Author Topic: California Vintage 15rc fuel map assistance (Read 15204 times)

antmanbee · « **on:** August 26, 2016, 07:25:13 PM »

On my 07 Cal Vin I have been playing with Guzzidiag and Tunerpro to see if I can get the Cal Vin to run as smooth as my old T3 or Convert did at lower RPMs.
The Cal Vin pulls really strong above 3500 but bucks and coughs occasionally in the 1500 to 3000 range. When riding in town I want to keep the RPMs a bit lower especially since it is geared so tall compared to the T3.
I have stripped most of the excess weight off the bike, like the windscreen, bags, mounting hardware, rear crash bars, driving lights and all the cover plates that cover the lovely Tonti frame. I haven't weighed all the stuff I took off but I bet it's 50lbs.
So far I have backed up the ECU map and and shut off the O2 sensor and re flashed the ECU. I don't know if I have to reinvent the wheel and tweak my map and experiment or if someone has maps to share that are already dialed in for the Cal Vin dual plug head engine.
Besides the weight removal I have removed the airbox. I know there is some controversy regarding this, but I hate that airbox. It blocks everything and makes it difficult to service and looks terrible.
I have left the velocity stacks that went into the airbox intact. I also removed the canister and redid the plumbing.
I bought the bike not running due to a poor repair at a Harley shop that didn't know Guzzis. They had replaced a submersible fuel hose inside the tank with a hose that was not made to be a submersible hose and it was all swelled and leaking. I fixed that and relocated the filter outside the tank.
I have balanced the throttle bodies and set the TPS, and replaced the plugs and plug caps with NGKs and adjusted the valves.
All in all it runs OK but I am not happy with the low RPM performance.
So if anyone has any advice or maps to share or recommend, I would very much appreciate it.
I have included a few pictures of some of the mods I have done and the bad hose.

fotoguzzi · « **Reply #1 on:** August 26, 2016, 07:50:40 PM »

other than noise I think your air filter is fine.. good to save the venturi tubes. what's the red filter?
did you cap off the manifold ports after removing the evap canister? or run a link hose between them? or is the red filter connected to that? if so you have a vacuum leak..
the lower rev's can be smoothed out, my Bassa ran perfect in slow mode.. (and High)..
what is the trim set at? not sure what it's called in Guzzidiag but there was a fuel trim setting on VDST that helped me dial in the Bassa.. (15M)

fotoguzzi · « **Reply #2 on:** August 26, 2016, 07:58:06 PM »

Um, you do know not to lug a Guzzi motor? It's not like a Harley having all the torq below 3500 rpm..

antmanbee · « **Reply #3 on:** August 26, 2016, 08:15:05 PM »

I still use the in-frame breather. The filter is just there so that any air that may get sucked into the frame and crankcase is filtered. It is attached to the line that went to the canister. I blocked the 2 vacuum fittings on the manifolds.
Is the trim you are referring to the mixture screw on the ECU? the 15rc does not have that as far as I know.
I think Guzzidiag has a function for adjusting mixture. I think it's called CO trim.
I'm not sure but I think if I adjust the CO trim it affects the whole RPM range, when I may only need to modify the fuel map at certain RPMs.

fotoguzzi · « **Reply #4 on:** August 26, 2016, 08:19:52 PM »

look into that cause yes the CO trim is what I was meaning to say..
you need Paul or others to answer this thread..

antmanbee · « **Reply #5 on:** August 26, 2016, 08:26:09 PM »

I had one other question too.
I still have 1 or 2 H-crossover pipes from a Convert or T3 buried somewhere in my garage. Are these a direct replacement to the Cal Vin crossover? I don't need the O2 sensor.

Thanks

fotoguzzi · « **Reply #6 on:** August 26, 2016, 08:28:48 PM »

the headers might be larger OD? on the Cal Vin.. not sure but if it fits it would be an excellent replacement for the middle muffler..

antmanbee · « **Reply #7 on:** August 26, 2016, 08:37:19 PM »

I guess I could measure the diameter of the pipes (if I can find it), but I was also concerned about the length front to back and the width if they were marginally different. I'd hate to pull it apart to find a minor difference that would prevent it from fitting.

lazlokovacs · « **Reply #8 on:** August 27, 2016, 08:26:32 AM »

^antmanbee

got the measurements of your t3 crossover?

