Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > maXimum Tech > 3 Series > E36 (1991 - 1999)
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-23-2008, 12:48 AM   #16
rlim
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Markham, Ontario
Posts: 73
I've tried 94 octane on the 328i for a period of time and found no performance improvement compared to 91 octane. I've since stayed with 91.

The only difference I've felt is using 94 octane on my Carrera. The manual recommend 93 but dealer stated its okay with 91 if performance isn't a concern.

Flav, with a chip upgrade, I can understand the need for 94. However for stock engines, 91 is all that is required.
rlim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2008, 02:36 PM   #17
Mystikal
Moderator/Event-Coordinator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Stance
Posts: 12,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by tig View Post
has anyone ever noticed that at all gas stations its says gas may contain upto 10% ethanol including ultra 94 at sunoco.however if you go to shell their 91 oct. gas says contains no ethanol, what exactly does this mean? shells 91 gas is better cuz there is no ethanol?
This is exactly why I only use Shell.

Jay
__________________

@stancejay
Mystikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2008, 02:51 PM   #18
Dr. Flyview
Formerly Flav_cool
 
Dr. Flyview's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,367
Send a message via MSN to Dr. Flyview
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flav_cool View Post
I gotta use 94 cause of the chip, but I hate to think that I'm getting 10%+ less fuel economy b/c of the ethanol

MarkD actually told me I can try running 91 and if it works (no pinging), it should be fine. Now my car has a knock sensor so I don't think it would ever actually ping. On my old engine I was using 91 no problem with the chip. The one time I tried it on my new car with the chip, it was sputtering a bit (reducing power?) but I believe it was petro canada 91, which people have said is shit.
Jay, can you respond to this please?

Other than fuel economy, what's bad about ethanol being present?
__________________

1998 BMW 328is - summer
1994 BMW 325i - daily
1992 BMW 325i - totaled
1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-8V -
sold

Dr. Flyview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2008, 10:23 AM   #19
Mystikal
Moderator/Event-Coordinator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Stance
Posts: 12,845
Go ahead and try the 91, Mark likely advised you that because the mapping isn't aggressive enough to make 91 dangerous.

As for the ethanol itself, it's just not as efficient as gasoline.

Jay
__________________

@stancejay
Mystikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2008, 11:08 AM   #20
thinair
moderationistismingly
 
thinair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bradford, ON
Posts: 8,794
Send a message via MSN to thinair
The 3.38 shouldn't drastically reduce your fuel consumption. When I swapped out my diff for that ratio the consumption was practically the same, the engine revs higher, but at less load.
__________________
"Driving is like a narcotic, an addiction that can take over lives. It ruins people, breaks families apart, and even kills. Itís habit that needs to be fueled. Time, money, rationality, sweat, knuckle skin, and anyone who disapproves are of little importance to a driver, and are often overlooked. Hi, Iím Nelson, and Iím a drivaholic."
thinair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2008, 12:52 PM   #21
Dr. Flyview
Formerly Flav_cool
 
Dr. Flyview's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,367
Send a message via MSN to Dr. Flyview
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystikal View Post
Go ahead and try the 91, Mark likely advised you that because the mapping isn't aggressive enough to make 91 dangerous.

As for the ethanol itself, it's just not as efficient as gasoline.

Jay
Didn't you say you get less fuel economy with the ethanol? Basically I'm asking what are the reasons you stay away from it?
__________________

1998 BMW 328is - summer
1994 BMW 325i - daily
1992 BMW 325i - totaled
1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-8V -
sold

Dr. Flyview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2008, 05:30 PM   #22
propr'one
op sucks cock
 
propr'one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: T.
Posts: 17,753
Send a message via MSN to propr'one
94 sunoco vs 91 shell is a tough sell. I've used sunoco 94 almost exclusively because the sunoco is nearby + it used to pay for my CAA. I've used shell 91 too, no problems. I really think the difference between the two is minimal, there are advantages to ethanol, (ethanol gives you a higher RON, hence higher octane rating), however, if you really want to be picky, you can always run shell 91 with an octane booster.

use the grade of fuel that it says on the fuel cap? i'm pretty sure my bmw says 89 not 91, so technically, even 91 is a waste. There's very little downside to using a higher grade fuel, sure, you may not NEED the higher octane, but its not going to hurt your performance (ethanol, however, might). In the winter, running 94 might be unnecessary, since the cold weather can adversely affect the fuel, and this may cause premature detonation. However, i wouldn't worry about it.

