[335BOY]

Originally Posted by Killramos

Here is the way i see it.

Gasoline is priced competitively, ie all of the gas stations in town that advertise 91 octane or even 93 are all within a cent or 2 of each other (in Canada we price per litre).

So when I got to Shell and get my 91 octane of 100% petroleum, no ethanol, as well as shells industry leading V-Power additives, i am paying the same price as if i went to petro canada (as an example) and filled up with 91 that is 5-10% ethanol.

Now the ethanol in the gas decreases fuel economy ( i burn more gas by driving the same distance) which costs me money.

To me that isn't "No effect on a BMW".

Ethanol in gas also increases its ability to absorb moisture in the tank, which leads to sludging in the tank and fuel lines. Can lead to injector malfunctions and other expensive repairs.

Again that isn't "No effect on a BMW".

Fuel up with what you want. There are more than enough reasons to avoid ethanol gas for me.

I couldnt care any less what fuel you use but have you been able to document a mileage increase/decrease with ethanol laced fuel? In theory if you leave a tank of fuel for months then moisture MAY accumulate but filters will prevent it from reaching the combustion chamber etc. If it were as bad as you say there would be broken down cars everywhere. I bet 99% of BMW drivers use it .

[Zooks527]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

In theory if you leave a tank of fuel for months then moisture MAY accumulate but filters will prevent it from reaching the combustion chamber etc. If it were as bad as you say there would be broken down cars everywhere. I bet 99% of BMW drivers use it .

Ethanol is fully miscible with water and ethanol is also fully miscible with gasoline. However, in a multi-componant mixture, ethanol / water is only miscible in gasoline to a certain water content, at which point the ethanol / water mixture separates into its own phase.

Ethanol doesn't "create" water in the tank. However, any water accumulation in the gasoline (far more likely from condensation in a marine environment, which is why you have better luck finding EtOH-free gas at a marina) can increase the water level to the point at which the two phases will split. With a 90% gasoline / 10% ethanol mixture at 60 degF, the split occurs when the water content reaches ~0.5% by volume. At 0 degF, the split occurs at a water content of ~0.3% (under 6 oz of water in a full 2-series tank).

At that stage, the density of the ethanol/water phase is greater than that of the gasoline, and it drops to the bottom of the tank. Your fuel pump then pulls just ethanol/water into the engine. Unlike a layer of water at the bottom of your tank (which hits the engine and stops the combustion cycle, resulting in a nuisance), the ethanol/water mixture at the bottom of the tank will burn.

In a riff on "Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!", your engine declares "Hey, 335boy, watch me stuff a reeeeeealy lean burn into my exhaust!" Something other than hilarity then ensues.

[335BOY]

Again, I'm sure that's all correct on paper but how do you explain all the cars running on it everyday without issue?

[Zooks527]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

Again, I'm sure that's all correct on paper but how do you explain all the cars running on it everyday without issue?

The issues are below the horizon for most users. Cars run, they just don't run as well, burn lean, knock some of the life out of the O2 sensors, and so on. In the past, if the tanker screwed the pooch and dropped a few gallons of water through the fill lid at the station, some poor SOB might get it, drive off, and stop 2 blocks down. Now, a string of people get to run hot with a mild stammer.

Fuel efficiency losses are real as well, across the board at 4% or so, higher in certain cars. It's an issue, but it's ubiquitous and doesn't get noticed as a result.

[Killramos]

Ethanol fuel increasing fuel usage is just a straight up fact. I don't need to do my own experiment to prove it. It is just science.

You car needs X energy/second to operate, that doesn't change. Pure gasoline has more energy per litre than gasoline with 10% ethanol. Therefore to operate at the same X energy per second as a car with pure gasoline the care with E10 will have to pump more gas into the engine per second to keep up.

Now modern cars can do this just fine by tracking the amount of oxygen etc. in the exhaust and alter the mixture in real time faster than you can blink. ( that's what all those sensors are for!) So they don't actually apparently run differently as can be perceived. Flex Fuel vehicles do they same thing but on a much larger scale.

