I use fuel stabiliser in the S1 too if it is going to sit around, to alleviate this problem.
Printable View
If an engine is not used for long periods, keeping the tank full almost entirely eliminates the absorption of water from the air.
The air is exchanged regularly as the temperature cycles daily - but if there is harly any air in the space above the fuel, only a negligible amount of moisture is introduced each day. The really bad situation is where the temperature drops below dew point in the tank, and the water in the air condenses. And the amount of water is directly proportional to the amount of airspace above the fuel.
John
Let's face it John, life was a lot simpler when petrol was cheap, plentiful and, more importantly, petrol :D
Seriously though, irregular use of a vehicle isn't good for it, or at least leads to considerations for keeping it in full health.
A quick search has not found any historical data before 1972, but what I have found suggests that from that date the price pretty much tracked (on average) CPI up to early 1999, when it increased over about the next ten years by perhaps 20% above CPI on average, but more noticeably, started to fluctuate wildly. But it seems prices are now close to the trend line tracking CPI again, although how long this will continue if the $A keeps falling is another matter.
As far as plentiful goes, it is worth noting that, principally as a result of US and Canadian unconventional oil production, oil can no longer be considered as in short supply.
John
I get round it by using 98.
For the paltry mileage Bill does each year, and the nicer the engine runs, petrol is not the major cost.
Cannon, I reckon your lad should just compromise and run 95. No ethanol risk, better running when tuned to it and only a schooner a tank more expensive.
Agree with Ozdunc.
Added bonus is that they seem to perform better on 95 when tuned properly.
Regards,