Also, you're not going to notice much of a difference in fuel consumption if you drive the same. the 3.38 gives you a lot more usable power, because your car spends more time in the power band, however, if you're not heavy on the gas, you'll get almost the exact same fuel mileage. However, something tells me you're gonna be beating on it more (i do too) if you try hard enough, you can get about 250km out of a tank by beating on it all the time.
propr'one is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2008, 05:47 PM   #23
spoony_prelude
Eurowerke
 
spoony_prelude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,874
ive been using 94 for a while now, (maybe 4 months or so) and i noticed a huge difference from the 89 octane i would use from other gas stations, (mainly esso) but after reading this i might just start using shell

p.s. is switching gas stations frequently bad for a motor? i usually stick to sunoco, but ive heard people talking about it so im just curious?
jay
__________________
spoony_prelude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2008, 09:24 PM   #24
Mystikal
Moderator/Event-Coordinator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Stance
Posts: 12,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flav_cool View Post
Didn't you say you get less fuel economy with the ethanol?
That's exactly what I said.

Jay
__________________

@stancejay
Mystikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2008, 10:48 PM   #25
europrince
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North York
Posts: 6,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoony_prelude View Post
p.s. is switching gas stations frequently bad for a motor? i usually stick to sunoco, but ive heard people talking about it so im just curious?
jay
LOL no

I have yet to see any of you guys product any scientific evidence that proves that one national brand is better than another. Everyone just says they 'feel' or 'notice' a difference. Please! Why is Shell the best? Because it sponsors Ferrari F1 and had Ferrari F1s running through Monaco and Rome streets in last summer's commercials? I'm not being cynical. I'm open to the idea of one being better than the other. Provide me scientific proof, dammit!
europrince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 12:45 AM   #26
Mickey Knox
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 507
Woot

just found out that one of the stations on my way to work sell sunoco GT 100fuel (100 octane stree legal race fuel)
Mickey Knox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 12:54 AM   #27
tig
4th Gear Member
 
tig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: scarborough
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by propr'one View Post
94 sunoco vs 91 shell is a tough sell. I've used sunoco 94 almost exclusively because the sunoco is nearby + it used to pay for my CAA. I've used shell 91 too, no problems. I really think the difference between the two is minimal, there are advantages to ethanol, (ethanol gives you a higher RON, hence higher octane rating), however, if you really want to be picky, you can always run shell 91 with an octane booster.

use the grade of fuel that it says on the fuel cap? i'm pretty sure my bmw says 89 not 91, so technically, even 91 is a waste. There's very little downside to using a higher grade fuel, sure, you may not NEED the higher octane, but its not going to hurt your performance (ethanol, however, might). In the winter, running 94 might be unnecessary, since the cold weather can adversely affect the fuel, and this may cause premature detonation. However, i wouldn't worry about it.

Also, you're not going to notice much of a difference in fuel consumption if you drive the same. the 3.38 gives you a lot more usable power, because your car spends more time in the power band, however, if you're not heavy on the gas, you'll get almost the exact same fuel mileage. However, something tells me you're gonna be beating on it more (i do too) if you try hard enough, you can get about 250km out of a tank by beating on it all the time.
250km out of a full tank, holy shit might as well buy a hummer lol, best i did was 350km out of a full tank but that was on a stock diff hmmm.. lol

As for the gas i think i m gonna go back to using shell in the summer, instead of sunoco94 its a few cents cheaper n seems to me like its just as good as sunoco
tig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 12:54 AM   #28
Dr. Flyview
Formerly Flav_cool
 
Dr. Flyview's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,367
Send a message via MSN to Dr. Flyview
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystikal View Post
That's exactly what I said.

Jay
Woops, read it as "just as efficient".

Ok so I've put in Shell 91. So far so good, and I can already notice the better fuel economy... based on the fuel gauge I can maintain a higher speed with the same fuel mileage displayed (and over the same route I've done lots and lots of times so I know the parts of it very well)

Can't feel the engine holding back as if I'm running too low octane so hopefully everything is ok. Remember this is with the 93 octane MarkD chip for M50vanos

Either I'm nuts or the car feels a lot smoother too.
__________________

1998 BMW 328is - summer
1994 BMW 325i - daily
1992 BMW 325i - totaled
1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-8V -
sold

Dr. Flyview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2008, 01:54 AM   #29
europrince
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North York
Posts: 6,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flav_cool View Post
Woops, read it as "just as efficient".

Ok so I've put in Shell 91. So far so good, and I can already notice the better fuel economy... based on the fuel gauge I can maintain a higher speed with the same fuel mileage displayed (and over the same route I've done lots and lots of times so I know the parts of it very well)

Can't feel the engine holding back as if I'm running too low octane so hopefully everything is ok. Remember this is with the 93 octane MarkD chip for M50vanos

Either I'm nuts or the car feels a lot smoother too.
again with this 'feeling' shit. Where's the evidence?
europrince is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2014