V7II vs. V7III engine/power delivery?

[Jack Straw]

Good Lord, this thread is as tedious as the nonsense I fled over at the Enfield 650 forum

How many foot pounds of torque can fit on the head of a pin?

Is his bigger than mine, tell me now?

[Dirk_S]

Good Lord, this thread is as tedious as the nonsense I fled over at the Enfield 650 forum

How many foot pounds of torque can fit on the head of a pin?

Is his bigger than mine, tell me now?

There's an Unnotify button so you're not bothered.

Personally, I'd rather help a person brand new to the marque get acquainted with the various models and updates.

[Brand X]

My Multi was the 1000 engine (with Termis), but I get it! In the two-fiddy dept., I also had (and loved) a Kawi Super Sherpa.

I know the V7's torque won't be the relative tidal wave the Duc's was, I'm just hoping that what's there comes on and stays on! 

I put a lot of miles on my KLX-250s.. When talking turn-in,this one with 17 front wheel was something..My bike(guzzi) is just nice to ride,but nothing like a big block anything when going up the steep hills around here. 4000 plus RPM is most suited for them.. 



 

[Kev m]

"Below 3000 rpm, the motor is doggy, and then it’s time for fun. Although it’s not an issue pulling away from a stoplight, the motor balks at roll-ons when running below 3000 rpm. Above that, it’s a peppy performer. Moto Guzzi brags that 80 percent of the peak torque is available from 3000 rpm onwards, and it’s clear why the PR folks seized on that number."

What a moron. I've always said the 1TB bikes run better a few hundred rpm lower than the earlier 2TB smallblocks, but that doesn't mean you should lug them by rolling on below 3k rpm.

OP, I do honestly think there is a seat in the pants difference between my MkI and my MkIII. It's noticeable.

As for a test ride, reach out to a local owner. If you find yourself in South Jersey come take both of mine for a spin.

Good Lord, this thread is as tedious as the nonsense I fled over at the Enfield 650 forum

How many foot pounds of torque can fit on the head of a pin?

Is his bigger than mine, tell me now?

Classy move.

I always find o
It better to just complain instead of trying to help.

< / Sarcasm >

 

[bad Chad]

I don't really get all the fuss.   My dad bought a new 78 R100/7.   It had a full frame mounted Windjammer type fairing, I think it was a copy made by Lufmister, Krauser bags, and a sturdy tail rack.  He took me in 1980 when I was 13 on an awsome tour from Chicago to Idaho, Northern Cal and everywhere in between.  So there we were two up fully loaded, and I do mean fully loaded for M/C camping, and having fun.  This was all done on a M/C that made about 60hp, I assume that was at the crank.

We ran along at 75-80 when on the wide open flats, we went up the Rockies over Wolf Creek pass, around 11000 feet up, and on and on.  I thought we were on the most powerfully M/C money could buy, although I new by that time, BMWs were for old guys and cool dudes had Kawasaki, and Ducs.   Point is, that bike was in the same ball park as the v7s the OP is considering.   

I really think it's more how the rider uses the bike than the limitations of said bike, within reason.

[Vagrant]

WOW! Ok, Bill and Kevin are the closest to what you needed to know.
Having owned a 2015 I and a 2017 III I can promise you will be happy with either or. Both need front and rear suspension work if you want full enjoyment. The 2015 or 16 will need a Beattle map. Simple, cheap cures. The 5 speed is a lot nicer in tight, twisty NC. mountains. Less shifting, etc. Then of course the V85 is even better.
 The stator on the 2017+ sucks and just might fail. Even if it doesn't it has pathetic output. The 15 might need a new regulator because some put out too much juice.
Buy one, enjoy!

[Bulldog9]

^^^

This

I realize we're not talking about powerhouses in any of these bikes, but dynos suggest the Mk I and Mk II are pretty similar and the Mk III have a definite bump relative to them. That agrees with my experience with the feel on my Mk I vs my Mk III.

I guess I still really like the feel on the Mk I, but I'm not sure I agree with the Stornello cult that I like it MORE.

Then again, when the Stornello came out people talked about the map being different or the feel of the motor being different because of that exhaust. So who knows, maybe there is a difference between the Stornello and the rest of the V7s.

