Premium Gas or Unleaded for -04 330ci-

Originally Posted by jneumann

From personal experience 2 weeks ago on a 6000 mile road trip, I got the worst mileage of the entire trip when I put in 89 for a tank in my 320slow. I averaged ~28mpg when my 89 octane outlier of 23.2mpg was removed. All the other fillups were of 91 or above. The car also had a very noticeable power loss when attempting to climb mountain passes. (think floored in 3rd gear and decelerating at 60mph) I ran that tank down to almost nothing and the next tank was very noticeably different from a power standpoint - no more issues with mountains for the rest of the trip.
The 89 tank was driven with a slight (<6mph) side wind, so wind was not really a factor. I saw 30-40mph side winds through Nevada at possibly-higher-than-legal speeds and still got 25mpg on that tank.

At the cost of two tacos per tank over regular, I'm sticking with premium.

+1

If you can't afford this:



Trade your E46 for this:

In southwestern ontario, I found shell 91 gave better gas milage then Sonoco 91 or 94... which I read had more Ethanol. Shell reported they did not use ethanol in the 91 (on a sign on the pump). With that said, the butt dyno found no difference in any gas grade. I stopped using Esso gas after the aditives they were using was fouling my plugs with a purple colour in my Maxima. My VW passat with APR chip runs only Sonoco 94 or the ECU logs some knocking with VAG com under hard acceleration/bost under the agressive fuel map. Butt dyno also notices a difference in VW.


I doubt the price difference in Shell 91 or 87 makes up for the difference in fuel economy... but I don't care.

Originally Posted by Zell

lose*



Oh and my contribution to the thread. GAS SUCKS FILL WITH WATER

http://www.drivecarwithwater.com/

TOTALLY NOT A SCAM

Loser is just the tip of my personality iceberg. . .ha

and are those "sarcastic caps" or literal caps? I can give a 30-second debunking of this no problem, maybe even 25 second. How dare you redirect the flames of this thread!

Originally Posted by jaymemaurice

In southwestern ontario, I found shell 91 gave better gas milage then Sonoco 91 or 94... which I read had more Ethanol. Shell reported they did not use ethanol in the 91 (on a sign on the pump)

Certainly possible, but probably hard to notice. Ethanol contains ~30% less energy per gallon, so when mixed to 10% Ethanol to 90% gasoline, you will have a 3% loss of energy per gallon over straight gasoline.

I run 89 from Shell and get about 450 miles to a tank. Hit 500 a tank during an extended road trip. 101k miles. No problems besides regular maintenance.

Sent from my PC36100 using Bimmer App

Originally Posted by jasonbimmer

actually what kind of gas you use significantly depending on your driving style. if you just cruising around at low rpm all day, probably regular/plus will serve you just as well as premium. if you like to hit the red lines and hear the engine sing like I do, premium is the only choice.
when engine is working harder, fuel is more easily to ignite we all know that. you surely dont want the fuel to pre-ignite causing a knock.
its like engine oil. why M3's with higher red line uses thicker oil to compensate the heat?

I agree and disagree. . .first more vehicles encounter more high load situations due to demands placed on them by things like the a/c compressor, or towing - not "driving style" per se.

Second I don't think heat is the factor for all post 3/2000 M engines requiring Castrol synthetic 5w-60, I'm sure the nuts at bobistheoilguy.com have that covered better than I ever could. It could be a lot of reasons. . .the higher compression ratio than non-M engines, the higher redlines, etc. I just don't know.

But, I use premium too, so on the whole I agree, but for slightly different reasons . . . I think.

Originally Posted by E46Mango

You must be poor.

Please stop with the barnyard fantasy good ol' boy philosophy. If you can't afford to properly run your car, then sell your German POS.

Which brings me to my next point. Worst case scenario of premium fuel costs you $.20 cents more than regular, you're paying $3.20 more per tank for a 16-gallon fill-up. Can you seriously not afford three bucks a tank?

You'll also get poorer mileage on lower octane and less power (detect knock and pull timing as designed), if your car is specified to run optimally on 91 octane (like our cars are) So by one being a barnyard boy, one is actually hurting both their mileage and their wallet.

