EICMA 2015 - New V7 Roamer/Bobber and MGX-21 Bagger The photos are rolling in.

[Cam3512]

Why re-do the V7 line with an 850 engine? They seem to be selling about all they can make of them and their owners don't seem to mind the bike's 1960's performance stats.

Because there's an untapped market of potential  "more power" customers out there.  Another 10 HP would get them off the fence.

[flip]

Because there's an untapped market of potential  "more power" customers out there.  Another 10 HP would get them off the fence.

I'm not a current small block lover but I'm not trying to be a troll either. Do you really think that those "more power" customers will be impressed with 50-52 rear wheel horse power?

[Cam3512]

The "brochure" already claims 50hp, so if they bump it up to 60-70 (8v), then yes I do.

[Dogwalker]

Any thoughts about how the bottom end of the small block might react to handling 60, maybe more hp?

There is no reason why the block can't handle 60, or even 100 hp if it's for this. The design is solid (the blocks of many engines, even a lot more powerful, are cut in half on the crankshaft bearings) and, what eventually proves to be not apt, can easily be reinforced.
Is sufficient to see what happened to the Ducati Pantah block, that (other than being used in the air cooled Ducs still today) had been used in the liquid-cooled Ducati sportsbikes until the 122 hp 996 SP (and in much more powerful SBKs).

[bpreynolds]

Because there's an untapped market of potential  "more power" customers out there.  Another 10 HP would get them off the fence.

So for a whopping 10 or slightly more horsepower, I'm ready to give up incredible tank range and efficiency?  Not me, but the reality of your statement is likely true.  People on the fence and in the peanut gallery - a large portion who have never ridden the bike or spent more thana 10 miles on it - would probably feel encouragement to buy or then move on to their next gripe for not buying one. 

There's a whole other thread to be had discussing what "progress" looks like when it comes to revamping and/or engineering new bikes.  I was skeptical when Guzzi first introduced traction control and abs on the V7 line; however, at least it represents forward thinking beyond the "more power" option that seems to get priority with most motorcycle development.

[Kev m]

Why redo the line?

Because continual improvements are how you stay competitive.

Hell, even on this very board we've got something like maybe half a dozen people who have owned both a 2TB smallblock and a 1TB smallblock, or even a 1TB V7 and a 1TB V7II.

So for a whopping 10 or slightly more horsepower, I'm ready to give up incredible tank range and efficiency?

Why do we assume that this will necessarily happen?

Jenn's M696 - 408# wet, 67 rwghp / 44 torques - REGULARLY gets 55+ mpg with her (manages to at least match V7 mpg with me on it, meaning a low around 48 mpg).

[bpreynolds]

Why redo the line?

Because continual improvements are how you stay competitive.

Hell, even on this very board we've got something like maybe half a dozen people who have owned both a 2TB smallblock and a 1TB smallblock, or even a 1TB V7 and a 1TB V&II.

Why do we assume that this will necessarily happen.

Jenn's M696 - 408# wet, 67 rwghp / 44 torques - REGULARLY gets 55+ mpg with her (manages to at least match V7 mpg with me on it, meaning a low around 48 mpg).

I agree mostly with ya.  Sit on the sidelines too long in the power wars and you become what, the current Norge and Stelvio?   

As per the mpg numbers, you are correct there are a lot of bikes out there that get good mpg and still have more power than the V7.  I hope they can do it.  I know the mpg numbers went down with the Cali 1400 as opposed to the 1100s but that was an altogether radical redesign of the bike and maybe this increase in displacement for the V7 not so dramatic. 

[Kev m]

As per the mpg numbers, you are correct there are a lot of bikes out there that get good mpg and still have more power than the V7.  I hope they can do it.  I know the mpg numbers went down with the Cali 1400 as opposed to the 1100s but that was an altogether radical redesign of the bike and maybe this increase in displacement for the V7 not so dramatic.

The Cali wasn't just a redesign, it might as well have been a whole new bike.

And that bike was 100-150# heavier than the previous name holder, yet the power-to-weight ratio still went down (fewer #'s per hp) because not only did the engine size increase some 300cc's but power output increased at least 20%.

So yeah, you should have expected to lose SOME MPG, but reports claim on average it may not have been THAT much. I mean, my Jackal usually got around 40 mpg...

[pyoungbl]

I suspect that a change to 4 valve heads alone would have no impact on real world fuel mileage.  The engines operate mostly in the 3-4.5K rpm range where the current 2 valve Heron head design is actually OK.  The real benefit of more valves will be seen as the rpm goes up and the head is able to breathe better.  More flow = more fuel being burned.  You should see better acceleration for passing on a hill, something the current V7 lacks.  I'd hate to see the small block suddenly gain 100# due to changes in the drive train driven by more power. 

Peter Y.

[blackcat]

I'd hate to see the small block suddenly gain 100# due to changes in the drive train driven by more power. 

Peter Y.

I wonder what the current drive train is capable of handling?