I can check it against the stock cali vintage crossover thats spare in my garage

antmanbee · « **Reply #9 on:** August 27, 2016, 09:23:25 AM »

Thanks, Lazlo

I will dig out the H pipe this afternoon. It is buried in my garage in a box.

Lazlo, I think I remember reading in a couple of threads that you have some experience with modified ECU maps. Do you have any recommendations?

Sheepdog · « **Reply #10 on:** August 27, 2016, 09:56:55 AM »

I had really good results by just having my wrench upload the latest FI map. The low speed performance (like taking off from a stop) was terrible as stock, making clutch modulation difficult. I still get a bit of pinging if I am not careful with my clutch, but the updated map made a huge difference.

LowRyter · « **Reply #11 on:** August 27, 2016, 10:16:35 AM »

I am among the least mechanically minded folks here. You've taken off the airbox and opened up the exhaust, aren't these the kind of mods that increase top end power by sacrificing bottom end torque?

No doubt a tune might might help but even in stock form these engines run better over 3500 rpm. You might consider changing the rear end with a performance gearing. I don't see how you can gain more low end with a tune other than fine tuning the available throttle response (how much available is the question).

antmanbee · « **Reply #12 on:** August 27, 2016, 10:44:55 AM »

Sheepdog,
I would like to try the latest map (.bin). Do you know where I can download it? That may be all I need. The bike runs pretty decent with good response above 3-3500. I just live in an area where the speed limit around town in many places is 25mph and I would like to have better low rpm response. I am not interested in lugging the engine on the open road, I just need smooth throttle response at lower rpm in town for low speed low power maneuvering.

Lowryter,
I am running the stock exhaust. I was considering changing the crossover pipe but have not done so yet. For me the purpose of that change would be ease of access to under the bike for maintenance. I don't need to gain more low end power, I just want smooth throttle response without any occasional bucking or backfire. The bike has already been tuned as outlined in my original post.

fotoguzzi · « **Reply #13 on:** August 27, 2016, 10:46:42 AM »

Quote from: LowRyter on August 27, 2016, 10:16:35 AM

I am among the least mechanically minded folks here. You've taken off the airbox and opened up the exhaust, aren't these the kind of mods that increase top end power by sacrificing bottom end torque?

No doubt a tune might might help but even in stock form these engines run better over 3500 rpm. You might consider changing the rear end with a performance gearing. I don't see how you can gain more low end with a tune other than fine tuning the available throttle response (how much available is the question).

my EVert had no problem after opening exhaust and pod filters.. could chug along very slow with smooth rev's all the way through..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gow4iwqwLJc

wish I had kept it..

antmanbee · « **Reply #14 on:** August 27, 2016, 11:16:35 AM »

Does anyone know if there is a hosted library with Guzzi ECU maps (.bin files) that can be shared, uploaded and downloaded? If there is not one it should be created. It could be categorized by ECU type, model, year, with a comment section where people who have tried it can give feedback on the maps, what was changed in the map from the factory map, and also list mods they have done to their bikes.

I have searched quite extensively and have not found anything.

lazlokovacs · « **Reply #15 on:** August 27, 2016, 12:16:48 PM »

^antmanbee

yes I have an opinion regarding the cali vintage maps based a lot on real world experience of 2 cali vintages. I fear it will not be popular.

In a nutshell,

1-I get 50mpg and my bike pulls like a train and practically never pinks if I run it with carbs instead of FI.

On the downside you get a stiffer throttle.

2-The Calvin airbox is a piece of junk.

according to some on this forum opening it up gets you no appreciable gains.

according to others running it with no lid is the way to go.

I had to change my main jet by 7 sizes to compensate for the difference between running the airbox and pods. I think that means its just a wee bit restrictive.

