[335BOY]

Originally Posted by Emilim

I can't resist commenting on this because it's obviously not that simple. Higher rated gasoline simply resists knock better, which is important in cars with high compression ratios. Higher octane fuel don't "burn cleaner" just because the rating is higher. The cleaning is done through additives which is added to fuels of all grades by all petrol companies (some companies say they use better additives for their higher octane fuels but this is usually just a marketing scheme). Each company does have a different approach to their additive mix and this is where the majority of differences come in.

For the N20 and N55, BMW lists the accepted fuel grade as RON 91 - 98 (91 being the minimum), translated to AKI (what we use in North America) that's roughly 87 to 94 octane. Our cars are smart enough today to detect lower octane fuels and adjust accordingly to resist knock, you may lose a bit of power if you stick 87 in a N20 or N55, but it won't damage anything.

A good number of companies have switched their formulations in recent years so their top fuel grade (94 octane in NA, such as Shell's V-Power Nitro and Petro Can's Ultra 94), is now actually closer to RON 100 or even above.

In our particular case, using 94 octane (RON 98-100) is fine but you're not really getting any additional benefit compared to, say, 91 octane. Improvement claimed by those using a higher octane gas beyond the minimum is mostly perceived and is far more likely to be the result of a change in driving conditions or routes.

Thanks for posting this. SO much misinformation before this.

[F30inthe6ix]

Originally Posted by xxxrsxxx

no.....i'm driving 2015 328 xdrive and i'm not even heavy footed!
Very surprised there is such a big difference in mileage.

The fact that yours is equipped with xDrive may account for some of the mileage difference, but otherwise it is definitely surprisingly to see such a large discrepancy between the fuel economy of our vehicles.

[335BOY]

Originally Posted by F30inthe6ix

The fact that yours is equipped with xDrive may account for some of the mileage difference, but otherwise it is definitely surprisingly to see such a large discrepancy between the fuel economy of our vehicles.

There are SO many variables that can affect mileage and unless 2 vehicles are compared under identical circumstances (weather, tire inflation, distance travelled, car condition, air temp) then the numbers don't really mean anything for comparison purposes.

[indyn]

Originally Posted by Emilim

I can't resist commenting on this because it's obviously not that simple. Higher rated gasoline simply resists knock better, which is important in cars with high compression ratios. Higher octane fuel don't "burn cleaner" just because the rating is higher. The cleaning is done through additives which is added to fuels of all grades by all petrol companies (some companies say they use better additives for their higher octane fuels but this is usually just a marketing scheme). Each company does have a different approach to their additive mix and this is where the majority of differences come in.

For the N20 and N55, BMW lists the accepted fuel grade as RON 91 - 98 (91 being the minimum), translated to AKI (what we use in North America) that's roughly 87 to 94 octane. Our cars are smart enough today to detect lower octane fuels and adjust accordingly to resist knock, you may lose a bit of power if you stick 87 in a N20 or N55, but it won't damage anything.

A good number of companies have switched their formulations in recent years so their top fuel grade (94 octane in NA, such as Shell's V-Power Nitro and Petro Can's Ultra 94), is now actually closer to RON 100 or even above.

In our particular case, using 94 octane (RON 98-100) is fine but you're not really getting any additional benefit compared to, say, 91 octane. Improvement claimed by those using a higher octane gas beyond the minimum is mostly perceived and is far more likely to be the result of a change in driving conditions or routes.

I wish I can give you points for your input. The ecu can retard the timing based on the fuel octane, and fuel can differ from one station to another. Is 87 ok for long term driving?

But the N55 has been really good on fuel mileage. I got a protuned 2011 N55 6 speed AT, still get 350 - 400 miles per tank driving in the city. And about 500+ on long distance drives.
The F series with their 8 speed should be able to net more.

[motorwerkeman]

My N20 feels most responsive with Petro Ultra 94. I notice when I fill with a tank of 91 after, the boost doesn't feel as immediate when coming back on to throttle in mid rev-range.

[Athens13]

Just wanted to add my experience just picked up my f30 335ix(2013) last week and was told by Parkview to use 87 gas. After driving all weekend was able to get 475km off a full tank(mostly driving sport mode) but I could feel the car bit sluggish. Now after reading all the debates which octane to use in here for testing purposes I filled up Monday with 89(esso) Right away the car felt more alive response was way better. Bit upset Parkview filled my tank with 87 but that will be last time my car ever see's that gas. Next fill up will be with 91 and will report back.

[Earthmaster]

Originally Posted by Athens13

Just wanted to add my experience just picked up my f30 335ix(2013) last week and was told by Parkview to use 87 gas. After driving all weekend was able to get 475km off a full tank(mostly driving sport mode) but I could feel the car bit sluggish. Now after reading all the debates which octane to use in here for testing purposes I filled up Monday with 89(esso) Right away the car felt more alive response was way better. Bit upset Parkview filled my tank with 87 but that will be last time my car ever see's that gas. Next fill up will be with 91 and will report back.

Parkview are just being cheap and are idiots. Even the manual says min 89.... look on the gas cap it should say the same... I have the exact same car in the exact same year. Only sees 91 if petro 94 is not available.

[F30inthe6ix]

So just out of curiosity - how accurate is the "range" reading in our cars?

I filled up with V-Power at a Shell station in Kitchener on my way home from the golf course today. Upon parking up in my driveway (roughly a 50km drive from the pump), the range on my vehicle was coming up as 822km. I mean, 870km from a tank would be unreal on a consistent basis, but I'm also a little skeptical about it.

