V7 Racer: 2014 vs 2015 vs 2016..?

[majstevetrevor]

I posted a similar question on another board, and got some info, but am wondering if anyone here can say more.  My question is: What are the major differences between the above three years of the V7 Racer ('14 and '15 and '16)?  I am in the market for a Racer, and I test rode both the 2016 II and the 2017 III. To my surprise I liked the overall feel of the 2016 better, and I may just buy that bike.  But I have to admit I am sucker for the chrome tanks on the earlier years, and there are still some new or near-new 2015s and 2014s available that I might consider.

But, I am getting some unclear or conflicting info on the changes over these three years.  It is clear that the 2016 goes to a six-speed gearbox, and I think the 2015 does as well, whereas the 2014 is still a five-speed.  Also I think that the 2015 adds for the first time ABS and traction control, but there seems to be some disagreement on that. Seems like the 16 ups the horsepower from both the 14 and 15..?

Beyond these performance specs however, I am also interested in ergonomics. Any difference, does anyone know, in seating position, controls etc, between 14 and 15 and 16?  Has anyone ridden all three or, more likely, two of the three..?  If so, I would love some subjective comparison-feedback on feel and riding experience.    Or, just endorsements or criticisms of particular years.

   





Thanks!

[Perazzimx14]

If you willing to entertain a low mileage 1 owner 2012 V7R I am about 2 hours north of you in Chambersburg Pennsylvania.




free picture hosting sites


$5,250

[majstevetrevor]

If you willing to entertain a low mileage 1 owner 2012 V7R I am about 2 hours north of you in Chambersburg Pennsylvania.




free picture hosting sites


$5,250

Appreciate the offer but think I’ll try for a chrome tank.

[Calculon]

It's my understanding the 2014 and 2015 would be the same, though I'm no expert, but the 2016 got the six speed gearbox in the redesign along with ABS and traction control.

[oldbike54]

 No snark intended , but a quick check of any MC Spec site should answer your questions .

 Dusty

[Zoom Zoom]

Somewhere in there, (probably with the 6 speed), the engine was tilted a few degrees for a couple reasons as I recall. It may have affected the ergos but I'm not sure about that.

John Henry

[malik]

I ride 2010 & 2014 V7's, both with Racer rear sets, drop bars/clip ons AND aftermarket suspension. On a recent demo ride held by the Australian distribution over an oh so ordinary NSW road, I test rode a V7III Racer & a V7II Racer. Say, 15-20 minutes each. Over here, the III Racer comes with Ohlins rear shocks, and although I suspect they may have been properly set up, the ride comfort of the III Racer was so far superior to the II, and to my bikes, it was amazing. The III just floated over the bumps& jars in the road surface. Although the III does have a slightly more comfortable single seat, the difference I thought was mainly due to the shocks. Too, there is supposed to be more oomph (technical term) at higher revs on the III. My advice - get the III, learn to dial in the suspension to your preference (or have it done for you). If you really prefer the shiny chrome tank over the matt chrome, I'm sure lots will leap at the chance to swap.

The experience of those Ohlins give me a target to aim for on my own rides. I now know what's possible.

Do note that both demo bikes felt a little restricted, either due to the stock exhausts or the newness of the bikes' engines, or both.

The engine was first titled a few degrees forward with the II, looks better, more balanced.

[malik]

Oh yes - another good thing - the clutch arm on the II and the III has changed position and is much more amenable to adjustment. You don't have to remove the swingarm to get to it easily.

[majstevetrevor]

No snark intended , but a quick check of any MC Spec site should answer your questions .

 Dusty

You would think so, but it is not quite that easy.  The official MG site no longer lists the older bikes, and unofficial sites differ on the details.  Sometimes the 2015 is called a mark II and other times not; sometimes listed as a 5 speed and other times 6 speed.  But, even beyond specs I am interested in some feedback from riders.

[majstevetrevor]

I ride 2010 & 2014 V7's, both with Racer rear sets, drop bars/clip ons AND aftermarket suspension. On a recent demo ride held by the Australian distribution over an oh so ordinary NSW road, I test rode a V7III Racer & a V7II Racer. Say, 15-20 minutes each. Over here, the III Racer comes with Ohlins rear shocks, and although I suspect they may have been properly set up, the ride comfort of the III Racer was so far superior to the II, and to my bikes, it was amazing. The III just floated over the bumps& jars in the road surface. Although the III does have a slightly more comfortable single seat, the difference I thought was mainly due to the shocks. Too, there is supposed to be more oomph (technical term) at higher revs on the III. My advice - get the III, learn to dial in the suspension to your preference (or have it done for you). If you really prefer the shiny chrome tank over the matt chrome, I'm sure lots will leap at the chance to swap.

The experience of those Ohlins give me a target to aim for on my own rides. I now know what's possible.

Do note that both demo bikes felt a little restricted, either due to the stock exhausts or the newness of the bikes' engines, or both.

The engine was first titled a few degrees forward with the II, looks better, more balanced.

