New V9 Moto Guzzi Roamer love/hate fest

[Kev m]

Cheers, bit marginal though I like riding not looking for service stations.

Marginal? Really. Isn't that about what the V7C has before the metal tank?

I mean, I'm with you and Rocker in that I love my 5.8 on the Stone, but 4.4 isn't bad, especially if it still gets 45-50 mpg and most of that is usable.

[jas67]

The Griso is still on the motoguzzi.com and motoguzzi-us.com web sites.

As a 2015, right?

Perhaps, it doesn't specify.

The V7 Special is no longer on the site, even thought there was a 2015 V7 Special.
I don't remember, did we get a V7II Special?

I find it sad that the V7 Special is no longer available, and that you can't get gloss paint on the Stone.   I like my bikes shiny.

55HP, 45 FP Torque

Regretfully unimpressive

 :1:

But, that's OK, because, I can remain happy with my two V7's and not covet a new V9.

[Kev m]

As a 2015, right?


Perhaps, it doesn't specify.

The V7 Special is no longer on the site, even thought there was a 2015 V7 Special.
I don't remember, did we get a V7II Special?

I find it sad that the V7 Special is no longer available, and that you can't get gloss paint on the Stone.   I like my bikes shiny.

 :1:

But, that's OK, because, I can remain happy with my two V7's and not covet a new V9.

Today's ride (and conversation) did remind me how much I like the overall performance (power, efficiency, range, handling, feel) of the current V7.

I'll always consider another bike, adding to the fleet.

But like I said earlier today, maybe the 1TB V7 is my Airhead and I'll stop here...

[rboe]

While people still, but to a lesser degree, ride what they have for what ever task comes up; those that like to tour, buy a touring bent bike. Not the V9.

Town riders, day riders, the V9 is the cats' meow.

Then there are those of us with more than one bike; we can simply choose the proper bike for the ride. If you insist on taking the V9 on a tour, well then, you simply accept what ever short comings it may have and compensate for them.

Now if it gets good mileage, the tank may be just fine thank you. 

But before we hand wring about the tank size, I think we need to see if we'd even consider buying one.

[motrhead]

In other news, Maserati just revealed their latest offering. Rich Italian heritage, passion and excellence all combined in this automotive piece of art...

 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...I would love to have another (new) 240 Volvo like that. I've done a good million km in a couple myself.
 I don't mind the Romer...just want a scrambler version much more!

[wymple]

Looks like a jazzed up V65C to me, and I like it. Not likely I'd go more than a couple hundred miles on it for a day's ride tho.

[Sasquatch Jim]

 Volvos looked like the same box from the late 60s through the 80s.
 What I don't see on that one is the Volvo circle and arrow icon on the grill.
 is it removed?

[oldbike54]

Volvos looked like the same box from the late 60s through the 80s.
 What I don't see on that one is the Volvo circle and arrow icon on the grill.
 is it removed?

 It's there Jim .

  Dusty

[Murray]

Marginal? Really. Isn't that about what the V7C has before the metal tank?

 but 4.4 isn't bad, especially if it still gets 45-50 mpg

It most likely won't not sure what the current 8 valvers are currently doing the 1100spot does about 33-36 (US gallons BTW) not pushing it along start pushing it along and that will drop to 24ish without much hesitation. We've done some welding to the tank of the spot its out to about 5.8 US gallons. Thats quiet workable I don't really give a rats if its done through more efficiency or simply a bigger fuel tank although generally if you want more HP too, make no mistake I want, then generally you have to feed it more fuel. 200km range when riding in a "sportsman like manner" with some reserve is what I consider reasonable anything else around needs needs lots of planning ahead. I do remember a big trip I did some years ago on a stock spot and having to stop at short intervals and put some tiny amount of fuel in because the thing didn't have the range to skip that place and make the next one.