Running the airbox with no lid nets a horrific intake sound, loud enough to permanently damage your hearing, even with earplugs (mine are top of the range plugs moulded to fit my ears)

Decent pods (K&N V11 sport) are absolutely great, albeit a tight fit and give you a nice classic guzzi intake sound.

Of course, you have to change your fuel tank, (good opportunity to retrograde to a 24 litre tank) but apart from that there's really nothing to the conversion. The ECU will happily run your ignition and nothing else.

After 4 years of attempting to tune the marelli FI system on 2 different Calvins, including trying the expensive californian map option, I have to say that my bike never ran nearly as good as it does now on carbs. (to be fair you could tune it to run well, but I got about 31mpg in achieving that...)

FI SHOULD be better, but personally I ran out of patience. And as yet, there's no evidence of a Calvin returning decent mpg and performing well....

Oh, and on the calvin, your intake manifolds are stupidly narrow. spend a few happy hours with a dremel.

I'll run for cover now.

YMMV

Lazlo

antmanbee · « **Reply #16 on:** August 27, 2016, 12:46:54 PM »

Lazlo,

I appreciate your candid response. I doubt I have 4 years of patience. When I first got the bike I gave some thought to carbing it, but after getting it running it is not too bad with the FI, but not good enough. Logically it seems that FI should be able to be better. At this point I am going to give the FI some more effort, but I do miss the throttle response of my T3 with 30mm square slides.

I am not going back to the airbox ever. I like my setup with the UNI foam looped between the 2 stock velocity stacks. Easy and cheap. When it comes time to clean and re oil it, I can just toss it if I want because it was only $12-13 and replace it.

At this point I have no idea of my MPG as I only have about a hundred miles on it since getting it running. The power is really good above 3500, way stronger than my old T3. I think the Cal vin makes about 15 more HP and 20 ft lbs more torque.

What carbs do you run on yours?
Do you have the maps that you tried and were not quite right?

Mr Revhead · « **Reply #17 on:** August 27, 2016, 04:09:32 PM »

Following this with interest. My 03 EV is similar.
Very unusable between 2500-3000ish rpm. Give the local speed limit in town is about 2700 in 2nd it makes it very annoying to ride in town.
It also does the occasional splutter when running from idle to that rpm range. Like a miss.
Runs fine above 3000 but I can't ride around at 50kmh in first all the time.

LowRyter · « **Reply #18 on:** August 27, 2016, 04:24:00 PM »

my EV sputters and surges at low throttle cruising at 3k area. Especially when cold. I think it's an ignition ghost. It started with a bad TPS 3 years ago and despite lots of work, tune ups and improvement, it has never gone away.

antmanbee · « **Reply #19 on:** August 27, 2016, 07:39:39 PM »

I think the EVs use the 15m ecu. But it is likely that they have the same problem at lower RPMs from a similar map that is not quite right. If we can get a map that corrects the problem for either the 15rc or the 15m, it is likely that the maps can be compared and modified and fixed for both.

I recall reading in a guzzi thread somewhere that the ecu from an 1100 sport installed in an EV greatly improved the response.

fotoguzzi · « **Reply #20 on:** August 27, 2016, 07:58:05 PM »

Quote from: antmanbee on August 27, 2016, 07:39:39 PM

I recall reading in a guzzi thread somewhere that the ecu from an 1100 sport installed in an EV greatly improved the response.

I recall that too but can't remember much about it.. maybe a call to Moto International worth it?

something set wrong with your bikes guys, my 1999 Bassa (15M) could purr nicely at any revs..

antmanbee · « **Reply #21 on:** August 28, 2016, 09:48:44 AM »

I slightly modified my map in TunerPro only adjusting the ignition advance curve by retarding the timing about a degree across the rpm range between 1350 and 3000rpm. Raining here today so I have not had a chance to try it.

