shows how Piaggio has given us a decent and competitive product.

[MotoG5]

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

True that Kev. When I was looking to downsize from my then current Stelvio I posted on looking at the V9 and you recommended that it may well be the way to go. I bought a left over 17 new Bobber and have been smiling ever since. With 1k on it I am loving that old time Guzzi feel and sound with a bike that fits my needs. It will keep me on two wheels for a few more years. 

[Kev m]

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

True that Kev. When I was looking to downsize from my then current Stelvio I posted on looking at the V9 and you recommended that it may well be the way to go. I bought a left over 17 new Bobber and have been smiling ever since. With 1k on it I am loving that old time Guzzi feel and sound with a bike that fits my needs. It will keep me on two wheels for a few more years. 

That's awesome. I'm jealous even though I have no room to complain. Glad you're enjoying!!!

[kingoffleece]

Never cared much for stat sheet hp numbers.

[Moparnut72]

I'll add my 2 cents for what it is worth. I read an article many years ago about parasitic losses due to different drivetrains in motorcycles. Belt drive was deemed to be the most efficient.Shaft drive was the worst. Partially due to the fact everytime power transmission changes direction there is additional loss.All of this doesn't matter to me because of reliability and low maintenance of a driveshaft type of drive. Although BMW has had problems with some of their rear differentials. Nevertheless I would not at all be surprised to see a 15% loss on our MG's.

On a further note I think that torque curve or lack of a curve on the 85 dyno run to be impressive despite the dip in the 2,000 range. Especially after hanging around Harley sites for the last few years. With the reputation of Harleys having massive amounts of torque I don't remember seeing any as flat at this one. A good amount of torque will be a lot more rideable than gobs of horsepower IMO.
kk

[beetle]

. A good amount of torque will be a lot more rideable than gobs of horsepower IMO.

This.

[Huzo]

It’s kind of funny too me, I remember reading on this forum several years back about if only the small block made more power.    At the time the 744cc v7 series were putting down around 41-42hp.  So many guys were saying if they would make one with 60-65hp they would buy one yesterday!

So now they have done it, and now some folks are complaining.  It never ends.

Yeah it does BC.
They go quiet and stop posting.

[Kev m]

It’s kind of funny too me, I remember reading on this forum several years back about if only the small block made more power.    At the time the 744cc v7 series were putting down around 41-42hp.  So many guys were saying if they would make one with 60-65hp they would buy one yesterday!

So now they have done it, and now some folks are complaining.  It never ends.

Ha ha, hell they made one that puts down just a few more hp (~48 go) and I bought another.

[s1120]

Never cared much for stat sheet hp numbers.

Ya im with you... They are good for seeing changes though..  Other then that its a number. I bet you grab 10 bikes off the showroom floor they will all be a few % apart also. Even with todays better engine controls and manufacturing, you still get a good one, and a bad one out of the bunch.

[oldbike54]

 Before we get all judgie here , it isn't a matter of how much power the new motor makes . Some manufacturers didn't post figures for years , terms like "adequate" were used . It is just now here in 2019 when those cheap dynojets are everywhere making it easy to test power , why publish an inflated number . And please don't tell me that 67 RWHP translates to 80 crankshaft HP , the math doesn't work . Just tell us the truth , the engine makes 77 HP at the crank , maybe  This smacks of those nonsense figures published in motomags back in the day , the "new" engine makes
3 more HP than last year's model , yeah , sure it does 

 Dusty

[Tusayan]

please don't tell me that 67 RWHP translates to 80 crankshaft HP , the math doesn't work . Just tell us the truth , the engine makes 77 HP at the crank , maybe

IIRC Piaggio’s published dyno sheet shows a little over 79 HP, they rounded up versus down to get the even 80 HP, which reasonably equates to 67 or 68 at the rear wheel.

[oldbike54]

IIRC Piaggio’s published dyno sheet shows a little over 79 HP, they rounded up versus down to get the even 80 HP, which reasonably equates to 67 or 68 at the rear wheel.

 A 15% loss thru the driveline isn't much of a recommendation for the system .

 Dusty

[Tusayan]

A 15% loss thru the driveline isn't much of a recommendation for the system

An example of the same percentage loss on a similar shaft drive bike is the BMW rated 60 HP R100R which on a new bike measured 51 RWHP.

An 1100 Sport was rated by Guzzi at 90 HP and tested at around 76 RWHP (plus or minus about 2 HP). Also the same percentage.

