Re: [ST] Fuel Stabilizer - OK for the Sprint?

[Britbike2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 11/8/2001 7:54:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
NeilLindsey@xxxxxxx writes:
have a look here - http://theserviceadvisor.com/octane.htm



Thanks for the link and information.  Nonetheless.  Over the years I have
kept very good, and scientific (not the, oh I get so many miles on a tank)
fuel mileage.  Regardless of what the website says, I get 5-6% higher mileage
going from 89 octane (R+M/2) to 91 octane and a proportional amount going to
93.  This doesn't usually justify the additional expense which is often about
the same or higher.  The website you showed us says that this doesn't apply
to fuel injected vehicles.  Baloney.  It worked on my carbureated '81 F150,
'78 Scout (International), my wife's fuel injected '92 Volvo, and my fuel
injected '99 F250.  Always the same fuel savings, consistently.  This works
so well that when on extended trips in the North Maine woods and while
shuttling clients (Maine Guide), I'll fill up on mid grade fuel because of
the extended mileage which saves me from hauling jerry cans, and leaves extra
fuel in the tank for the occasional extended extraction from mud/snow/washout
etc.  Sorry, but higher octane does mean higher fuel economy, but, the higher
fuel economy is not always, and usually isn't, worth the additional
expenditure of money.

Sorry for pushing, but I am rather tenacious and when I believe I am correct
and believe that I have solid reasoning, I don't back down.  On the flip
side, if I can be proven wrong, I am more than happy to be corrected and
learn from the experience.

Thank you for giving me more info, no sarcasm meant at all.

Sean


     *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
      The ST/RS Mailing list is sponsored by Jack Lilley Ltd.
          http://www.TriumphNet.com/st/lilley for more info
   http://www.TriumphNet.com/st for ST, RS and Mailing List info

=-=-=-= Next Message =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=