Quote:
Originally Posted by GLH-T
Some interesting points in this thread. You all know that there is little difference in the fuels you purchase in the lower drainland right? The 89, 91 and 92 regardless of station are all from the same source. A good friend works for scamp and he delivers to all the stations from the same main/holding tanks. We had a great discussion about fuel contamination and delivery and many other variables one day while watching him offload at Boundary Bay (CZBB) with 100LL. One of the few bastions left where there is NO ethanol and the octane ratings and cleanliness are maintained. Sadly you cant buy 100LL unless its going straight into the tanks in the wing of your plane!
I have noticed very little difference between 89-92 at any of the local stations as a result. The only time I see/feel anything is when comparing to the US 92 in the 135 and the GLH. The bike however HATES ethanol, as did the carbs on my previous beast.
I generally dislike the fact that they shove 10% subsidized ethanol down our throats. Now we have to burn more of it to go the same distance (3-4mpg drop on the 135). Now we all know that our fuel costs are primarily tax, and that its a percentage of the total cost right? Of course they want you to burn MORE fuel! Thats more tax revenue. It has nothing to do with the environment. Its all greed. Plain and simple. As such, I'll glad cross the 49th and fill up.
|
I haven't really noticed any mileage difference between when i head to the states and fill up (and jerry cans for another full tank) vs filling up here. Maybe a .5L/100km difference
this is in a brand new ram 1500 hemi
i did notice a big difference between summer and now winter, gone up around 2L/100km