TLZone Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all!

I have a 2000 Cagiva Navigator, and am really happy with it - I've only ever seen 2 others in Oz, so that makes me smile too...

I've been reading through the site to find out how to cure its fuelling issues, though I am a complete numpty and will probably stuff it up.

My main issues are with sourcing parts or any information on modding the damned thing! Mainly wondering if the Gran Canyon 19" front can be transplanted into the Navigator - I hate the 17" tyre choices. :banghead

Any tips or advice on anything to do with the Navigator is greatly appreciated!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,892 Posts
If it uses the same ECU and FI system as a TLS adjusting the fueling should be simple. Basic options are a dynojet PCIII, PCII or yoshbox. The dynojet products go in-line with the stock ECU and allow fairly fine and sophisticated tuning. the yosh box re-flashes the stock ECU and allows basic (low, mid, high) adjustments. Ideal situation would be to have a custom map built to suit your specific machine for a PCIII.

No clue re the wheels. I'm sure 19" would improve handling on unpaved surfaces. The 17 will give quicker turning and more grip on paved surfaces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
yes the front mudguard has two metal bits for the 18" wheel
if you remove them it goes straight to the 19" wheel like gran canyon

if you want 19" front the best is a set of rims of an aprilia caponord (36 spokes TUBELESS), but i think that the rear is 4" wide instead of 4.25" of navi

check these

google translate is our friend

http://forum.cagivisti.de/forum/index.php?page=Index

http://navigator.altervista.org/


these are english

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Cagiva_Gran_Canyon2/

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Cagiva-Navigator/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
dont go with 17" front this bike has the front wheel very loaded
if you want 17" front you must low the back if you want some forgiveness in the twisties
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I've been reading through the site to find out how to cure its fuelling issues, though I am a complete numpty and will probably stuff it up.


Hi there.
I am a Nav owner too. What are the fuelling issues? Before the site crashed I detailed the issues and cures I had with mine...part throttle below 3000rpm. The bike would have won a break dancing competition on tight roundabouts. Give us more details.
Adios
Andy in NZ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,895 Posts
If the issue is the maps then a power commander would be a cheap option,maybe even a older PCII.
I was under the impression the Navigator does use the TLS throttle bodies as did the Raptor.
I used a Raptor PCII on my yellow TLS before going to the PCIII (Thanks again Del and Rupes)
If the Navigator uses plugs like this,the TLS PCII should be no problem.



This is the Raptor PCII I used ($124 new at the time on Ebay)



If it has TB's like this then the PCIII should also be usable as it piggybacks in at the TPS and the two fuel injectors.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Fuelling on my Navigator doesn't clear until it is of the cold map at 80 degrees. Is OK up to about 70 degrees but worst when stuck between 70 and 80.
Lots of mods done to eliminate have proved unsuccessful. PC11, SV thermo mod, bypass mod tried and restored (possibly made worse although don't know why?), TPS set, full custom map and finally TLR engine install.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
@cormerant

please give some details about tlr motor

what gearing are you running?
top speed? any shakes?
have you put it on dyno?
what exhausts you have?
any airbox mod?
have you cut the 'sumpguard' in order to put the heat exhanger?
any difference in coolant temperature?
clutch? cable or hydro?
how does it feel across the rev range?
ecu and throttle bodies? TLR or cagiva (TLS)
fuel consumption?
any complain about the brakes?

if you have any pics post them or send to [email protected]

all navis i have seen are rude at small throttle openings below 80c

Land vehicle Vehicle Car Motorcycle Motor vehicle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
@cormerant

please give some details about tlr motor

what gearing are you running?
top speed? any shakes?
have you put it on dyno?
what exhausts you have?
any airbox mod?
have you cut the 'sumpguard' in order to put the heat exhanger?
any difference in coolant temperature?
clutch? cable or hydro?
how does it feel across the rev range?
ecu and throttle bodies? TLR or cagiva (TLS)
fuel consumption?
any complain about the brakes?

if you have any pics post them or send to [email protected]

all navis i have seen are rude at small throttle openings below 80c

View attachment 33531
Gearing 1 tooth smaller on the front and 2 larger on the rear
Top speed unknown as gearing makes speedo way out (Acceleration the goal)
Had high speed weave all year turned out to be a tired rear shock
Dyno result dissapointing at 102 rwbhp (investigating why)
Very interested in Exhaust and Air box mods (currently standard)
Sump gaurd removed
Engine temperature similar
Hydraulic clutch (much better than cable, have used both on the same engine)
Pulls smooth and strong throughout the rev range when not between 70 to 80 degrees
TLS/ Cagiva throttle bodies and ECU (makes the conversion a simple bolt in)
Fuel consumption down from 260 miles per tank to 240 miles per tank
Always use test winning pads (Carbon Lorraine)