This summer you can ride the mello yello stornello, turn from your wicked lack of belief and thus join the cult. That is if we let you...........

Seriously though, having ridden the V7, V7iii and V7ii Stornello, the mapping and response of the Stornello is far more engaging and 'spunky' by comparison, though as said, you can feel the slight bump in power on the V7iii.  Two summers ago, I rode the V7iii for about a hundred miles, after I had just done 2-300 on the Stornello. After my time on the V7iii got back on the Stornello, and far prefer it.

I know you don't agree with the footpeg thing either, but the seating position and relation on the V7iii and Stornello are also different enough to notice.

On Tires, I can't wait to get rid of the 705's, was a poor choice for me.

[Kev m]

I know you don't agree with the footpeg thing either, but the seating position and relation on the V7iii and Stornello are also different enough to notice.

What's the difference in peg position between the II and III?

There was a difference between the I and III, the latter being lower measured straight down from the rear of the tank/front of the seat to the peg. That's why I wound up adding drop pegs to the MkI.

[Bulldog9]

What's the difference in peg position between the II and III?

There was a difference between the I and III, the latter being lower measured straight down from the rear of the tank/front of the seat to the peg. That's why I wound up adding drop pegs to the MkI.

When riding the Stornello and V7iii Special back to back, same boots, same day, on the V7iii, my feet were noticeably higher and forward compared to the Stornello where they were father back, lower not tucked under and beneath my hips, but clearly further back. Not huge, but clearly noticeable and less comfortable and preferable.

[majstevetrevor]

I am reminded that when the V7III came out I went to test ride the V7II racer and the III stone, the first Guzzis I ever rode. I remember at the time thinking that the racer was a lot more fun to test ride, and I pretty much chalked it up to the riding position. But having learned more since I think it was also the engine and the lower end torque.  As it happened I ended up finding a mark I racer elsewhere that I loved the looks of and got that instead, had it for about a year and ripped around happily on it. The sub-400 lb weight made up for lower hp I guess.  But I decided my knees and back weren’t really made for a racer, and now I’m also pretty happy with my mark III stone, though it does feel less “peppy.”

[Kev m]

I am reminded that when the V7III came out I went to test ride the V7II racer and the III stone, the first Guzzis I ever rode. I remember at the time thinking that the racer was a lot more fun to test ride, and I pretty much chalked it up to the riding position. But having learned more since I think it was also the engine and the lower end torque.  As it happened I ended up finding a mark I racer elsewhere that I loved the looks of and got that instead, had it for about a year and ripped around happily on it. The sub-400 lb weight made up for lower hp I guess.  But I decided my knees and back weren’t really made for a racer, and now I’m also pretty happy with my mark III stone, though it does feel less “peppy.”

Just for the record, none of the Heron head bikes make more hp or torque then the III anywhere in their rpm range,

And none of V7 variants ever had a sub400# wet weight.

I don't know what you're feeling as less peppy. That's certainly not the experience I feel when I ride my two bikes back to back.

[Kev m]

When riding the Stornello and V7iii Special back to back, same boots, same day, on the V7iii, my feet were noticeably higher and forward compared to the Stornello where they were father back, lower not tucked under and beneath my hips, but clearly further back. Not huge, but clearly noticeable and less comfortable and preferable.

Ok now I remember you saying something about this.

Wonder if the II was different from both the I and III?

Or if the Stornello was unique?

Or if it's a difference in seats?

All I know are the measurements I took on both the I and III were clear.

[Mwether]

...My dad bought a new 78 R100/7.   

...He took me in 1980 when I was 13 on an awsome tour from Chicago to Idaho, Northern Cal and everywhere in between.  So there we were two up fully loaded, and I do mean fully loaded for M/C camping, and having fun.  This was all done on a M/C that made about 60hp, I assume that was at the crank.

We ran along at 75-80 when on the wide open flats, we went up the Rockies over Wolf Creek pass, around 11000 feet up, and on and on. 

This is stupendous, and I have failed as a parent.