But they do burn more gas per second by doing that.

[Anderw]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

Why? Thats exactly what BMW reccomends.

I'm sure the car is able to run on 91 since in some states that's all there is , but you literally make more power and the car runs better with 93 especially with a tune but even stock. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wished 93 was available there.

[335BOY]

Originally Posted by kwsw

I'm sure the car is able to run on 91 since in some states that's all there is , but you literally make more power and the car runs better with 93 especially with a tune but even stock. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wished 93 was available there.

Any BMW will run on 87 if you had to....would just make a few less HP. Its been proven many times that HP gain is minimal and virtually imperceptible. Probably about 10 hp MAXIMUM on untuned 235. Do you think everyone on here can feel +/- 10 hp driving around the city? That would probably translate to about -.005 0-60. Doesnt run smoother either. In fact, CBC did a TV report up here where a woman assumed 93 was better for her car and the environment when in fact she was polluting more and using more fuel because her engine was designed to run on regular. I believe that was a Toyota but what I am saying is "running higher octane fuel is more efficient and provides power gains" is not a fact across the board.
Just read that mileage difference (assuming max 10% ethanol) is MAX 3 %. Again I don't care what anyone uses but so many around here are think 93 wil lmake the world of difference.
This monthly thread is amusing.

[sputman]

I use 91 because that's what the inside of the gas cap says to use. Simple.

[Anderw]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

Any BMW will run on 87 if you had to....would just make a few less HP. Its been proven many times that HP gain is minimal and virtually imperceptible. Probably about 10 hp MAXIMUM on untuned 235. Do you think everyone on here can feel +/- 10 hp driving around the city? That would probably translate to about -.005 0-60. Doesnt run smoother either. In fact, CBC did a TV report up here where a woman assumed 93 was better for her car and the environment when in fact she was polluting more and using more fuel because her engine was designed to run on regular. I believe that was a Toyota but what I am saying is "running higher octane fuel is more efficient and provides power gains" is not a fact across the board.
Just read that mileage difference (assuming max 10% ethanol) is MAX 3 %. Again I don't care what anyone uses but so many around here are think 93 wil lmake the world of difference.
This monthly thread is amusing.

I see you lurk around the 2series forum looking for amusement

you run 91 , ill run 93 well both be happy

:-()

[335BOY]

Originally Posted by kwsw

I see you lurk around the 2series forum looking for amusement

you run 91 , ill run 93 well both be happy

:-()

Lurk? The car interests me. I just test drove one about 3 weeks ago ...possible next car. I think I have said more than once that I couldnt care any less what anyone uses. Sometimes the "Facts" here are a little off. Believe what you want and use what you want.

[Anderw]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

Lurk? The car interests me. I just test drove one about 3 weeks ago ...possible next car. I think I have said more than once that I couldnt care any less what anyone uses. Sometimes the "Facts" here are a little off. Believe what you want and use what you want.

Ok

[Zooks527]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

Any BMW will run on 87 if you had to....would just make a few less HP. Its been proven many times that HP gain is minimal and virtually imperceptible. Probably about 10 hp MAXIMUM on untuned 235.

My goodness. So many small snippets of data interwoven into something so misleading in so little space. Taking it point by point.

"Any BMW will run on 87 if you had to"
Very true. The engine sensors would detect incipient knock, and would pull the timing back to prevent damage to the engine. It would certainly run, and without damage.

"....would just make a few less HP. "
No. A BMW running on 87 octane would make significantly less horsepower. Now, granted that the following is a 14 year old test, but it does address your point above: HP reduction due to octane reduction. You need to read the right section, specifically the results using octane below the engine manufacturer's specification for high compression engines with knock sensing:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/regular-or-premium
"The results were more dramatic with the test cars that require premium fuel. The turbocharged Saab's sophisticated Trionic engine-control system dialed the power back 9.8 percent on regular gas, and performance dropped 10.1 percent at the track."
A 30+ HP reduction would seem to qualify as more than "a few less" or "minimal and virtually imperceptible".