Yeah, I know that the mark III is technically a superior bike -- better engine, better shocks, etc -- but the truth is the 2016 just worked better for me ergonomically.  Brake and clutch levers more to hand, foot controls felt better, and like I say my knees were on the cylinder heads on the III but not on the II (same thing with the salesman who rode with me)  I have to say I am not too concerned with the few extra Horses the III has over the two. I do almost all city riding, and I don't really need that extra high end power very much.  The II felt good and torque-y down low, which is the main thing for me.   

But I appreciate this feedback..  The more personal testimony the better.

[Roebling3]

Get the series III. I did. There is actual utility in the very slight changes MG made over the previous years. I can't speak for what happened in what years, but: I wanted better the single throttle body, modern combustion chamber, better suspension, a bit more knee room, lower bars, a 6 speed, better foot controls,  both instruments and that nifty fairing that has been discontinued (but wouldn't fit anyway). I didn't want tubed tires, a potential leaking fuel filter (swelled @ 448 mi.), inadequate(?) spark plug caps. My dealer changed all those things for me pre-delivery. I still  need to tweak the K-Tech front end more.

The bike is now awaiting for time in a paint booth. It's my last new motorcycle. Do what you like. No one can truly evaluate a bike for you. Buying a Guzzi limits choices you may have with other brands. You'll not find the passion and friendly comradery we  share with Moto Guzzi people everywhere.  R3~

[Kev m]

Here's what little I know.

Model years are sometimes misleading since what appears in the EU is often 6-12 months before the same is available here and the model years may be off by one.

Anyway the Mk I, II, & III monikers can help.

So the Mk I is a dry alternator and slightly higher charging system output until the last year (~15) when it went to a wet alternator.

The Mk II adds TC and ABS and the new gearbox.

The Mk III changes the motor from the Heron Head to the Hemi and that differs the most from the other two from ergos to cosmetics and especially the motor.

[Perazzimx14]

Here's what little I know.

Model years are sometimes misleading since what appears in the EU is often 6-12 months before the same is available here and the model years may be off by one.

Anyway the Mk I, II, & III monikers can help.

So the Mk I is a dry alternator and slightly higher charging system output until the last year (~15) when it went to a wet alternator.

The Mk II adds TC and ABS and the new gearbox.

The Mk III changes the motor from the Heron Head to the Hemi and that differs the most from the other two from ergos to cosmetics and especially the motor.

And in the end they are all within a few percent of one another as far as performance is concerned.

[Kev m]

And in the end they are all within a few percent of one another as far as performance is concerned.

That may be true but they can be as different as a Norge, Breva, and Griso in other ways, which may be much more important.

I know I have no desire to pick up say a 2TB model. And I'm not sure I'd pick a MK II personally, because I like my MkI. If I was going for another I'd go Mk III to get the new motor, double-walled exhaust, etc.

So there are differences that may matter to say the OP, or anyone.

[majstevetrevor]

Here's what little I know.

Model years are sometimes misleading since what appears in the EU is often 6-12 months before the same is available here and the model years may be off by one.

Anyway the Mk I, II, & III monikers can help.

So the Mk I is a dry alternator and slightly higher charging system output until the last year (~15) when it went to a wet alternator.

The Mk II adds TC and ABS and the new gearbox.

The Mk III changes the motor from the Heron Head to the Hemi and that differs the most from the other two from ergos to cosmetics and especially the motor.
[/quot
What’s tricky is that sometimes the 2015 is called a mark II, and is sometimes described as having TC and ABS.  Well, probably just best to find out on any given bike what specs are and not rely on years.

[Kev m]

I believe in the US the 2015 was just the wet alternator MkI, but if there were models with TC/ABS/6-Spd, then they're MkII's for sure.

[Perazzimx14]

That may be true but they can be as different as a Norge, Breva, and Griso in other ways, which may be much more important.

I know I have no desire to pick up say a 2TB model. And I'm not sure I'd pick a MK II personally, because I like my MkI. If I was going for another I'd go Mk III to get the new motor, double-walled exhaust, etc.

So there are differences that may matter to say the OP, or anyone.

The Norge, breva and Griso relation is a bit extreme as they are dfferent bikes. The V7R's are all V7R's with minir nuasances that make them minorly cosmetically and cosmetically different but all perform just about the same. It not like comparing a 1960's vette with a modern vette they are not even in the same universe performance wise.

A 10% gain on a 30HP bike is something you nor I would probably notice. You can also measure gain in whatever parts of the RPM curve to substantiate your claim of increased HP. If I'm not mistaken the 1st series single TB motors made more peak HP than the previous 2TB motors but lost HP in the mid range where most riders spend the bulk of time.

[Kev m]

The Norge, breva and Griso relation is a bit extreme as they are dfferent bikes. The V7R's are all V7R's with minir nuasances that make them minorly cosmetically and cosmetically different but all perform just about the same.

The Norge and the Breva were almost identical bikes. Hell remember Speaker's made a Breva from a Norge that arrived with damaged bodywork. The Griso had some different bodywork and I assume a different subframe, but as a CARC it was basically the same bike too. In my analogy we can call the Racer the Griso of the smallblocks.

But if your bottom line is the smallblocks of a given year "all perform just about the same" I would say the same is true for those CARCs.