[Vasco DG]

Ridden *Normally* my G12 will go 5 litres per hundred. More enthusiasm and it'll drop to six. Flat maggot? Pick a number.

Pete

[boatdetective]

The sad thing to me is that the press response is going to be so predictable:
After years of pointing out that the V7 Achilles heal is a lack of power- they give us only 10 more hp? There are plenty of bikes out there that will burp out that increase just by changing exhaust and mapping.

The suspension is going to be really cheap. I mean bottom of the barrel, "we don't even make stuff like this anymore" cheap. The response, once again, will be that the bike is limited when things heat up.

The tank- well, you can guess. It's going to have a range of something like 75 miles.

Taken together, the press will damn the bike through faint praise. While giving a nod to heritage and character, they'll say that the bike is best suited for "roaming" around town to the local coffee shop.

Truly great design paves new ground and takes some chances- look at the Griso and 1400. This design is derivative and hopes to lure in people who (for some reason) like the "bobber" look. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it was designed by the marketing department who have determined it is a hipster magnet.

[Kev m]

It most likely won't not sure what the current 8 valvers are currently doing the 1100spot does about 33-36 (US gallons BTW) not pushing it along start pushing it along and that will drop to 24ish without much hesitation.

My B11 got 38 mpg at WORST but was capable of as high as 45.

Repirts are this is still a 2V smallblock and they still probably weighs nearly 100# less than a CARC 4V or 8V and makes half the Hp of the 8V.

So shouldn't the mpg be much closer to that of the other smallblocks which are getting 45-55 mpg based on use?

[Kev m]

The sad thing to me is that the press response is going to be so predictable:
After years of pointing out that the V7 Achilles heal is a lack of power- they give us only 10 more hp? There are plenty of bikes out there that will burp out that increase just by changing exhaust and mapping.

And initial report is 5, not even 10.

[Loftness]

The V7 Special is no longer on the site, even thought there was a 2015 V7 Special.
I don't remember, did we get a V7II Special?

I find it sad that the V7 Special is no longer available, and that you can't get gloss paint on the Stone.   I like my bikes shiny.

 :1:

But, that's OK, because, I can remain happy with my two V7's and not covet a new V9.

The 'Special' is still there...it's just been re-badged as a V7II Scrambler/Special.

[Murray]

My B11 got 38 mpg at WORST but was capable of as high as 45.

Repirts are this is still a 2V smallblock and they still probably weighs nearly 100# less than a CARC 4V or 8V and makes half the Hp of the 8V.

So shouldn't the mpg be much closer to that of the other smallblocks which are getting 45-55 mpg based on use?

With possible on of the biggest cams ever fitted by the factory to a two valver and some big slurpy FCR flat slides and without the advantages of dual plugs not a hop on anything that would be described as a regular basis. If you are really kind you might crack 40's the B11 engine tune was pretty tame by comparison.

[Kev m]

With possible on of the biggest cams ever fitted by the factory to a two valver and some big slurpy FCR flat slides and without the advantages of dual plugs not a hop on anything that would be described as a regular basis. If you are really kind you might crack 40's the B11 engine tune was pretty tame by comparison.

Where are you getting this information?

Reportedly this thing only makes 55 hp at the crank while my V7 makes 50 hp there (maybe that's 45 and 40 RWHP by comparison).

WHY would that make SUCH a difference in fueling so as to make it less efficient than my 75 (RWHP) and 100# heavier B11?

[Dogwalker]

My B11 got 38 mpg at WORST but was capable of as high as 45.

Repirts are this is still a 2V smallblock and they still probably weighs nearly 100# less than a CARC 4V or 8V and makes half the Hp of the 8V.

So shouldn't the mpg be much closer to that of the other smallblocks which are getting 45-55 mpg based on use?

Mind that 17 l is the tank of the Alba (since that was the queston). I don't know how big is the tank of the v9.

My guess for the V9 however is 16 l / 4.2 gallons. The tank seemed pretty wide in the spy shots. and 16 l is the dimension of the tank of the old SB standard bikes.

