*California 1400 Merged Threadfest*

[LowRyter]

Aren't the 96 hp / 89 ft lbs torque figures from Piaggio crank and not rear wheel?

not bad spex for a 750 lb full boat tourer, really

[youcanrunnaked]

Aren't the 96 hp / 89 ft lbs torque figures from Piaggio crank and not rear wheel?

Yes, as are the H-D numbers I cited.  The torque figures are from H-D.  I'm probably being charitable with the hp numbers; owners report dyno numbers for the stock bikes at around 65 - 70 hp, and I allowed +15% for drivetrain loss from the crank to the rear wheel.

Regardless of the exact peak torque and hp numbers, my point concerns flexibility.  Given engines of comparable torque and hp output, an engine that makes peak torque at 2,750 rpm and peak hp at 6,500 rpm is more flexible than an engine that makes peak torque at 3,250 rpm and peak hp at 5,200 rpm.

(Not to mention the 75 lb. weight difference....)

[Kev m]

Well, when you gave the "90 ft. lbs." as more "realistic" you seemed like you were starting to cross over to estimates of rear wheel figures.

FWIW, Harley does sometimes publish some rwhp/torque specs but you have to go looking for them.as

Typically you can get some figures from the dyno charts they include in the Screaming Eagle performance parts catalogs.

As for the Cali 1400 the motor does sound very interesting and could be a real great match to this kind of chassis.

[rocker59]

  the engineers purposely kept the 1400's hp figures modest in favor of low-end torque; 90 ft./ lbs. at only 2750 rpm.    Meanwhile 96 peak hp is at 6,500 rpm, so maybe you can either putt along at 2,000 rpm, or wind out each gear to 6,500 rpm.

 

Those are impressive numbers.  Wide spread between peak torque and peak power.

Peak torque at 2750 is pretty interesting.  The Sport 1100 / V11 Sport engines had peak torque at 6,000 and peak power at 7,000.

[youcanrunnaked]

Well, when you gave the "90 ft. lbs." as more "realistic" you seemed like you were starting to cross over to estimates of rear wheel figures.

I probably should have stuck to published figures, so as not to sidetrack the discussion, but here's where I'm coming from on the point you note--

I am skeptical of the H-D published torque figure of 100 ft./ lbs at the crank, because dyno numbers typically show around 75 ft./lbs at the rear wheel.  Here's but one example: http://www.johnsonenginetechnology.com/JETIMAGES/dynographs/twin_cam_95%22/95efi_reinharts.jpg
(The lower values are for the stock H-D engine; the higher ones are with certain modifications.)

Now, operating losses from crank to rear wheel are typically: 10 - 20%, depending on operating efficiency.  For Harley's belt-drive system, I think 15% is fair.  So, if rear wheel torque is 75 ft./ lbs., torque at the crank is likely closer to 90 than 100 ft./ lbs. (75 ft./ lbs + 15%).

Granted, with a few minor and very common modifications, the H-D big twin is capable of peak hp and torque figures that will meet or exceed those of the M-G 1400 8V, but I think my point is still valid -- the M-G engine is the more flexible of the two.  I mean, c'mon -- peak torque at only 2,750 rpm  AND a 7,000 rpm redline?  Even the Harley guys have to be impressed.

[Kev m]

What year and model is the dyno chart? Not all TCs are the same, even in the same model year.

But yes, I'm obviously not poo-pooing the Cali.

[youcanrunnaked]

What year and model is the dyno chart? Not all TCs are the same, even in the same model year.

After a bit more digging, I realize that the numbers I was looking at were for the TC 96A engine.  Since the FL tourers are probably the most appropriate H-D models to compare to the nuovo California, and they now use the 103 ci engine, I believe that Harley's published 100 lbs. /ft. crank torque figure is accurate (for that engine).  (OTOH, my 80 crank hp guesstimate was pretty accurate.)