A 10% gain on a 30HP bike is something you nor I would probably notice. You can also measure gain in whatever parts of the RPM curve to substantiate your claim of increased HP. If I'm not mistaken the 1st series single TB motors made more peak HP than the previous 2TB motors but lost HP in the mid range where most riders spend the bulk of time.

Well 30 hp bike - damn, I maybe that's why you can't sell your 2TB Racer. Mine's 50 hp / 40 at the rear wheel.

And no, you are mistaken. Ridden side-by-side (which Jay and I did years back) a V7C vs. a V7 Stone (2TB vs Mk I - 1TB) the 1TB had NOTICEABLY better mid-range and grunt lower down.

I haven't ridden the MK II and MK IIIs yet, but trust our fellow board members enough - the majority of reports say the MK II's new gearbox made a noticeable difference from the MK I and that the MK III was a kick in the pants over the MK II.

So yes there's a difference, maybe each is only small steps away from the previous, but by the time you get from one end to the other they add up.

And as I said, my experience alone tells me I wouldn't have been happy with the 2TB, yet I'm quite happy with the MK I.

Not that any of this matters except that I think your original statement that they are ALL within a few percent misses the big picture.

[majstevetrevor]

I admit that i don’t know half of what you guys are talking about with those other bikes,  but I will say that as a rule small changes can make quite a bit of difference for your riding experience.   Though it may be hard to predict ahead of time which changes will seem significant, and to which riders.  All of which is to say, I’m happy for any feedback on these bikes the matter how small it may seem.  While also acknowledging that there is no substitute for a good test ride.

[Perazzimx14]

The Norge and the Breva were almost identical bikes. Hell remember Speaker's made a Breva from a Norge that arrived with damaged bodywork. The Griso had some different bodywork and I assume a different subframe, but as a CARC it was basically the same bike too. In my analogy we can call the Racer the Griso of the smallblocks.

But if your bottom line is the smallblocks of a given year "all perform just about the same" I would say the same is true for those CARCs.


Well 30 hp bike - damn, I maybe that's why you can't sell your 2TB Racer. Mine's 50 hp / 40 at the rear wheel.

And no, you are mistaken. Ridden side-by-side (which Jay and I did years back) a V7C vs. a V7 Stone (2TB vs Mk I - 1TB) the 1TB had NOTICEABLY better mid-range and grunt lower down.

I haven't ridden the MK II and MK IIIs yet, but trust our fellow board members enough - the majority of reports say the MK II's new gearbox made a noticeable difference from the MK I and that the MK III was a kick in the pants over the MK II.

So yes there's a difference, maybe each is only small steps away from the previous, but by the time you get from one end to the other they add up.

And as I said, my experience alone tells me I wouldn't have been happy with the 2TB, yet I'm quite happy with the MK I.

Not that any of this matters except that I think your original statement that they are ALL within a few percent misses the big picture.

Your welcome to stop by and test ride my 2TB Racer. With the current exhaust and mapping to match I think you would be surprised to find its not lacking over latter model V7 series bikes.

Going by specs the 2012 small blocks had 48HP at 6800 RPM. 2017's have 52 HP at 6900 RMP. Since the Italian manufacturers are well know for their honesty when publishing HP numbers we can all rest assured they spot on .



 

[Kev m]

Your welcome to stop by and test ride my 2TB Racer. With the current exhaust and mapping to match I think you would be surprised to find its not lacking over latter model V7 series bikes.

You say that because you presume the differences are all at the rear tire. I'm talking about things from ergos to rpm and feedback through the bars, from maintenance to fueling.

I'm sure your 2TB Racer is fine, it's a beauty actually, but it's not what I wanted (or I would have bought it instead of my Stone).

So yes, I would find it lacking in qualities I wanted.

Going by specs the 2012 small blocks had 48HP at 6800 RPM. 2017's have 52 HP at 6900 RMP. Since the Italian manufacturers are well know for their honesty when publishing HP numbers we can all rest assured they spot on .

And I ignore those numbers and look for rwhp numbers that have been published by sources like MCN, or Motorcyclist, or even Guzzitech. THAT plus the aforementioned riding them side-by-side and going by feel.

[Perazzimx14]

 No. Only comparing  V7R’s of all generations. Other variants as you point out have vastly different ergos and comfort is a subjected be thing.

[malik]

Yeah, I know that the mark III is technically a superior bike -- better engine, better shocks, etc -- but the truth is the 2016 just worked better for me ergonomically.  Brake and clutch levers more to hand, foot controls felt better, and like I say my knees were on the cylinder heads on the III but not on the II (same thing with the salesman who rode with me)  I have to say I am not too concerned with the few extra Horses the III has over the two. I do almost all city riding, and I don't really need that extra high end power very much.  The II felt good and torque-y down low, which is the main thing for me.   

But I appreciate this feedback..  The more personal testimony the better.

If the II feels better, go for it. It will likely be cheaper, and the red paint job is a better red anyway. Do note though that the rear sets have adjustments at the footpeg and a cam at the toe piece. The handlebars and their controls are also adjustable. But if you know the II fits you better, you won't have to worry about that. Enjoy the ride.