I can' seem to be able to upload pictures to my profile!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,780 Posts
Gearing 1 tooth smaller on the front and 2 larger on the rear
Top speed unknown as gearing makes speedo way out (Acceleration the goal)
Had high speed weave all year turned out to be a tired rear shock
Dyno result dissapointing at 102 rwbhp (investigating why)
Very interested in Exhaust and Air box mods (currently standard)
Sump gaurd removed
Engine temperature similar
Hydraulic clutch (much better than cable, have used both on the same engine)
Pulls smooth and strong throughout the rev range when not between 70 to 80 degrees
TLS/ Cagiva throttle bodies and ECU (makes the conversion a simple bolt in)
Fuel consumption down from 260 miles per tank to 240 miles per tank
Always use test winning pads (Carbon Lorraine)

I can' seem to be able to upload pictures to my profile!

Fuel consumption down from 260 miles per tank to 240 miles per tank???

How big is the tank?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
I have no idea. It has twin fuel tanks. Owned it for 6 years and never thought to find out. Use the mileometer as a fuel gauge I could find out for you but am curious to know why you want to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
the tank is 20L including 4L reserve

you mean 1- on the front according to TLR or Navi OEM gears? navi has 16t front and 41 rear
with that gears it wheelies in 3rd just on gas?
mine with 16-45 is enoygh short i get very tired on highway

go to http://www.healtech-electronics.com/ ---> speadohealer ---> online calculator ---> V4 / estimated ---> factory speedo error NO, and put your gears in order to see how percent is your speedo off.

if you have 15-43 is -15.3% off

102hp is very low
the problem is the very small airbox (put a KN and throw of the snokels) and the bad design of the headers (unequal lenghts) and the restrictive mufflers
do you have the A/F ratios from the dyno?

are you sure that you mean 240 miles and not 240 kms?
where are you from?
if i am very carefull with the throttle perhaps i see 230 km when the fuel ligh comes on
my bike is stock apart a TRE and the snorkels
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
Fuel consumption works out at 73 mpg on the original TLS engine, not bad eye! These mileage figures were only given as a guide to the effect on fuel consumption when transferring from a TLS to a TLR engine. As an accurate measure of mileage covered they are wrong as is the speedo reading due to the altered gearing.

Not sure now about the exact number of teeth on the front I know I didn't buy a new front sprocket so I must have used the original TLR sprocket as I upgraded the rear to the larger 5/8'' pitch chain.

Allowing 10% for drivetrain frictional losses 102 rear wheel bhp equates to 112.2 crankshaft bhp. Assuming the standard Navigator quoted figure of 98 crankshaft bhp is correct this represents a 14% increase from switching to the TLR engine.

I agree that the small Airbox with no Ram Air is a restricting factor as are the headers and cans.
I have recently had a quote to have custom made headers but am still researching the best design parameters re diameters, length, link pipes and resevoir bottles. Any book or paper references gratefully recieved.

I am also keen to know your experinces with the TRE (Which one is it? ,did it make a difference?). I contacted the UK distributer for Ivans but he stated that it did not work on a recent Cagiva Raptor sighting possible wireing differences as possible cause.

I am in the middle of the UK in West Yorkshire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
The biggest difference I made to my Navigator was to set the TPS. This was a little difficult due to space constraints with the security torx screws (since been put in orbit and yet to re-enter the atmosphere) It was set to change to the second line at 3000rpm. It fuelled very badly when warm or cold and stumbled and stuttered like old Arkwright. Below 80c was worse.

After trial and error with the TPS I managed to get the line on the dash to change at 1750rpm. What a difference! It will fuel cleanly with no stumbles from 1700rpm in top gear.
The only other changes I have made were to add a TRE from Mat the Hat. Highly recommended. Well priced, easily fitted and delivered in 4 days.Great bit of kit...saves front wheel rubber in lower gears with ease, and a K&N filter in the stock box with snorkles still in place. Exhausts and header pipes are stock.
When I got the bike it would do 230 kms before the light came on, now it does 290 and if I baby it (why would you do that?) it easily gets over 300 kms before reserve light. Usual spirited riding gets 17km per litre or 5.88 l/100km. I always fill to the top lip with the bike on the side stand when doing mileage checks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
MattTheHat last posted about his TRE this February and in the thread said that the group buy was closed, with Ivans also possibly out to for the moment any other suggestions that are currently available.
One possible reason why the Dyno result was so low could be that when converting to a hydraulic clutch the
switch connections did not match so this was bridged. I have subsequently learned from the threads that this tells the ECU to run the neutral map which can have a big impact on power.
This is why I was keen on the Smart TRE of Ivans
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top