[daren]

So, while I would like to put ethanol free 93 in my car, it isn't available where I am. What I am left with is 93 with up to 10% ethanol or either 89 (Shell) or 90 (Exxon) ethanol free. Going through the thread so far, I would guess that there would be more votes in favor of the ethanol free 89 or 90 versus the blended 93. This is like Donald vs Hillary... neither is really what I want.....

[Carbon.F30]

Originally Posted by chaungo

The hard evidence is pure gas will always be better than ethanol. More mileage per tank and power, which is why shell is so popular.

I literally get 100km more per tank with shell, driving the same way.

I usually use 91 or higher. Where doesn't really matter to me. However if you're saying you get 100km more, then I'm more than willing to try it out.

[Carbon.F30]

Originally Posted by nrajput

I usually use 91 or higher. Where doesn't really matter to me. However if you're saying you get 100km more, then I'm more than willing to try it out.

Got 465 km on my last tank with Petro's 91, regular driving. Filled up with the Shell V-Power, let's see how this goes!

[F30inthe6ix]

Originally Posted by nrajput

Got 465 km on my last tank with Petro's 91, regular driving. Filled up with the Shell V-Power, let's see how this goes!

Not bad for a 335 with xDrive. I still have yet to try Petro's 94 in my car. Maybe once the Shell/Airmiles promotion ends I will fill up a tank and share my thoughts on here.

[mbanks21]

Originally Posted by daren

So, while I would like to put ethanol free 93 in my car, it isn't available where I am. What I am left with is 93 with up to 10% ethanol or either 89 (Shell) or 90 (Exxon) ethanol free. Going through the thread so far, I would guess that there would be more votes in favor of the ethanol free 89 or 90 versus the blended 93. This is like Donald vs Hillary... neither is really what I want.....

Why not half 93 and half ethanol free 89. That'll get you 91 with half the ethanol

[Carbon.F30]

Originally Posted by nrajput

Got 465 km on my last tank with Petro's 91, regular driving. Filled up with the Shell V-Power, let's see how this goes!

Alright, so using the same driving style (regular, which for me means gunning it here and there) the Shell 91 got me about 455 KM before I filled up. BUT the difference here is that the initial reserve went off, meaning I could've gone at least another 80 km. With Petro's 91, I was running 465 km with 48km remaining range. It's a pretty close call, but in this case it looks like Shell's V-Power gets about 40km bonus range. I've filled up a second time with the same fuel (Shell 91) and noticed my average fuel consumption is also down from 12-13 L/100km to 11.5 L/100km. Looking good for Shell!

[tariqhaque]

I noticed on Husky website, they have mentioned that Octane 91 does not contain any ethanol.

http://www.myhusky.ca/products-and-services/fuel/

[F30inthe6ix]

Originally Posted by nrajput

Alright, so using the same driving style (regular, which for me means gunning it here and there) the Shell 91 got me about 455 KM before I filled up. BUT the difference here is that the initial reserve went off, meaning I could've gone at least another 80 km. With Petro's 91, I was running 465 km with 48km remaining range. It's a pretty close call, but in this case it looks like Shell's V-Power gets about 40km bonus range. I've filled up a second time with the same fuel (Shell 91) and noticed my average fuel consumption is also down from 12-13 L/100km to 11.5 L/100km. Looking good for Shell!

Chalk another one up for Shell haha!

I also notice a discrepancy between the gas offered in various cities. For example - when I fill up in a region west of the GTA (Guelph/K-W), my car tends to display a higher range number than it does when I fill up around where I live (Mississauga/Oakville area). What's up with that?

[F30inthe6ix]

Originally Posted by tariqhaque

I noticed on Husky website, they have mentioned that Octane 91 does not contain any ethanol.

http://www.myhusky.ca/products-and-services/fuel/

This is definitely noteworthy. Husky typically tends to have awesome gas prices as well so if this is indeed true, it may be a cheaper alternative for those of us who want ethanol-free gas in our vehicles.

[Carbon.F30]

Originally Posted by Athens13

Just wanted to add my experience just picked up my f30 335ix(2013) last week and was told by Parkview to use 87 gas. After driving all weekend was able to get 475km off a full tank(mostly driving sport mode) but I could feel the car bit sluggish. Now after reading all the debates which octane to use in here for testing purposes I filled up Monday with 89(esso) Right away the car felt more alive response was way better. Bit upset Parkview filled my tank with 87 but that will be last time my car ever see's that gas. Next fill up will be with 91 and will report back.

I'm not sure why they'd say 87, the car says use minimum 89. I usually put in 91, and I find the car is very responsive with that. 89 only in an emergency (if 91 isn't available)

[335BOY]

Originally Posted by nrajput

Alright, so using the same driving style (regular, which for me means gunning it here and there) the Shell 91 got me about 455 KM before I filled up. BUT the difference here is that the initial reserve went off, meaning I could've gone at least another 80 km. With Petro's 91, I was running 465 km with 48km remaining range. It's a pretty close call, but in this case it looks like Shell's V-Power gets about 40km bonus range. I've filled up a second time with the same fuel (Shell 91) and noticed my average fuel consumption is also down from 12-13 L/100km to 11.5 L/100km. Looking good for Shell!

Sorry but Unless the routes, weather etc were identical this test doesnt really mean anything.

[dalrx]

omg just caught local bmw guy with one of their 428i loaner putting 87 in . I called him on it...he said we put reg in all our cars!!!!

[anotheran]

Originally Posted by dalrx

omg just caught local bmw guy with one of their 428i loaner putting 87 in . I called him on it...he said we put reg in all our cars!!!!

LOL that's what happens to people who don't care about cars and won't be keeping it long (*cough cough* lease)

[dalrx]

Originally Posted by anotheran

LOL that's what happens to people who don't care about cars and won't be keeping it long (*cough cough* lease)

this was a dealer employee!