[bad Chad]

Reportedly where?

[Murray]

Where are you getting this information?

Reportedly this thing only makes 55 hp at the crank while my V7 makes 50 hp there (maybe that's 45 and 40 RWHP by comparison).

WHY would that make SUCH a difference in fueling so as to make it less efficient than my 75 (RWHP) and 100# heavier B11?

I'm talking about my 1100 sport and the fuel range I get out of it and what I want out of the Alba, yes I want more power out of my 1100 sport, 7 pages you must expect some thread drift, i'm really really not interested in a cruiser of any variety including the latest version.

[jas67]

The 'Special' is still there...it's just been re-badged as a V7II Scrambler/Special.

For $1,600 more than the Special with a high pipe that I, for one, among others, wouldn't want, so that is even more money to get different headers and mufflers.
I don't see why they can't offer both.   The Special was already vetted for EPA complience, so, it isn't like they had to get a different bike certified.

[jas67]

This design is derivative and hopes to lure in people who (for some reason) like the "bobber" look. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it was designed by the marketing department who have determined it is a hipster magnet.

The bobber and "brat" look (Roamer) are popular among the Hipster crowd.   A lot of Honda CB's and Yamaha XS650's get modified by their owners for one of these two looks.   Moto Guzzi are offering that crowd a new bike with that look out of the box.   It isn't my thing, but, if it brings more buyers to the brand, then it is a good thing IMHO.     I'm not a cruiser guy either, but, the fact that MG builds and sells cruisers, helps keep them around so that they can build bikes I like (like the V7).

You gotta think that MG aren't going to show all their cards before the opening of EIMCA.     Who knows, maybe they'll unveil a V9 Racer with USD forks at the show.

IIRC, I read that the torque peak of this 850 comes in a 3,000 RPM.    Yeah, the peak HP is only 5 more than the V7.   The weight is to be the same or a little more than the V7.    With a torque peak that low, the 850 will be quicker where the bike is ridden, and feel stronger.   While not a huge improvement, I'll bet it is quite noticeable.     Heck, the 1TB V7 motor wasn't rated any higher in peak HP than the 2TB.  I've owned both bikes (one 2TB, and now two 1TB).     I definitely like the 1TB motor better.  It has more low end torque, and a broader torque curve overall.

The V7 is a great seller for MG.   I predict that the V9 motor finds its way into the V7 line.   Maybe not this year, but soon.    The V7 motor may not meet Euro 5 standards that come into effect for 2017.   I'll be the V9 motor does.   And, maybe that is why it is only 5 HP more.    A V7 motor that meets Euro 5 might only be 45 HP.

And, I'll say it again.   The style of these two V9 bikes might not appeal to the old geezers on this forum, but, like Cadillac when they came out with their new, edgy look, several years ago, MG is trying top appeal to a younger crowd.    Kudos to them for trying, I hope it pays off.

For now, and many years to come, I'm going to enjoy the two V7's that I have.

[pyoungbl]

IIRC, I read that the torque peak of this 850 comes in a 3,000 RPM.    Yeah, the peak HP is only 5 more than the V7.   

Looking at the dyno run from my single TB V7 I see the max torque of 39 ft-lb at about 2700 rpm.  Torque dips to about 35.5 at 4K and then stays between 35 and 37 up to 5700 rpm.  Overall the torque curve is pretty flat.  All this with a Rexxer map.  The stock map had almost the same max torque at the same rpm but there was a big dip starting at about 3.5K rpm.  Since the absolute numbers are pretty small, what looks like a huge dip is actually only down to 34 ft-lbs but that's still 13%.  My point is that the V7 already had torque at 3K rpm so the extra 100cc is not significant.