[Rough Edge racing]

 let's throw some actual facts from experience at this discussion.. My old Triumphs have spent hours on the dyno ,with me on the bike not the dyno operator..The place I use is Dynotech in Batavia NY. The machine is a Superflow dyno capable of inertia reading line a Dynojet and eddy current like the manufactirers use.. Some may still use a water brake, but both work on the same principle
   You can read this part of the power sheet... The first two columns are DJ, meaning the machine is operated as DynoJet, usuable for tuning.. The seconf two columns are brake HP like used by manufaturers.The tests were done in third gear of a four speed, The A/f was not hooked up...Notice the difference, about 10 percent...For the record, my creaky of 650 set speed records of 133 plus mph with only 49 "real" rear wheel HP...It ain't the power on a piece of paper that matters, it's putting the power to road that counts..
   So based on this evidence,can we assume the "actual" RWHP on the Guzzi is about 60 and if the factory claims 80, then 20 hp was lost in drivetrain?

           

[oldbike54]

An example of the same percentage loss on a similar shaft drive bike is the BMW rated 60 HP R100R which on a new bike measured 51 RWHP.

An 1100 Sport was rated by Guzzi at 90 HP and tested at around 76 RWHP (plus or minus about 2 HP). Also the same percentage.

 True , but those figures were likely inflated also ,


 Look , the point is , what Guzzi should be doing is focusing on how well the new motor works in the real world and not publish questionable HP figures. I realize this is a seemingly small thing , and maybe to most folks it doesn't matter . However , we had a discussion re HP at the Okie , and someone claimed his T3 was rated at 65 HP stock and was really adamant about this . This is how nonsense get started , we make fun of CL ads that make silly claims , why can't we hold the manufacturers to the same standard .

 Dusty

[Tusayan]

I believe somebody posted Guzzis dyno sheet in WG.  It is anyway available and consistent with the 80 HP figure.  I did smile when seeing it that they rounded up instead of down from 79.4 HP or another similar number...  the lure of 80 HP versus 79 HP must’ve been too much 

It’s a marvelous achievement that they’ve made such a nice engine out of something that was formerly much underpowered in relation to its competition...  for 40 years. 

[kingoffleece]

DynoJet in Batavia, NY has a reputation second to none.

[Tusayan]

Its interesting how close the V85TT power and torque curves are to the Suzuki and Yamaha middleweight twins, except they are water cooled, 8 valve engines that rev a little higher and are much more complex to maintain.  The V85 puts the same power to the ground and makes a little more torque, as one would expect from a larger displacement engine.  And in addition to absorbing shaft drive losses, Guzzi is doing this with a single cam, push rod, 2 valve per cylinder, screw valve adjustment, single throttle body, air cooled engine!

Guzzi V85 TT in Cycle World



Yamaha FZ-07 and Suzuki SV650 (https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/suzuki-sv650-vs-yamaha-fz-07-review-comparison/)

[Rough Edge racing]

DynoJet in Batavia, NY has a reputation second to none.

 Yup, Jim Czekala the shop owner is not just a dyno operator..He loves doing it and helps you tune the machine based on his experiences over the years. His dyno tests bikes and snowmobiles...Did you know some competition sleds have 750 HP? He's aslo a personal friend of Kevin Cameron..

[bad Chad]

I don't understand why this HP thing is even a thing?

What has Guzzi done that is different than Every Other mfg?   As far as I can tell they haven't done anything but follow common practice.

[oldbike54]

I don't understand why this HP thing is even a thing?

What has Guzzi done that is different than Every Other mfg?   As far as I can tell they haven't done anything but follow common practice.

 Because we don't follow the herd ?

 Dusty

[Zoom Zoom]

Because we don't follow the herd ?

 Dusty

I've heard that. Or should I say, I've herd that? 

John Henry

[JohninVT]

True , but those figures were likely inflated also ,


 Look , the point is , what Guzzi should be doing is focusing on how well the new motor works in the real world and not publish questionable HP figures. I realize this is a seemingly small thing , and maybe to most folks it doesn't matter . However , we had a discussion re HP at the Okie , and someone claimed his T3 was rated at 65 HP stock and was really adamant about this . This is how nonsense get started , we make fun of CL ads that make silly claims , why can't we hold the manufacturers to the same standard .

To reiterate what everyone has already said:
80hp was that crank figure
A 15-20% loss to the wheel is totally normal.
The dyno charts showing mid to high 60’s is normal. 

It’s like Winter has come early to WG....

 Dusty