[sib]

Why redo the line?

Because continual improvements are how you stay competitive.

Hell, even on this very board we've got something like maybe half a dozen people who have owned both a 2TB smallblock and a 1TB smallblock, or even a 1TB V7 and a 1TB V7II.

Why do we assume that this will necessarily happen?

Jenn's M696 - 408# wet, 67 rwghp / 44 torques - REGULARLY gets 55+ mpg with her (manages to at least match V7 mpg with me on it, meaning a low around 48 mpg).

I'm one of those who had a '13 V7 and now have a '16 V7-II.  For me, simply more HP would NOT be an improvement.  Instead, I'll take less weight, better MPG, ability to use lower octane fuel, longer intervals between oil changes, and/or user-selectable multiple fuel maps.  Maybe I'm lighter than some of you folks, but I seem to have adequate power to pass on hills.  YMMV.

[Travlr]

My BMW F800R is around 75 hp.  I filled up yesterday: 3.3 gallon at 208 miles.  63 mpg.   

Mike

[MGPilot]

... For me, simply more HP would NOT be an improvement.  Instead, I'll take less weight, better MPG, ability to use lower octane fuel, longer intervals between oil changes, .....  YMMV.

I'm with this for the Stone.

I think there's a place for a light, engaging bike that is relatively simple and economical. After spending serious money over the years on speed and capabilities that I could rarely (or never) use, for this specific bike I want something that has enough power. I can't imagine where I would have been any safer or had any more fun with 10 extra hp....esp. if it drops the mpg.

On the other hand, if you wanted a hp increase as an add-on option, a kit that combines freer flowing intake/exhaust & a remap, etc. -- then, heck, go for 15-25 as an add-on, while leaving the base unit available.

[canuguzzi]

My BMW F800R is around 75 hp.  I filled up yesterday: 3.3 gallon at 208 miles.  63 mpg.   

Mike

MG would do well to attract more riders looking for something else other than the current models. There needs to be an influx of younger riders, new blood to revitalize sales.

If the ST market is supposedly going away it is strange that everyone else is going lighter but with an ST flavor to their bikes. What BMW is doing is a great example. It sure doesn't look like their F800 series are loss leaders.

[GuzziKevin]

I'm one of those who had a '13 V7 and now have a '16 V7-II.  For me, simply more HP would NOT be an improvement.  Instead, I'll take less weight, better MPG, ability to use lower octane fuel, longer intervals between oil changes, and/or user-selectable multiple fuel maps.  Maybe I'm lighter than some of you folks, but I seem to have adequate power to pass on hills.  YMMV.

Maybe I should ask this in a new thread but I'm curious why you upgraded to the 2016 V7-II? I have a 2013 Stone and have been thinking about a 2016 in the spring, mostly for the ABS.

But I'm in no rush, still waiting to see those Guzzi spy shots...

[ohiorider]

MG would do well to attract more riders looking for something else other than the current models. There needs to be an influx of younger riders, new blood to revitalize sales.

If the ST market is supposedly going away it is strange that everyone else is going lighter but with an ST flavor to their bikes. What BMW is doing is a great example. It sure doesn't look like their F800 series are loss leaders.

True enough ..... and of course, the new R1200RS is now on showroom floors.  BMW goes thru this every so often .... now you see it, now you don't.  However, even during the years when the boxer RS was not being produced, BMW kept a flying brick RS in the mix for several years.  My first Beemer was a 1985 K100RS.  My last RS was a 1999 K1200RS.  There were a few other K/RS bikes in between.

I've said it before, I think one of the reasons I really enjoy my 1200 Sport is the fact that if BMW had built a v twin RS, it would have been the 1200 Sport (IMO)

....... and where ARE the spy shots?

[Travlr]

3 of us have purchased 700cc/800cc bikes recently.  An F800R, a Tiger 800 and an NC700X.  All of us like Guzzi's, some of us own Guzzi's.  Guzzi should have been in the running.  They weren't.

Lack of power was an issue when I bought the F800, lack of an adventure model drove my buddy to the Tiger.  And price drove my other friend to the Honda. 

An updated V800 with more power and an adventure model would have put Guzzi in the running for 2 of those sales.  Not sure they could/should try to compete on price.

Mike 

[rocker59]

Here you go, boys...

Looks like it was inspired by Harley's "48" and the YamaStar Bolt.  Fat tires, new fuel tank, and bobbed rear fender.

Take a close look at the cylinder heads and valve covers

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2015/october/new-guzzi-v7-gets-chunky/





Obviously still a pre-production test bike, but looks pretty cool...
I think I like it !!!   

[Dogwalker]

I think there are still a lot of provisional pieces. A lot of exposed wiring, and I don't know if the tank is definitive.
Heads are a little higher (9 fins instead of 8) and the valve covers are a lot higher, like those ot the aeronautical V75.

[Lannis]

Here you go, boys...

Looks like it was inspired by Harley's "48".  Fat tires, new fuel tank, and bobbed rear fender.