Harley-Davidson Twin Cam 103 cu. in. engine

Observed* rear wheel hp and torque:    67.65 hp @ 5,000 rpm /   85.8 lbs./ ft. @ 3,250 rpm

Estimated** hp / torque at the crank:   77.80 hp @ 5,000 rpm /   98.67 lbs./ ft @ 3,250 rpm



*http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/model_eval/2011NovHDDyna.pdf   at p.12.

** Estimates based on observed dyno max. hp and torque, plus 15% allowance for drivetrain losses.

Note that the difference between my estimates of crank torque for the TC 96A engine and the TC 103 engine (10 lbs./ ft) is consistent with H-D's claim that the TC 103 engine makes 10% more torque than the TC 96A engine.


Also note that the nuovo California's engine is competitive with the TC 103 with less displacement -- 1400cc (85 cu. in.) vs. 1688cc (103 cu. in.).

[bad Chad]

Have fun boys, I can see it starting already! :pop

[Kev m]

Good data and helps to really put the Cali 1400 in perspective (a good one).

I don't pay as much attention to the big twins, but I thought there were multiple versions of the TC96a in the same year for a few years, with the FLH models getting a higher output motor, but maybe it was the 96 vs. 103 thing.

Anyway, one of the attractions of the Cali 1400 is the more reasonable motor size, and the lower weight, albeit I was hoping for even less.

[Chuck in Indiana]

I'm seeing it priced at 4000 pounds more than the Stelvio in England.. that would put it well into Beemer and Harley country.

[sbaker]

Wow.. great pix!! Thanks for posting!

[geeseman]

http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/2013-moto-guzzi-california-1400-touring-ambassador-review-91469.html

Programmable ECU ?

[Kev m]

http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/2013-moto-guzzi-california-1400-touring-ambassador-review-91469.html

Programmable ECU ?

Some of you guys just don't pay attention lol  :P

There are 3 different ECU maps the rider can select, basically differences in fueling, timing and traction control.

I think they're called something like touring, sport/speed, and wet or similar terms.

Selections are made through the instrument cluster and one report said the starter switch but maybe that was a typo.

[LowRyter]

I'm seeing it priced at 4000 pounds more than the Stelvio in England.. that would put it well into Beemer and Harley country.

really more on an alternative to a Gold Wing or an Electra Glide.

[guzzisteve]

I was reading the online workshop man today to get an idea of things. The 1st rear drive oil change is @ 40,000km, that's 25,000mi. The drive shaft looks like it's from a car.  The exhaust has a flexible piece right before muffler for the engine shaking on rubber mounts.

And in the heads, Hydraulic Tappet Rollers!!!! OH MY an 8V Hydro motor.  How many fixes will this one need?

[Moto]

Cycle World gets in its first unfair kick:

"7. Moto Guzzi California 1400
This large bike, available in Touring and Custom versions, traces its lineage to 1970, when the LAPD chose
the Moto Guzzi V7 Police over Harley and the Japanese to be the agency’s patrol bike. Now, more than 40
years later, we get the California 1400, considered by many to be the star of EICMA. Taking center stage is its air-cooled, 1380cc V-Twin, which features a Y-shaped manifold with long runners that help it produce 96 hp and 88.5 ft.-lb. of torque at only 2750 rpm—quite helpful in an 843-pound machine. Officers Malloy and Reed of Adam 12 fame would approve."

The stated weight is exactly 100 lbs above what Guzzi claims: 337 kg "kerb weight (fully equipped)" = 743 pounds, not 843. I can't help thinking this is not an innocent error, but a little snipe meant to help set first impressions against Guzzi because of its meager advertising budget. Call me cynical.

Here's the url:  http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/11/20/ten-new-motorcycles-to-ride-in-2013/

[Chicago Mark]

Maybe it's just a typo,

Mark

[racergary]

Cycle World itself is a typo

take that dumbo's

[youcanrunnaked]

Cycle World gets in its first unfair kick...

The stated weight is exactly 100 lbs above what Guzzi claims: 337 kg "kerb weight (fully equipped)" = 743 pounds, not 843. I can't help thinking this is not an innocent error, but a little snipe meant to help set first impressions against Guzzi because of its meager advertising budget. Call me cynical.