[Mwether]

WOW! Ok, Bill and Kevin are the closest to what you needed to know.
Having owned a 2015 I and a 2017 III I can promise you will be happy with either or. Both need front and rear suspension work if you want full enjoyment. The 2015 or 16 will need a Beattle map. Simple, cheap cures. The 5 speed is a lot nicer in tight, twisty NC. mountains. Less shifting, etc. Then of course the V85 is even better.
 The stator on the 2017+ sucks and just might fail. Even if it doesn't it has pathetic output. The 15 might need a new regulator because some put out too much juice.
Buy one, enjoy!

Thanks, Vagrant! The insight that the 5-speed might be better in the twisties is something I likely would not have considered!

Just for grins, how have your V7s stacked up to your Versys 650?

[Brand X]

Or if the Stornello was unique?

The stock foot pegs vibrate more then all other versions. Kind of wished I kept the knight pegs off my Aprila/Breva Although the Gold wing style knock-offs are pretty good.. My Stornello does not need any mapping once somewhat warmed up.. That seems to effect all of them.

The six speed tranny is superb on the Stornello .

The R-90 I use to ride in the late 1970's(friends) was well sorted. dual plugs/lightened flywheel, other mods..the V7ii would not have a chance running with them.. Those are 90 MPH all day rigs. drop it to below 75, and then it could..

[Mwether]

All the Stornello love makes me wonder if the Arrow pipe (or another 2-into-1) and a remap are the way to go with ANY V7??

Unless there are also more substantive differences in the Stornello's engine or transmission (which I think is less likely)...

[Anomaly]

Interesting thread. I'm confused (happens frequently...). I'm still trying to sort out/understand the distinctions between the I, II, and III offerings of the V7. I found this link very useful for comparing the various iterations (but, don't know if it's accurate):

https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/bikes/Moto_Guzzi4.html

From the above link, it looks like the I had the highest seat height of all, but the footpegs were lowered on the II and they specifically mention the advantage to taller riders. But what really confuses me is when exactly did Guzzi make the switch to the hemi heads and also to the single throttle body? I have a 2012 V7 Classic and following the link above it says it is a single throttle body and, I think, implies it has a new head design (but doesn't explicitly call it a "hemi"). Also, I have seen some mention here (on WildGuzzi) of the offerings in the USA being slightly out of sycn (calendar year wise) with the rest of the world but can't remember which models/years this pertained to. Help!

[Kev m]

Interesting thread. I'm confused (happens frequently...). I'm still trying to sort out/understand the distinctions between the I, II, and III offerings of the V7. I found this link very useful for comparing the various iterations (but, don't know if it's accurate):

https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/bikes/Moto_Guzzi4.html

From the above link, it looks like the I had the highest seat height of all, but the footpegs were lowered on the II and they specifically mention the advantage to taller riders. But what really confuses me is when exactly did Guzzi make the switch to the hemi heads and also to the single throttle body? I have a 2012 V7 Classic and following the link above it says it is a single throttle body and, I think, implies it has a new head design (but doesn't explicitly call it a "hemi"). Also, I have seen some mention here (on WildGuzzi) of the offerings in the USA being slightly out of sycn (calendar year wise) with the rest of the world but can't remember which models/years this pertained to. Help!

Yeah for years the US/CA was one model year behind the rest of the world so it's easy to be confused.

High level:

The smallblock was a Heron head design from incorruption.

Dealing with just the V7 iterations'

2TB models of the V7c, Cafe Classic, and Racer we're available (with smaller capacity plastic tanks) worldwide though about 2911, and in the US/CA with predominantly metal 5.5g tanks for 2012

1TB (MKI) models were introduced in the EU for 2012 and US/CA for 2013, this was the introduction of the Stone/Special and the continuation of the Racer. It had revised heads and jugs, but still Heron. It had a dry alternator, 5-speed, some roughly made foot controls etc and was available through 2015 in the US/CA, though the last year it moved to the wet alternator and charging capacity went down a bit

The MKII (V7II) was a one year only revision in the US/CA, arriving for 2016. The last Heron head bikes. Revisions included a 6-spd, ABS/TC, and there may indeed have been a revision to the chassis with regards to how the engine fit in the frame or controls or something, at least I thought I remembered something about that in the press release it included the one year only Stornello.

The MkIII (V7III) arrived in the US/CA starting with the 2017 models and (along with the V9) represented the beginning of the Hemi head smallblocks. In addition to the biggest change in motor the platform ever got there were tweaks all around the chassis from exhaust and shocks to controls and instruments, and bodywork. Not to mention there were a half-dozen more limited variants like the Carbon Dark/Carbon Shine/Milano/Rough etc.