Take a close look at the cylinder heads and valve covers

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2015/october/new-guzzi-v7-gets-chunky/





Obviously still a pre-production test bike, but looks pretty cool...
I think I like it !!!

I like it too except I think they're making the same mistake that many of us have made in the past - putting on big, fat tires that make the bike "look better" while making handling worse.    Harley and Indian did it originally with 5.00 x 16" tires instead of the 4.00 x 18" that they had once, and impacted the handling of their bikes for the worse - I did it on my Loopframe, installing the fattest tires that would fit in the frame, instead of the narrower ones that handled much better ....

Lannis

[LowRyter]

do you think those are different valve covers or new heads?

[rocker59]

do you think those are different valve covers or new heads?

Looks like new heads, to me.

[Cam3512]

Still looks cobbled together.  Doubt that's the final body work, especially (hopefully) the tank.

Heads look beefy.

[Murray]

Here you go, boys...

 but looks pretty cool...
I think I like it !!!

Emehgaud I can't think of words to describe the ugly, looks like its got bugger all suspension travel to boot, what pretty much killed the 48 here, well it might still be available you couldn't give the things away second hand though.

[Kev m]

Still looks cobbled together.  Doubt that's the final body work, especially (hopefully) the tank.

Heads look beefy.

^ this

I'll wait to pass judgment, but I'm less optimistic all of a sudden.

Emehgaud I can't think of words to describe the ugly, looks like its got bugger all suspension travel to boot, what pretty much killed the 48 here, well it might still be available you couldn't give the things away second hand though.

The 48 is popular enough here that it was one of only 2 Sportster models to get an update for 2016.

If memory serves, that included new suspension (cartridge fork, and new shocks, and possibly more travel).

[rocker59]

  bugger all suspension travel to boot, what pretty much killed the 48 here

Where?  "48" is one of the best selling bikes in the Harley lineup.

[rocker59]

The bike is obviously cobbed-up.  A pre-production bike.  But, there are many details to see.  And many parts that are proprietary, and will likely see production.

-The fuel tank.  I've got news for you.  You don't cob up a steel fuel tank to that degree of finish.  My money says that's the new 850 Audace fuel tank.  And, unfortunately, I'll bet it's @ 3.5 gallons.

Noticeable changed parts:
-the exhaust
-The wheels
-The speedo
-The headlight mount
-The front fender
-The rear fender
-the footpeg mounts and foot levers
-the rear frame rails, behind the shock mounts

There are still some unused tabs on the frame.  And there are no side covers.  The rear tail light/license plate is taped and bungeed.  The bike has nasty black primer on it.

I think this may be closer to a production bike than some of you want to believe.

And going after the mid-size standard cruiser customer is not a bad plan. 

[Kev m]

The bike is obviously cobbed-up.  A pre-production bike.  But, there are many details to see.  And many parts that are proprietary, and will likely see production.

-The fuel tank.  I've got news for you.  You don't cob up a steel fuel tank to that degree of finish.  My money says that's the new 850 Audace fuel tank.  And, unfortunately, I'll bet it's @ 3.5 gallons.

Noticeable changed parts:
-the exhaust
-The wheels
-The speedo
-The headlight mount
-The front fender
-The rear fender
-the footpeg mounts and foot levers
-the rear frame rails, behind the shock mounts

There are still some unused tabs on the frame.  And there are no side covers.  The rear tail light/license plate is taped and bungeed.  The bike has nasty black primer on it.

I think this may be closer to a production bike than some of you want to believe.

And going after the mid-size standard cruiser customer is not a bad plan.

I fear you're right.

BUT, as much as there has been a surge of interest in mid-size bikes (sport, sport tourer, adventure, standard, even classic), the ONE PLACE WHERE I DON'T THINK MID-SIZE IS GROWING is "CRUISER".

There's a reason BMW pulled out of the cruiser market when they did, they said that "1200cc wasn't enough to be competitive".

The only reason Harley came out with a 750 and 500 was for foreign markets, not because they felt "mid size cruiser" was a growth area in the US. Hell, they're down to only 2 models of the 883, while they still have 4 variants of the 1200. Then the rest of their line is up in the 1.7-1.9L range.

Think about that - the ONE audience that is traditionally just plain stupid about not understanding engine size and only assuming that bigger is better IS THE CRUISER CROWD.

I dunno...

[Murray]

Where?  "48" is one of the best selling bikes in the Harley lineup.

Western Australia the land where 9 litre tanks on anything but a scooter are !@#$ing useless and crap suspension is umm crap.

[tonUPRacer]

Well in some ways I can understand this approach if they are going to continue with the current V7 lineup (Scrambler, Stone, Racer). This bike becomes the "little cruiser" if you don't want the 1400. I'm not saying I like it, but I understand it. My wish would've been closer to Kev's and others make a real Racer: USD forks, dual disks, maybe even kitted with the Record fairing. Alas, we get fat tires and 4V.