OP. following your owners manual is key.

Your math is off. $0.20 x 63 liters = $12.6 extra

Originally Posted by ac_2007

Your math is off. $0.20 x 63 liters = $12.6 extra

Hm you sure? I simply multiplied 20 cents times 16 gallons (typical E46 fillup)

$3.50/gallon regular x 16 gallons= $56

$3.70/gallon premium x 16 gallos= $59.20

Difference= $3.20

Originally Posted by E46Mango

Hm you sure? I simply multiplied 20 cents times 16 gallons (typical E46 fillup)

$3.50/gallon regular x 16 gallons= $56

$3.70/gallon premium x 16 gallos= $59.20

Difference= $3.20

The $0.20 difference I mentioned is not per gallon.

We use liters in Canada

Originally Posted by ChicagoRY

and are those "sarcastic caps"

^ That

Originally Posted by ac_2007

The $0.20 difference I mentioned is not per gallon.

We use liters in Canada

$3.20 in the US gets you four tacos and a small soda at Jack in the Box.

Originally Posted by Zell

^ That

phew! It's funny how the internet has both given people the ability to harness great knowledge, and also have an outlet to exercise their extreme ignorance at the same time.

I liked when gas was around $1.50-$2 @ gallon and the hysteria pretty much ended with the little black & white ads in the back of motor trend, the way back, that would say "Amazing bolt on super charger, works with any car, adds 50+ hp and increases MPG by 25%, 3 easy payments of $19.95!"

Originally Posted by E46Mango

$3.20 in the US gets you four tacos and a small soda at Jack in the Box.

Then you can just imagine how precious a $12.6 savings would be to a hungered driver.

Originally Posted by ac_2007

Then you can just imagine how precious a $12.6 savings would be to a hungered driver.

Said hungered driver would gain four tacos in the short-term but in the long term he'll actually be losing tacos.

The noted extra cost would almost break even given the extra mileage per tank.. almost.
That said, in the rest of the world the hungered driver would eventually starve and die.

My mom makes me lunch so I can afford 91 octane though.

Originally Posted by E46Mango

Which brings me to my next point. Worst case scenario of premium fuel costs you $.20 cents more than regular, you're paying $3.20 more per tank for a 16-gallon fill-up. Can you seriously not afford three bucks a tank?

Premium here is generally 30 cents more than regular. That's $4.80 per tank. When the bimmer was being used regularly, it was getting filled up about twice a week. That's $9.60 per week. That's a difference of $38.40 per four-week month. Which means that the regular gas has a cost savings equivalent of almost a tank and a half every other month, or $499.20 per year.

$500 is a decent chunk of money per year to throw away on something I've never seen any convincing evidence showing it to be better. Our bimmer averages about 28 mpg. How much better is it going to get?

But really, here's the bottom line. It could be a dime's worth of difference over the course of a year, and I would still see no benefit to using premium over regular, other than that tiny feeling of superiority when I watch the unwashed masses using that poor dirty 87 octane.

Hey hey NoVabimmer is talking some senses here.
Glad to see someone talking using facts and with not bullsh1t feelings.

Originally Posted by MercForHire

Hey hey NoVabimmer is talking some senses here.
Glad to see someone talking using facts and with not bullsh1t feelings.

No, I'm just using anecdotal evidence to support my hypothesis that premium fuel offers zero advantage to my naturally aspirated, mass-produced cars.

And it's not a theory I have any interest in disproving, so I'm admittedly biased.

I'm not going to any lengths to participate in a scientific experiment, either.

Anyone here can disprove it with a claim that 93 gets them 3.75648% better gas mileage, thereby throwing off my calculation.

But looking at a national average of about $4 per gallon regular, and a national average of $4.20 premium, you need to get 5% better fuel mileage from premium to offset the price difference.

Anyone have an idea of how much better mileage premium could potentially get you?

Originally Posted by E46Mango

$3.20 in the US gets you four tacos and a small soda at Jack in the Box.

Hmm.. I'll be using 89 octane now and getting 'free' lunch every time I fill up now!

Now to find a Jack in the Box