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 06-07-2008, 11:09 AM   #46
Mystikal
Moderator/Event-Coordinator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Stance
Posts: 12,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by someguy View Post
last year around the same time i did a comparison on gas mileage, and as with this time, I tried to make sure my variables were constant...except for the station I filled up at. The results:
sunoco 94 (well duh) > shell 91 > esso 91 > sunoco 91 > petro canada 91 > olco "supreme"

of course these are not scientifically accurate or anything, but I made the effort, mainly because I was curious, but also because I was bored.
That actually doesn't make much sense, unless the motor was so highly tuned that it detonates on anything less than 94 (which would have to be a seriously aggressive map/compression ratio). The Sunoco 94 is 10% ethanol (as well as the 91 in most other stations) while the Shell 91 has none. This tells you right away that the Shell 91 will be more efficient.

And for the record, I did the same test in back to back tanks in my M3. The Shell 91 consistently averaged around 50km more per tank than Sunoco 94.
__________________

@stancejay
Mystikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 05:38 PM   #47
///MG
3rd Gear Member
 
///MG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 389
I fill my car with 91. I usually get 450km to a tank. The other week I went up north and I averaged 570km, although I wasn't driving very economically. I have a 98 M3.
__________________
2003 BMW 330CiC CURRENT
1996 Toyota Camry FOR SALE
1998 BMW M3 IN EUROPE
2004 Mitsubishi Galant SOLD
1993 Plymouth Duster SOLD
///MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 05:39 PM   #48
///MG
3rd Gear Member
 
///MG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystikal View Post
And for the record, I did the same test in back to back tanks in my M3. The Shell 91 consistently averaged around 50km more per tank than Sunoco 94.
I'm switching to Shell.
__________________
2003 BMW 330CiC CURRENT
1996 Toyota Camry FOR SALE
1998 BMW M3 IN EUROPE
2004 Mitsubishi Galant SOLD
1993 Plymouth Duster SOLD
///MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 05:40 PM   #49
///MG
3rd Gear Member
 
///MG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by JunzieB View Post
I concur... So far i've gotten nothing but shitty mileage from petro.

The only place i fill up is Shell or Sunoco

I still can't beleiev the numbers that i'm hearing... Mystikal - 800km to a tank???? Damn i'm jealous.

So far, My air filter is new, my fuel filter is new, maybe it's time to change my spark plugs?

What else am i missing? Maybe it's time i got some injector cleaner, that'l give me that extra 150km that i'm missing
Maybe a 1.8 swap??
__________________
2003 BMW 330CiC CURRENT
1996 Toyota Camry FOR SALE
1998 BMW M3 IN EUROPE
2004 Mitsubishi Galant SOLD
1993 Plymouth Duster SOLD
///MG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 06:09 PM   #50
Mickey Knox
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Boston
Posts: 507
7.35 l/100km at 65mph

around 9 when driven nromal

325 is m50
Mickey Knox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2008, 06:43 PM   #51
someguy
Singhy
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystikal View Post
That actually doesn't make much sense, unless the motor was so highly tuned that it detonates on anything less than 94 (which would have to be a seriously aggressive map/compression ratio). The Sunoco 94 is 10% ethanol (as well as the 91 in most other stations) while the Shell 91 has none. This tells you right away that the Shell 91 will be more efficient.

And for the record, I did the same test in back to back tanks in my M3. The Shell 91 consistently averaged around 50km more per tank than Sunoco 94.
yea i realize that but I still ended up getting about 25 more kilometers out of the sunoco 94....i run shell 91 whenever I can. It has proven to be the most cost effective fuel for my car.
someguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 01:10 PM   #52
sproule905
6th Gear Member
 
sproule905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Landing
Posts: 1,328
So I filled up today.. ran her bone dry. thought I might even be a road side watcher...

anyways.. i got 615kms per a tank of esso 91.. not bad.. I filled up with Shell 91 today see if I can beat that..

by the way my car took 58L of gas... yep BONE DRY!!
__________________

sproule905 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 01:35 PM   #53
propr'one
op sucks cock
 
propr'one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: T.
Posts: 17,726
Send a message via MSN to propr'one
if you put 58L in, then you had 7L left. e36 tanks are 60L tanks + 5L reserve.

615/58 = 10.6KM/L

You could've driven another 70KM
__________________
I run a canadian HID kit company, if you have any questions about hid kits in canada or would like to check out our products please contact me here: http://absolutehid.ca

Hot: 2001 Estoril M RoadsterZCP 19's michelin supersports, ZHP knob, JL 8W3
Cold: 2002 TiAg M3 6mt ZCP 19's michelin supersports, deoranged, dechromed, led tails, ZHP knob, UUC SS v3, GROM, OEM 18's w310's,
propr'one is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 02:39 PM   #54
JunzieB
Wants more powaaa!
 
JunzieB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: B-Town
Posts: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by propr'one View Post
if you put 58L in, then you had 7L left. e36 tanks are 60L tanks + 5L reserve.

615/58 = 10.6KM/L

You could've driven another 70KM
I thought it was a 8L reserve At least i thought that's what i read from the owner's manual yesterday.

Either way, I'm too damn scared to drive my car after the light comes up
__________________


Quote:
Disclaimer:The opinions expressed by JunzieB is his alone and does not reflect the opinions of Maxbimmer or any members thereof. JunzieB is not responsible for any hurt feelings that may develop during the reading of his posts.
JunzieB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 04:54 PM   #55
vadim321go
6th Gear Member
 
vadim321go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Richmond Hill
Posts: 1,581
enough with the bone dry comments people, dont encourage it. you let it go on empty then your fuel pump will fail and thats 200$ right there to replace it. all your fuel economy goes out the window. i know this from experience.
__________________
Proud owner of a 95 325i
vadim321go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 08:49 PM   #56
ShortShifter
Sex Wagon
 
ShortShifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Burlington
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by sproule905 View Post
So I filled up today.. ran her bone dry. thought I might even be a road side watcher...

anyways.. i got 615kms per a tank of esso 91.. not bad.. I filled up with Shell 91 today see if I can beat that..

by the way my car took 58L of gas... yep BONE DRY!!
So you drove 615 km before 12 pm?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpine86 View Post
Do we really need an Ipad???
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigD View Post
Only if you have an iVag.
ShortShifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 09:33 AM   #57
sproule905
6th Gear Member
 
sproule905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Landing
Posts: 1,328
^^^

not in one shot.. over a week and a half...

Propr'one... 5L reserve.. from what point does this reserve kick in? when the light goes on? or when the needle is burried... not that I want to take a chance and be stranded.
__________________

sproule905 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 02:03 PM   #58
noodles101
ΛΦΕ
 
noodles101's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Etobicoke / Waterloo
Posts: 1,483
ive calculated mine.. 35 L and i do 280 km...
i have a 328i auto and i dont push it at all lol.
it came out to 12.9 L / 100km
isnt that badd? lol wats wrong wit myyy carrr
noodles101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 02:19 PM   #59
sproule905
6th Gear Member
 
sproule905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Landing
Posts: 1,328
^^ you're actually doing 8L / 100kms

280/35L= 8L/100km
__________________

sproule905 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 02:21 PM   #60
noodles101
ΛΦΕ
 
noodles101's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Etobicoke / Waterloo
Posts: 1,483
lol oh shit haha thats pretty decent
cuz i used the calculator thing on the internet. lol i guess i did it wrong
thxx for calculating tho
noodles101 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 12:35 AM.


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