Recently the MKIV (V7 850/EU V) version bikes were introduced representing the second biggest change to the platform including more changes to the chassis (swing arm, steering head/frame) and motor from power output to little things like a sight glass for oil level.

They are all birds of a feather and some things are common across all or most years. I believe things like seats and fuel tanks could swap through most years. But the changes slowly add up as the variants moved along.

[Dirk_S]

Easy to spy by the valve covers.

V7 II = Last of the Heron heads:






V9 and V7 III = first of the Hemi heads:




V7 Classic / Cafe / Racer = Last of the twin throttle bodies, located just before the intake ports:




V7 Special / Stone / Racer (before V7 II versions, but after the Classic/Cafe) = First generation with single throttle body, located just after the air box:






Looking at the photo below, given the info above, noting the heads, valve covers, piston style, single throttle body on the bottom left, and throttle body air manifold, you can see this belongs to a V7 Special, Stone, Racer, or V7 II Stone, Special, Racer, or Stornello:

[Kev m]

Looking at the photo below, given the info above, noting the heads, valve covers, piston style, single throttle body on the bottom left, and throttle body air manifold, you can see this belongs to a V7 Special, Stone, Racer, or V7 II Stone, Special, Racer, or Stornello:

Excellent visual references, but I have a question - IS that last pic a V7 I, I.5, or II?!?

I can't tell, as I haven't been inside the front cover of the 1.5 or II ... and I really didn't look that closely the other week when I was turning the crank on the MkI to set the valves.

So what say ye or those who know it better? Wet or Dry Alt?

[Brand X]

2016 wet alternator. You turn the back wheel to set the valves..

[Iron Cross Junction]

Apropos the several comments about foot peg position, etc. ... FWIW, with recognition that it's hardly ... erm ... scientific. 







I notice little difference in ergos when I'm riding.

Bill

[Kev m]

Apropos the several comments about foot peg position, etc. ... FWIW, with recognition that it's hardly ... erm ... scientific. 







I notice little difference in ergos when I'm riding.

Bill

For giggles, if you get a chance, take a tape measure and check the distance vertically up from the top of a peg on each one to the frame/bottom of seat/back-bottom of tank on each. That will tell us for certain (assuming the pegs are stock) if there is a difference and how much.

When I did this on my I and III, the III was in the same position fore-aft, but was a further distance away from the seat/frame/tank.

I'm curious about the II and how it played into BD's perception. But as I noted there could be other things at play as well.


BrandX  -yeah, I know the valve adjust part... the roller insert in my lift makes it easier for such things. But I still prefer spinning the crank directly with a socket on my MkI - I've also got timing marks on the rotor that I made with a sharpie years ago that speeds up the process too.

[Dirk_S]

BrandX  -yeah, I know the valve adjust part... the roller insert in my lift makes it easier for such things. But I still prefer spinning the crank directly with a socket on my MkI - I've also got timing marks on the rotor that I made with a sharpie years ago that speeds up the process too.

I believe BrandX only mentions this because it's pretty much the only method for the wet bath alternators, as removing the front cover would lead to oil getting out (that's only an assumption--I've never removed the alternator cover because of this assumption).

Dirk

[majstevetrevor]

And none of V7 variants ever had a sub400# wet weight.

My 2015 V7 Racer was listed at 394.5 lbs.  I never actually weighed it..

[Brand X]

I'm pretty sure BrandX only mentions this because it's pretty much the only method for the wet bath alternators, as removing the front cover would to oil getting out (that's only an assumption--I've never removed the alternator cover because of this assumption).

Dirk

Correct,


My lift does not have a insert, but I never had a issue with not having one.. Probably because it will also lift other things well . Have to give up something for versatility  The prices have doubled in the 4 years I have owned it $2,450  out the door That is with the extra truck rails, and adapters. Guess there is more then one way to skin a cat, and just like motorcycles whatever works for you is the best option.. As mentioned in this thread earlier wonder if the RE-650 is also something of a option to get similar performance to a V7 1/2/3..





image host

[Kev m]

I'm pretty sure BrandX only mentions this because it's pretty much the only method for the wet bath alternators, as removing the front cover would to oil getting out (that's only an assumption--I've never removed the alternator cover because of this assumption).