I'm with Leafman60 on this.  I just can't see enough change here to justify the R&D expense for something that will only sell, maybe, 1000 units per year.  That's based on 7K units worldwide for all Guzzi models, 50% were V7 so that's 3.5K, V9 Roamer would have to suck up 1/3 of the V7 market.  The only justification I can see is if the V7 fails to meet the new emission standards and the V9 does.  If that's the case we can kiss the V7 goodbye and expect a broader range of V9's in '17.

Peter Y.

[Chuck in Indiana]

The only justification I can see is if the V7 fails to meet the new emission standards and the V9 does.  If that's the case we can kiss the V7 goodbye and expect a broader range of V9's in '17.

That's my thought, too, Peter..

[jas67]

The only justification I can see is if the V7 fails to meet the new emission standards and the V9 does.  If that's the case we can kiss the V7 goodbye and expect a broader range of V9's in '17.

That's my thought, too, Peter..

 :1: :1: :1:

And, it is likely that the only way they could meet emissions without loss of performance was to increase the displacement.

[Kev m]

That's my thought, too, Peter..


 :1: :1: :1:

And, it is likely that the only way they could meet emissions without loss of performance was to increase the displacement.

That's a play from the book of Harley... after the 1340cc EVO they lost their friggin' minds. From 1999-present (just a short decade and a half) the TC motor grew from 1442cc to 1573cc to 1687cc to now 1802cc.

And it's not like it was about HP.

Part of it was simple over-compensation, but the rest was probably about emissions.

[oldbike54]

That's a play from the book of Harley... after the 1340cc EVO they lost their friggin' minds. From 1999-present (just a short decade and a half) the TC motor grew from 1442cc to 1573cc to 1687cc to now 1802cc.

And it's not like it was about HP.

Part of it was simple over-compensation, but the rest was probably about emissions.

 The Norton Commando grew from 750 CC's to 850 CC's for that very reason , as largely did the Triumph go from a 650 CC engine to a 750 CC engine .

  Dusty

[Kev m]

The Norton Commando grew from 750 CC's to 850 CC's for that very reason , as largely did the Triumph go from a 650 CC engine to a 750 CC engine .

  Dusty

The difference being that the Norton and Trumpets were still pretty reasonable in size.

I have a CAR MOTOR that's smaller than current BT motors, actually I've had THREE CARS WITH MOTORS SMALLER THAN THE CURRENT BT... Four if you count the 1.8T VW that was still smaller than at least the biggest of the current Harley motors.

That's ridiculous.

[oldbike54]

The difference being that the Norton and Trumpets were still pretty reasonable in size.

I have a CAR MOTOR that's smaller than current BT motors, actually I've had THREE CARS WITH MOTORS SMALLER THAN THE CURRENT BT... Four if you count the 1.8T VW that was still smaller than at least the biggest of the current Harley motors.

That's ridiculous.

 Oh I agree that MC engines have become stupid big , although for 5 seconds or so a Rocket 3 under full throttle allows the rider to see creation    My point was that a displacement bump allowing a detune to meet emission regs isn't new .

  Dusty

[Kev m]

Oh I agree that MC engines have become stupid big , although for 5 seconds or so a Rocket 3 under full throttle allows the rider to see creation    My point was that a displacement bump allowing a detune to meet emission regs isn't new .

  Dusty

I get that, but I guess I'm saying it's been taken to extremeness by HD. Maybe I should have said, they've taken it to an art form lol.

Oh and yeah, I enjoyed demo of an RIII, but I'd never buy one and not because the bike itself is too big.

[oldbike54]

I get that, but I guess I'm saying it's been taken to extremeness by HD. Maybe I should have said, they've taken it to an art form lol.

Oh and yeah, I enjoyed demo of an RIII, but I'd never buy one and not because the bike itself is too big.

 No way could I afford the gas and tires an R3 consumes 

 Yeah , the displacement wars remind me of the 1960's battle between the big 3 , and the AMC . "Go ahead and build a 440 , we'll build a 454" 

  Dusty