Sheepdog, do you have what you need to back up your latest map and share so I could compare to what I have?

dlapierre · « **Reply #22 on:** August 28, 2016, 10:41:52 AM »

I'm certainly no expert, but my 08' Cali runs fine at the rpm's everyone is concerned about here. I've always relied on these instructions:
http://www.bikeboy.org/tpssetting.html each time I do the tune routine.
Given the concerns, I wonder if point#9 in these instructions are relevant to your problem. It sounds as if some variation in MV adjustment might make a difference in lower rpm operation (assuming you are not using proper diagnostic software), perhaps because the engineering of the machine isn't completely accurate.
At any rate, I guess I'd be fiddling with this before making all the changes being discussed here. I know it worked for me after enduring the sputtering and farting at low rpm's when I first got the bike.

antmanbee · « **Reply #23 on:** August 28, 2016, 11:06:21 AM »

Step #9,

9/ Once you have 150mV with the throttle fully closed, wind the throttle stop screw (9) in again until you get the desired voltage for idle. The manuals give the reading in degrees of throttle opening, which you read via the diagnostic software. The spec is 3.2 to 3.6 degrees. Nominally, this corresponds to 486 to 528mV. The relationship is mV = (degrees x 105) + 150. Although, the ecu doesn’t always read this the same. No idea why. You might set the throttle stop screw to, say, 486mV, but via the diagnostics you’ll get 2.9 degrees instead of 3.2. Or 3.5. Just the way it is. I usually go by degrees, not mV.

Mine is adjusted to .515 by my DVOM and shows .470 in Guzzidiag. I don't recall the degrees in Guzzidiag. I'll recheck, but I think I would have noticed if it was off.

dlapierre,

Do you have the map (.bin file) from yours that you could send to me? Mine is an 07 and yours an 08, maybe the map was changed. I have no other maps to compare to.

lazlokovacs · « **Reply #24 on:** August 28, 2016, 11:55:22 AM »

I have literlly hundreds of itinerations of maps....

When I get a moment I'll dig through the notes and see if I can dig anything out for you.

Meinholf wrote an absolutely brilliant map for his cali, but it was running the older xdf format so not directly tranferable alas.

My carbs were pretty much spot on with the first common sense jetting I tried with a combination of whatever needles and jets I happened to have lying around. Useful still having the wideband sensor on there for carb tuning.

Another positive, I can now use 95 fuel, or the cheapest stuff they have,. wih the FI anything other than 98 would give the bike the screaming pinking heebie jeebies. And quite often bad old 98 is worse than good fresh 95.

Also, the v11 map is way too advanced for the dual plugged cali motor

good luck with it all... (or buy a griso and get beetles map on there if you want a FI guzzi, reputed to be excellent)

antmanbee · « **Reply #25 on:** August 28, 2016, 12:17:44 PM »

I have seen several threads with posts by Meinholf and he seem to have a very good understanding of all the parameters. Was his Cali a dual plug?
The tunerpro opens both xdf and bin. Is there not a way to transfer data from one to another or save as to a different format type?
I really appreciate you looking through your maps and notes to see what you can find.
What type/size carbs are you running?

dlapierre · « **Reply #26 on:** August 28, 2016, 12:45:37 PM »

I don't have any map. It's completely stock...the way it came.

lazlokovacs · « **Reply #27 on:** August 28, 2016, 06:11:43 PM »

I'm on dellorto PHM40s....

Mr Revhead · « **Reply #28 on:** August 28, 2016, 06:16:25 PM »

Does anyone know the rpm and/or throttle percentage where the map changes from closed loop to open loop? It seems to me, possibly, that the factory tune in closed loop on the O2 models is not as polished as it should be.
under 3000 rpm poor running seems to be a very common complaint. I just fitted an H pipe to mine, removing the cat. I've had limited chance to test it, but that seems to make the under 3000 rpm running WORSE. Now is that due to altering exhaust tuning? I doubt it. But what about the flow around the O2 sensor? Maybe...

Once I've done the TPS settings and balanced the TB's (PO was pretty on to that stuff though) I'm thinking I need to look at the O2 sensor operation.

antmanbee · « **Reply #29 on:** August 28, 2016, 08:26:14 PM »

What bike and ECU do you have? Most of the posts in other threads and forums by others that have O2 sensors and are modifying their maps, turn off the sensor with Tunerpro.
Definitely do your TPS and TB sync before anything else.

News:

Author Topic: California Vintage 15rc fuel map assistance (Read 15204 times)