Dirk

Of course, though sort of off-topic to the question I was asking.

My 2015 V7 Racer was listed at 394.5 lbs.  I never actually weighed it..

That was DRY (also known to many as "lie weight"), not wet.

Someone here has recently weighted one, it was 429# shy a gallon or two of gas IIRC.

But here are some examples of claimed dry vs wet weights (some wet weights verified by the press):

V7C:  Dry 401# / Wet 444#

V7 MkI: Dry 395# / Wet 436-443# (depending on model or source)

V7II:  Dry 417# / Wet 453# (Stone, but others similar)

V7III: Dry 432# / Wet 461# (various models listed at this, I suspect small variances)

V7 850 (MKIV): Dry 437# / Wet 481#

So even comparing smaller plastic tank 2TB models with the biggest/heaviest metal tank latest model we're only talking a difference of 37# fully fueled and ready to go.

As long as we're digging into specs/minutia here's hp/torque peaks by model, as measured rear wheel (not claimed OEM engine numbers):

V7 2TB:  39 rwhp / 38 torques
V7 MkI:  40 rwhp / 41 torques
V7 II:  42 rwhp / 40 torques
V7 III:  48 rwhp / 44 torques
V7 850 (MKIV):  ??? / ??? haven't seen one yet - looking forward to it

V9 (first gen, not current EUV):  51 rwhp / 46 torques

The charts show torque that are generally thick and pretty flat. Even when they have slight dips the torque never drops much, certainly not below the lower rpm level where it started.

HP curves show slow but steady increases till they eventually drop off.

I know none of these numbers are in any way impressive in the big picture of things. But as lovers of Guzzis and smallblocks they tell a story and hide some surprises.

I LOVE my Mk I - it's modest, airhead-like power but is fun to ride in most conditions (except highway droning, but that's fair).

I was very surprised how much more punch I could tell from the MK III model. Enough of an additional factor that it feels more comfortable even at highway speeds.

I was even MORE surprised by how the V9 felt, it reminded me very much of a big-block Cali. I bet if the chassis was comfortable on longer runs I wouldn't hesitate to drone some highways when needeed.

I was less surprised by the V7 850. It still feels great, and I like it, but judging from the claimed crankshaft numbers I was expecting a bigger jump from the V7III models. There's a jump, just it didn't feel as big as the numbers suggested.

What does this all mean - probably jack unless you're trying to figure out which one is right for you, or unless you're a little nutz about the smallblock (like me).

[majstevetrevor]

Of course, though sort of off-topic to the question I was asking.

That was DRY (also known to many as "lie weight"), not wet.

Sure, but as long as we're talking about relative weight (I compared with II or III) it doesn't matter so long as all are either dry or wet.  A 37 lb difference sounds about right with regard to feel, which is to say, a difference you can feel on these small blocks.

With regard to my experience with the mark II Racer vs the mark III Anniversario, I test rode them back to back at a dealer, and it was the first time I had ever ridden any Guzzi, and I had not seen any performance or weight numbers.  All I can say is that after riding the Racer I turned to the salesperson and said, "man, that's a fun bike."  After the Anniversario I said, "well, not bad."  I suppose it was a combination of slightly lower weight (15 lbs or so in this case), riding position, and lower end torque with different gearing.

I am a more or less happy owner of a V7III Stone S now, so I've got no interest in badmouthing the mark III, but that was my clear experience at the time.

[Vagrant]

WOW! Ok, Bill and Kevin are the closest to what you needed to know.
Having owned a 2015 I and a 2017 III I can promise you will be happy with either or. Both need front and rear suspension work if you want full enjoyment. The 2015 or 16 will need a Beattle map. Simple, cheap cures. The 5 speed is a lot nicer in tight, twisty NC. mountains. Less shifting, etc. Then of course the V85 is even better.
 The stator on the 2017+ sucks and just might fail. Even if it doesn't it has pathetic output. The 15 might need a new regulator because some put out too much juice.
Buy one, enjoy!