The problem is that so many people watch a television program stating "There's no benefit to premium" without getting the caveat that the statement only applies to cars designed for regular. The assumption does not carry over to cars designed for premium.

Originally Posted by 335BOY

Just read that mileage difference (assuming max 10% ethanol) is MAX 3 %.

You should be careful of your sources. Even the EPA puts the loss greater than that:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml
"Since ethanol contains about two-thirds as much energy as gasoline, vehicles will typically go 3% to 4% fewer miles per gallon on E10 and 4% to 5% fewer on E15 than on 100% gasoline."

[overcoil]

Some states don't even test retailers to make sure premium octane listed on tank actually are.

[335BOY]

Originally Posted by Zooks527

My goodness. So many small snippets of data interwoven into something so misleading in so little space. Taking it point by point.

"Any BMW will run on 87 if you had to"
Very true. The engine sensors would detect incipient knock, and would pull the timing back to prevent damage to the engine. It would certainly run, and without damage.

"....would just make a few less HP. "
No. A BMW running on 87 octane would make significantly less horsepower. Now, granted that the following is a 14 year old test, but it does address your point above: HP reduction due to octane reduction. You need to read the right section, specifically the results using octane below the engine manufacturer's specification for high compression engines with knock sensing:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/regular-or-premium
"The results were more dramatic with the test cars that require premium fuel. The turbocharged Saab's sophisticated Trionic engine-control system dialed the power back 9.8 percent on regular gas, and performance dropped 10.1 percent at the track."
A 30+ HP reduction would seem to qualify as more than "a few less" or "minimal and virtually imperceptible".


The problem is that so many people watch a television program stating "There's no benefit to premium" without getting the caveat that the statement only applies to cars designed for regular. The assumption does not carry over to cars designed for premium.





You should be careful of your sources. Even the EPA puts the loss greater than that:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml
"Since ethanol contains about two-thirds as much energy as gasoline, vehicles will typically go 3% to 4% fewer miles per gallon on E10 and 4% to 5% fewer on E15 than on 100% gasoline."

14 year old test? I looked up everything. I said 3%. What's your problem? You say 3-4. The point I trying to make is 10 ethanol is not evil and 93 isn't going to give you much if any more hp. I said the gain would be imperceptible. So busy trying to pick a fight that you didn't read everything? I'm just trying to get along here. What's wrong with that?

[Zooks527]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

I said 3%. What's your problem? You say 3-4.

No, you said "MAX 3", using caps to stress your point. A maximum of 3 doesn't even enter the 3 - 4 range.

Originally Posted by 335BOY

The point I trying to make is 10 ethanol is not evil and 93 isn't going to give you much if any more hp. I said the gain would be imperceptible.

Now, let's be honest and look at your quote, in context and just the way the front of your paragraph read:

"Any BMW will run on 87 if you had to....would just make a few less HP. Its been proven many times that HP gain is minimal and virtually imperceptible. Probably about 10 hp MAXIMUM on untuned 235."

That says nothing about 93 octane, and claims that 87 would make just a few less, not the 30+ HP reduction you would get with 87. Later on, you do mention that 93 gets you nothing in a Toyota designed for regular. That's fine, but it's also irrelevant.

Originally Posted by 335BOY

So busy trying to pick a fight that you didn't read everything? I'm just trying to get along here. What's wrong with that?

I did read everything, and as written, it's misleading. Getting along is fine, but dismissive quips following out-of-context quotes from TV news probably isn't the way to go.

[configt]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

14 year old test? I looked up everything. I said 3%. What's your problem? You say 3-4. The point I trying to make is 10 ethanol is not evil and 93 isn't going to give you much if any more hp. I said the gain would be imperceptible. So busy trying to pick a fight that you didn't read everything? I'm just trying to get along here. What's wrong with that?

