Le mans Identification ? Opinion

[Luka]

Hi ,
Have found this for sale and wanted a second opinion from you lot !

It has these engine numbers and frame numbers which seem to match up to Le Mans Mk1 ,
engine number VE77099 and frame VE17168.

I know theres a lot of confusion about these but all the research I can find seems to say that these numbers are original to a MK1 ?

Heres a pic, I know its 'Cosmetically challenged' but I wanted a project hey !
Appreciate your opinion before wasting my money ?

 

[Morizzi]

From another list.

The official frame # list states that the change from Le Mans 1 to Le Mans 2 happened at frame # VE 13040.

This has always been doubtful, because considering the production years of the LM1 and LM2, and the factory's production capacity, it simply must be wrong.

Any MK I with a frame number up to 13040 is obviously genuine.

The information on the Le Mans models has been updated and corrected, thanks to the valuable help of Fabrizio Angeleli, who found errors in the official distributed information.

This made it possible to correct the frame number error, that has been mentioned by the factory itself.

850 Le Mans (1976-1978)

dal telaio VE 11111 al telaio VE 17311

This means that it was an updated numbers list that shows the bike you are interested in may be MK I.

And finally from an LM II owner with no understandable motive for providing misleading information.

Hi Jens

Was just going over your info on LM11 frames.

Thought you might be interested in mine which throws a spanner in the number works.
Mine is a "78 manufactured in December 1977, ( reason I know this is when I emigrated to Canada from GB I needed something from the factory stating it met Canadian manufacture requirements as at the time it was under 15 years old. ) anyway having digressed, my frame no. is VE 15993 & engine no. is VE75034.
Mine ,I guess is one of the first LM11's so it might help find the "proper" frame start number.
Oh yes mine also has chrome bores from new & a different link brake splitter from any others I have seen just to make it a little more interesting.
Adding to the confusion!

Cheers

John T

My opinion is that the bike you are looking at is a MK II. Does it really matter? I don't know but I would only want to spend top dollar for a bike with a maximum number in the 15,000's.

 

[Luka]

Interesting yet confusing at the same time ??
So the updated list makes it look like a late model Mk1
yet the single post from someone in Canada makes it look like a Mk2 ??
Is it possible that the Guzzi factory had different numbers for bikes destined for the Americas/Canada ?
Just a thought ?

 

[guzzibob]

LM II was never legally imported in to the US due to emissions considerations, we got the CX-100 instead. The carbs on the bike in the picture are absolutely not those that came on any CX, which got 30 mm carbs more appropriate to that bike's small valve motor. Course, carbs can always be changed.

 

[Moz]

I guess you know that bike was on the madeinitaly UK site?
http://www.madeinitalymotorcycles.com/lemans130908 (1).JPG
http://www.madeinitalymotorcycles.com/b ... e_sold.htm
Says they sold it in Oct last year... they seem to call a spade a spade and had it down as a MkI ?
it looks like the MkI forks, the Mk II and later has them behind the leg..
the frame numbers for early le mans always seemed confusing :dry:

 

[Morizzi]

Lets take a look at a few things.

1. The forks on a MK I were not painted. They were natural. MK II's had painted sliders.

2. It is easy to put the calipers to the front. Swap them from one side to the other and turn them 180 degrees.

There is absolutely no way of knowing if the bike is really a MK I or not but you asked for opinions. The fact that the frame number is so close to a virtually impossible final number does it for me.

The guy in Canada. What motive could he have for supplying false information? A MK I is more valuable than a MK II so he is actually devaluing his bike.

The VE frame number went from 11111 to 24086, a total of 12,975 for both the MK I and II. (Mick Walker Restoration Guide) The MK I was introduced in 76 and 77 (2 years) and the MK II early 78-early 81(3 years). Therefore roughly 35%-40% should be MK I's if production rates were fairly consistent. That goes up to about frame number 16,000. The Canadian guy has frame number 15993 and says his was one of the first MK II's.

Works for me.

 

[Luka]

Ok fair point,
Only thing I would add to confuse this further is that I used to own a genuine Mk1 Le Mans in 1983 that was an S reg bike making it 1978.
shame I dont have details of the engine/frame numbers !
I was the second owner of the bike, it was totally genuine standard 4.5k bike, it was red and black with painted fork legs (black).
I have a few pics of it to check the details, but fork legs are a minor detail anyway.

The key confusion seems to be the frame numbers, to be honest this is typical of anything Italian, their lack of detail for things to do with paperwork is legendary. It would have been seen as very secondary to production and sales of the bikes, and more importantly riding them !

So I am still as confused ???? and I really will enjoy riding it more than all this talk of frame numbers etc ! but I still dont want to be wasting money on something if its not what it says it is ?

any more ideas ?

 

[Sahms]

Morizzi wrote:

Lets take a look at a few things.

1. The forks on a MK I were not painted. They were natural. MK II's had painted sliders.

Are you sure about this one? My brochure for the LeMans 850 shows the lower part of the fork sliders painted a dull silver, and the upper section in unpainted alloy? The later bikes have black lower sliders.

I am getting ready to strip and refinish my forks (some PO rattle-canned them black) so would like to figure this out.

 

[jr1967]

Remember that LMII's came with wider triples(185mm center to center) and spacers in between the discs and wheels.

 

[Morizzi]

Oh OK. silver.

I've seen some that were polished alloy but I have also read that they can be silver.

MK II's were painted, usually black but again this isn't a really definitive means of identification, The fork spacing is a good one but again, after 32 years it may have been changed.


As I wrote before there is no real way of "knowing" unless the bike has a very low frame number.

I've given my opinion on this bike. My vote is MK II. This is opinion only.