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

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > maXimum Tech > 3 Series > E46 (1998 - 2005)
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 06-03-2008, 04:57 PM   #16
bmwBRO
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mississauga
Posts: 87
on my 330, i switched from petro 91 to sunoco 94 and got 50km per tank more on average.. also use sunoco for the 5x points when using 94... every 4 tanks i get a free cars wash (the works)
bmwBRO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 05:08 PM   #17
NIMA
3rd Gear Member
 
NIMA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 570
Majority of us will use Sunoco 94.........your car will run that much better...
NIMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 07:24 PM   #18
Mikey83
3rd Gear Member
 
Mikey83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Stoney Creek --> Now Toronto
Posts: 324
I use 100 Octane (well only once this past weekend )

__________________
For Sale

2003 745Li Titanium Sliver Metallic w/ Black Interior
PDC, ACC, Cold Weather Package, Convenience Package, Sunshades, Comfort Seats, Logic 7 Sound Package.
21" OEM Style 128, Angel iBright V3 w/ Matching Fogs, H&R Springs, BTUM8000, LED Side/Front Markers, White Bulb Interior/License Plate,
Stealth Bulb Signals, 15mm Rear Spacers, ACS Style Roof and Trunk Spoilers, Debadged
Mikey83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 09:40 AM   #19
StikiGreenZ
6th Gear Member
 
StikiGreenZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Milton, ON
Posts: 1,598
Send a message via MSN to StikiGreenZ
I use Shell 91.
__________________
-

BMW 645i - Black on Red
Range Rover Sport - Black on Black
StikiGreenZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 11:44 AM   #20
Mystikal
Moderator/Event-Coordinator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Stance
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by propr'one View Post
just switched from sunoco 94 to shell 91 under mystikal's advice.

i get better gas mileage.
Ha, serious? I'm glad it's not just me. Sunoco still has to go into my E30 (really aggressive map), but the M3 sees nothing but Shell.
__________________
Mystikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 01:33 PM   #21
Bartacus
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa, ONT, Canada
Posts: 559
Esso only for me.

Bart
Bartacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2008, 01:56 AM   #22
Marky_mark
Detailing Specialist
 
Marky_mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Aurora
Posts: 480
Send a message via MSN to Marky_mark
Shell 91 is the best overall
__________________
Marky_mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 12:08 AM   #23
europrince
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North York
Posts: 6,729
Until someone shows me a scientific study that one company's gas is better than another's, its all the same shit to me. I don't care about your 'feeling' a difference.
europrince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 07:08 AM   #24
Mikeee46coup
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Waterloo/Mississauga
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marky_mark View Post
Shell 91 is the best overall
^werd, BMW agrees, it's the only fuel without ethanol (paying for 10% corn is nuts...Ultra94) Shell has all of the detergents BMW reccomends and is officially endorsed too.
__________________

DPE Wheels, H&R Cupkit, M3 Interior...too many mods to list.
Mikeee46coup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 10:16 AM   #25
Mystikal
Moderator/Event-Coordinator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Stance
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by europrince View Post
Until someone shows me a scientific study that one company's gas is better than another's, its all the same shit to me. I don't care about your 'feeling' a difference.
Read the pumps at each station for ethanol content. You'll begin understanding there.
__________________
Mystikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 11:11 AM   #26
europrince
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North York
Posts: 6,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystikal View Post
Read the pumps at each station for ethanol content. You'll begin understanding there.
Natural Resources Canada link:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/...27_01_1991.cfm

"What effect does using ethanol fuels have on fuel consumption?
While a 10 percent ethanol blend contains about 97 percent of the energy of "pure" gasoline, the energy loss is partly offset by the increased combustion efficiency of the engine. This could increase fuel consumption by about 2-3 percent"


So, for the average car, it'll be a 0.2 to 0.3l/100km consumption increase but cleaner exhaust. I don't think that's a big difference. Driving pattern and habit have a much larger effect.

Ok, so Shell is the only one that doesn't use ethanol?
europrince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 11:22 AM   #27
Mystikal
Moderator/Event-Coordinator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Stance
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by europrince View Post
Natural Resources Canada link:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/...27_01_1991.cfm

"What effect does using ethanol fuels have on fuel consumption?
While a 10 percent ethanol blend contains about 97 percent of the energy of "pure" gasoline, the energy loss is partly offset by the increased combustion efficiency of the engine. This could increase fuel consumption by about 2-3 percent"


So, for the average car, it'll be a 0.2 to 0.3l/100km consumption increase but cleaner exhaust. I don't think that's a big difference. Driving pattern and habit have a much larger effect.

Ok, so Shell is the only one that doesn't use ethanol?
Yeah, that increased combustion efficiency part is BS. That would only occur on a car that is designed to run on 94 (and is therefore cutting back timing to run on 91). I see a lot of government sites claiming this 2-3% business, which makes me skeptical.

That said, ethanol effects debate or not, Shell 91 is the only premium that has none of it.
__________________
Mystikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2008, 10:59 PM   #28
j0nblayz
3rd Gear Member
 
j0nblayz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: calgary, alberta
Posts: 538
i only get gas from husky or mohawk 91+ octane in both my 330ci and x5. I never go to shell nor esso no more, last time i put gas from shell into my x5, it screwed up my fuel level sensors, said it was empty, thought it was maybe just a slow sensor, sensor never went over the mid mark. I got gas again after from esso, did the samething, i was pretty sure it was the sensors that went bad. got gas from husky afterwards, my level finally came back to normal. Dunno, but i haven't got gas from shell or esso again.
__________________
j0nblayz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 10:29 PM   #29
sash
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 121
94 octane is waste of money unless you have some serious engine work and/or engine management (high compression / advanced timing).
I use 91 octane Shell or PetroCanada.
__________________
sash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2008, 06:51 AM   #30
BSL
2nd Gear Member
 
BSL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ptbo
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by europrince View Post
Natural Resources Canada link:
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/...27_01_1991.cfm

"What effect does using ethanol fuels have on fuel consumption?
While a 10 percent ethanol blend contains about 97 percent of the energy of "pure" gasoline, the energy loss is partly offset by the increased combustion efficiency of the engine. This could increase fuel consumption by about 2-3 percent"


So, for the average car, it'll be a 0.2 to 0.3l/100km consumption increase but cleaner exhaust. I don't think that's a big difference. Driving pattern and habit have a much larger effect.

Ok, so Shell is the only one that doesn't use ethanol?
This is complete BS.

A tank of gas with ethanol blend averages 70-90kms less driving distance for me.
I have tried all sorts of fuel, and tried, (without much success), getting ethanol content info on different brands.
It seems that inconsistancy is the only thing you can count on.

Everyone will notice that that they USUALLY get better mileage while using 91+ octane, and most people will also attribute that to the octane content. Wrong.
Most higher octane fuels used to have NO ethanol, that is now changing.

There are only 2 gas stations (in Peterborough) that I know ,for sure, do not blend thier fuel. They are both Esso stations. Why? I have no idea... when I ask, they tell me that ESSO requires only a percentage of thier fuel to be blended...

As a note:
I got interested in this subject when I noticed significantly crappy mileage while running Pioneer high octane fuel in my 10.5:1 compression mustang. The mileage was SOOO bad, that I started replacing O2 sensors etc. before I realized what was actually happening!
Stay away from Pioneer
BSL 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 08:14 AM.


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