It would be easier to compare an apple to a avacado! Radically different steeds!
But, it does compare to a V85 very well. Size, handeling, etc. But, again two totally different engines. The Versys 650 needs to be kept spinning. Never less than 4500 rpm in lower gears and 5K plus in 5&6. The V85 has torque much lower.

[Kev m]

Sure, but as long as we're talking about relative weight (I compared with II or III) it doesn't matter so long as all are either dry or wet.  A 37 lb difference sounds about right with regard to feel, which is to say, a difference you can feel on these small blocks.

With regard to my experience with the mark II Racer vs the mark III Anniversario, I test rode them back to back at a dealer, and it was the first time I had ever ridden any Guzzi, and I had not seen any performance or weight numbers.  All I can say is that after riding the Racer I turned to the salesperson and said, "man, that's a fun bike."  After the Anniversario I said, "well, not bad."  I suppose it was a combination of slightly lower weight (15 lbs or so in this case), riding position, and lower end torque with different gearing.

I am a more or less happy owner of a V7III Stone S now, so I've got no interest in badmouthing the mark III, but that was my clear experience at the time.

Yeah I hear that, and I'm not doubting your impression, but I ride them back to back OFTEN and anytime I want, and I sorta disagree with your conclusions.

I mean, add a centerstand and some luggage and you've added that 37# to the MK I right?

That's an RCH to ME... but then again my wife (5' 4" and sub 140#) often rides the MK III (sometimes with our son on the back) and I'm 5' 10" in the 240s, and sometimes carry our daughter or son too. That's another world right?

But most of the time I hop on them solo.

My wife's Ducati isn't quite sub 400# either at 408# wet. Again, maybe I'm the 600# gorilla in all this cause I don't think it feels that much different (in mass only) from the MKIII. For a difference in mass that you really feel I'll reference my Jackal or our old Sporty, both were pushing 600#, my Breva 1100 was sub 600 (mid 500's wet) but felt just as heavy at those two because it was taller. And hell, want a difference in mass that matters, hop on my 800# RK.

No matter... I guess we're debating perspectives. One man's RCH is another man's yard I guess.

More fun - I won't argue at all, that's cool, that's totally subjective.

Different gearing? Maybe, I'll take your word, never bothered to check and only noticed that Chris or someone mentioned it earlier. But that doesn't jive with my experience (or maybe I am just enough mass to overcompensate for any difference there).

But I do take issue with the oft repeated (in this thread) myth of "more torque down low" it doesn't, unless a gearing difference giving that impression. But certainly that's not what is seen on the dynos. Maybe we could say the MK I or II makes "more of THEIR" torque down low, but even then it's not more than the III is making at the same rpm.

Motorcyclist.com has dyno charts on the MK I, MKII, and MKIII (we saw the II and III earlier).

The MKI was part of a hipster shoot out with some other brands.

IT's very high level, so taken with a grain of salt (and obviously arguably varies with day and dyno etc), but

the MKI shows approximately the following:

starts at 2600 rpm ~36 ft lbs.
climbs to it's peak of 39.7 ft lbs by 2800 rpm (I should note earlier I said 41 ft lbs, that was from MCN, but no dyno chart attached)
it's falling by 3500 rpm, but never really gets below 35 ft lbs till past 6000 rpm or so when it is starting end.

In contrast the MK II shows:

starts at 2200 rpm ~35 ft lbs
climbs to it's peak of 39.8 ft. lbs by 3000 rpm
It's also falling by about 3500 rpm, but also never really seems to get below 35 ft lbs by past 6000 rpm or so when it is starting end.

and lastly MK III shows:

starts at 2200 rpm ~36 ft lbs (or some rch more than the II)
climbs about identically till around 3000 rpm where the II peaks and drops slightly but the III keeps climbing already over 40 ft lbs to its peak of 44.3 ft lbs @ 4800 rpm
More importantly it stays clearly above the II from ~3000 till the end when they both drop off as they approach 7000 rpm

So the MK I and MK II never make more than the III, and if anything feels like it does that could be small differences in the lower gear ratios.

Keep in mind I keep saying I love my MKI and I do, I enjoy it. I don't think it is "better" quicker, more powerful, more anything. If anything it's obviously less. But I like doing more with less. Even though when it's time to stretch its legs it obviously accelerates more slowly.

But I do believe most of these things are RCHs.... so YMMV and all that.