Here's the url:  http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/11/20/ten-new-motorcycles-to-ride-in-2013/

The whole article reads like it was written by a 14-year-old.  Malloy and Reed didn't ride motorcycles, either.

[bpreynolds]

Other than getting the weight wrong I think it is a relatively flattering blurb.

[blackcat]

Title of Cycle World article:
TEN NEW MOTORCYCLES WE’RE DYING TO RIDE IN 2013

[ohiorider]

I wish their article was correct.  If so, the new California would be an amazing machine indeed!

Taking center stage is its air-cooled, 1380cc V-Twin, which features a Y-shaped manifold with long runners that help it produce 96 hp and 88.5 ft.-lb. of torque at only 2750 rpm

As I recall, the formula for determining hp, if the torque and rpm are known, is:
hp=torque (in ft lb) x rpm
                    5255

What it works out to is:
(88.5 x 2750) / 5255 = 46.31hp

She'll have to be spinning considerably faster to generate 96hp,  CW seems to be loose and easy with their data in this write-up.

[LowRyter]

I am not sure if you are questioning the HP figures or just the grammar. 

The HP is at considerably higher RPMs.  I believe at 6500.

[ohiorider]

I am not sure if you are questioning the HP figures or just the grammar. 

The HP is at considerably higher RPMs.  I believe at 6500.

Questioning the article's implication that 96hp is developed at 2750rpm.  Of course it is probably just a small omission that escaped a proof reader.

[Kev m]

They obviously got the weight wrong AND forgot a comma....nothing to see here, move along.

[Mad Mac]

I think Kevin Ash of The Telegraph likes it.

"The Touring comes closer to the California’s traditional role as a Euro cruiser, styled on classic custom lines after Harley-Davidson but with superior handling, ride and higher-speed cruising ability."

[youcanrunnaked]

^^^  Nice first look.  The comments about fuel economy and range are peculiar, though.

First, the fuel capacity is 5.55 US gals., not 4.5 gals.  However, the range the author quoted for a 30 mpg consumption rate is correct for 5.55 gals.  Strange.

More strange is that 30 mpg figure.  That is terrible gas mileage.  Maybe the engine was very tight; Guzzis have a notoriously long break-in period, over which fuel consumption usually improves.  Maybe the author just got his math wrong.

Moto Guzzi is quoting a 15% fuel economy improvement over the 1200 8V engine.  Is anybody seeing 30 mpg or less from their 8V Stelvios or Norges?  A 15% improvement in fuel economy should yield a consumption rate of around 45 mpg and a 250-mile range.

[Vasco DG]

The fact that this motor, or one essentially identical in the way it is cooled, has been around for over half a decade and the clowns at Cycle World still refer to it as 'Air Cooled' should tell you everything you need to know about their standard of 'Journalism'.

Pete

[Sheepdog]

As for the weight, Guzzi's claim of a 580 lb dry weight on my Vintage was pure fantasy.  It was off by over fifty lbs.  As has been suggested before, I guess we'll just have to wait to get some verifiable facts.

[youcanrunnaked]

As for the weight, Guzzi's claim of a 580 lb dry weight on my Vintage was pure fantasy.  It was off by over fifty lbs.  As has been suggested before, I guess we'll just have to wait to get some verifiable facts.

You weighed your CalVin, dry?  The reason why I'm questioning this is because "dry" means: no fuel in the tank or anywhere in the system; no trace of oil anywhere in the bike -- engine, transmission, or driveline; no brake fluid anywhere in the system; no battery installed; no air in the tires; and no accessories, factory or otherwise.  Add all of those things to the bike, and it will easily increase the observed weight by more than 50 lbs.

I would say that for the CalVin, dry weight 580 lbs / wet weight 640 lbs, is about right.  Given the added size and extra equipment of the nuovo California, a 100 lb increase in weight is about what I'd expect (although I was hoping for maybe 30 or 40 lbs less).