Just curious to know if any of you guys put below 93 grade in your 5's. I got a 535 and ive put nothing but 93 in them but seems like some have put 87. Any drawbacks to putting regular in?
To get back on topic, I just looked at the manual for my new 528xi and saw that, to mo surprise, BMW now recommends 91 octane gas but says that 89 octane gas can be used without a problem. It does state that 89 octane gas may cause some knocking in hotter climates when first starting the engine but will not cause any short or long-term damage to the engine and is fully endorsed as a fuel choice by BMW. Go figure. I also looked on the gas cap, and it states "89 octane minimum." Big change from my E46!
My wife had my car last weekend on a road trip and she filled up with regular gas. Haven't noticed any decrease in performance--if anything, the car runs smoother. But there is a noticable drop in MPGs. I'm back to premium at my next fill up.
Hmm may be its just me... for some reason Shell is a big no no for me... BP get the best out of my cars!...
I tested them again in my F10 same thing... may be its just a placebo effect i dont know but with BP it runs very smooth and responsive ... too much jerky feeling with shell :dunno:
I always put Shell V-Power (91). I notice the fuel door actually says minimum 89. My previous X5 said minimum 91 on the fuel door.
I used to put Sunoco 93 (now Petro Canada) in my X5, but turns out that the extra octane rating is derived from adding ethanol. Shell V-Power has zero ethanol. I find that the BMW engines run better with fuels that have no ethanol.
That is very interesting. No BP in Canada so do not know their fuel makeup. I wonder how much if any ethanol BP has in their fuels and if that is why BMW recommends BP. Shell in Canada says zero ethanol for V-Power right on the pump.
I will check the Canadian car manual and see if there is a similar recommendation.
I've been using Costco 91 gas in my 335i since August and felt the engine getting progressively worse over time. Switched over to Chevron 91 a few days ago... and I'm convinced that it's much superior to Costco 91. The engine is quieter when idling, and the engine's much smoother on the freeway. The reason I switched is because the car would shake quite a bit at startup. Read on here that gas could be the problem. The shaking has gone now too.
My partner and I noticed the same thing. I went with two tanks of the Costco fule and we noticed the power response was different. Totally drivable and it still delivered acceleration, but just not as much pep. Switched to Shell and BP and pep was back. I won't go to Costco anymore for fuel.
my real world test results, just did full tank with 87 recently and I get exact same mileage as with 89 and 91... I also don't notice any difference in power, nothing is knocking, everything runs as smooth as it can be... draw your on conclusions
You can feed it 91 and above and be perfectly fine.
There are knock sensors that will retard your timing
and do some other things when they sense pre-ignition ( knock)
when you use lower octane gas. But don't use 87 !
In a naturally aspirated motor you can feed it almost anything and
with knock sensors it will be fine .
However when you do this you lose power and have to push the
motor harder negating much of your savings by using the lower grade
87-89 octane gas.
HOWEVER in a TURBO - I would not use anything below 91.
Your power production will suffer dramatically and you just don't want
today's high compression turbo motors struggling with less octane than
they need. Back in the day before computers et al a turbo motor would have
a low compression ratio 7 or 8 to 1 on average. Today
the compression ration is pretty high- which is why we are seeing
such high power being wrung from these relatively small turbo motors.
Bottom line -no less than 91 for a turbo motor. If you chose to drive
a turbo BMW- feed it what it needs to get what you paid for from
the car. Cheers
I use either Mobil, Sunoco, BP or Gulf 93 octane here in NY. I had to put one tank of 87 in the car (actually half) as a result of the Sandy nonsense, but now we're fully back on a 93 octane diet. I notice very little difference in performance.
I ran a 2000 Jetta for 140,000 miles and tried different grade fuels with no perceptable change - a dealer mechanic said it was a great idea because he would get paid to clean my injectors - never happened. My Harley calls for 93 - it burns 87 fine. The BMW doesn't seem to know the difference - we put 70K on it. If a modern vehicle with electronic systems can't adapt to different fuels (winter grade, summer grade, etc), fix it, jumk it or trade it.
I see a lot of mention of BP, Shell, Chevron, etc... but i haven't heard anyone specifically mention experience with Exxon or Mobil gas. Is anyone exclusively using it? Any feedback? I have a mild discount on Exxon and Mobil gas and am trying to understand if there is any appreciable gain/advantage by using someone else.
Similarly, I firmly believe in Mobil 1 motor oil and have been using it in my current (non-BMW) car. Is there any issue with continuing to use this on my BMW?
Well on my eclass Benz I used to always use Mobil 93 then a new citgo opened up near me and I started going there and used their premium gas. At a service appointment my tech said the car was running like crap and where I get my gas from. He said use Mobil 93 as that's what they put in the cars.
When I was in college long time ago I had a winter car that was old and had a carburetor and always pinged unless I used Mobil 93. So I try to only use Mobil.
Our wonderful government has just approved E-15. 15% alcohol is not approved for use in our vehicles,so be careful at the pumps.
Seems counter-intuitive to me that it has been approved.
First, the higher the ethanol content the lower the mpg.
Second, it takes more energy to produce a gallon of the stuff than the energy it yields.
JMHO
The safest thing to do is pay more and buy gas that has no ethanol. On the Gulf coast it is advertised sometimes as fuel for boat motors as the ethanol is so devastating to those motors. The added cost will be made up in part by the added fuel economy and the balance by lack of repair bills. I plan to fire my congressmen.
The safest thing to do is pay more and buy gas that has no ethanol. On the Gulf coast it is advertised sometimes as fuel for boat motors as the ethanol is so devastating to those motors. The added cost will be made up in part by the added fuel economy and the balance by lack of repair bills. I plan to fire my congressmen.
i was thinking of switching to Costco 91 but some members here claim that there performance took a hit and some shaking while idling. Anyone have further proof of this?
Don't know about that but here in Iowa gas stations are required to label gas with ethanol and we can easily get non-ethanol regular and premium. I've asked Costco about their 91 grade and they confirmed that it doesn't contain ethanol.
A: The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 established the Renewable Fuels Standard, which required that a certain amount of ethanol be used in the nations' fuel supply. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increased this amount. Costco gasoline complies with this law, and if our fuel contains ethanol a pump decal will advise you of that fact.
That's correct. At my Costco the 91 octane pump has no sticker but the 89 does.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
BimmerFest BMW Forum
11.4M posts
753.1K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to BMW owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Bimmerfest events, production numbers, programming, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more! Bringing the BMW community together.