I think the reason why everyone here is disagreeing with your statements 335BOY is because you sort of just state your opinion as a fact and then ask everyone else to backup theirs. It's too general of a statement, too much of a blanket statement. I think there is a lot more to consider than a CBC "study". Naturally aspirated vs forced induction, factory tune operation, temperatures etc. Also the way you write sounds a bit rude and that is going to turn people off. Be nicer dude! No one is going to want to be your friend this way

My opinion is that the average driver who puts 87 in their 91+ "required" car likely won't feel a difference, because they aren't really looking for it, and isn't driving their car in a way where they would feel it anyways. If you are like me, going into high boost, and constantly comparing one drive feeling after another, listening for weird sounds and vibrations and are particularly in tune with your vehicle, it will be noticed. This feeling of less power on lower octane is exacerbated by higher intake temperature and whether or not you have a turbo car. I also had a 2015 STi for a couple months and my tuner was data logging the timing being pulled on one gas type vs another, while keeping intake temps consistent. The numbers don't lie and showed at WOT timing was pulled back and power was obviously lower on worse gas every single time. In some of the tune programming more than timing will be pulled such as boost.

The only way to prove this one way or another is to throw an M235i on the dyno using 87, empty the system completely, run 93 through the system and retest with the same environment conditions. Do this several times and see what the difference is. Anyone want to volunteer?

[335BOY]

Got it. Thanks.

[Peter K_B]

Originally Posted by jskrilla

How many of you put the following in your vehicle? Also state the car that you drive, whether it's an 228i or an m235! Do you think it honestly makes a difference? Regular Plus Premium

In North America, Premium gas usually has an octane rating of 91. For the M235i, Premium gas is recommended so I never use a lower octane. But in Canada, we can get Ultra gas from some Petro Canada stations -- that were formerly Sunoco -- with an octane rating of 94. (I read an article somewhere claiming that unless a car is tuned for such high octane it should not be used. ????)

I had the Dinan Tune Stage 1 installed and their specs on horsepower and torque curves (based on dyno testing) all assume that 93 octane gasoline is being used. So, when I can find Ultra 94 easily, I will use that. Do I notice a difference vs. 91 octane. No, but I do not have access to a dyno to do any testing.

BMW recommends Shell V-Power NiTRO+ Premium Gasoline for M cars since 2015. http://www.shell.us/motorist/shell-f...-gasoline.html with "unsurpassed protection against gunk and corrosion and superior protection against engine wear". I suspect this is just a marketing ploy by Shell and I don't have a "real M car" in any event. Besides, it is only 91 octane here. Is it 93 in the US? (But in Canada, the V gas contains no ethanol, which may or may not be a benefit - depending on which article you read.)

[Peter K_B]

Originally Posted by CameronCrazy

Shell VPower 93 Octane

M235i.

I live in Canada and here, no Shell gas is higher than 91 Octane. Shell V-Power NiTRO+ See http://www.shell.ca/en_ca/motorists/shell-fuels/shell-vpower-nitro-plus-faqs.html


Shell has 93 octane in the US? Is it 93 in the V-Power NiTRO+?

[Peter K_B]

Originally Posted by 335BOY

I couldnt care any less what fuel you use but have you been able to document a mileage increase/decrease with ethanol laced fuel? In theory if you leave a tank of fuel for months then moisture MAY accumulate but filters will prevent it from reaching the combustion chamber etc. If it were as bad as you say there would be broken down cars everywhere. I bet 99% of BMW drivers use it .

Agreed. In fact, my research did not indicate any gasoline in the US that is said to be free of ethanol.

In Canada, only the Shell V-Power NiTRO+ is guaranteed to contain no ethanol. See http://www.shell.ca/en_ca/motorists/...plus-faqs.html I have not found any similar claim by Shell in the US.

[Maynard]

Mild OT digression - I just did a cross country trek, and had not realized that in some states the ethanol vs. ethanol-free varies station-to-station, even amongst Top tier stations. If I had known ahead, I'd have tried to figure out who had eth-free versions as I was trying to max my mpg for a change (ECOPRO actually works well on the open road - hate it everywhere else I've tried it, but it got me at least +5%, 36.6mpg averaging over 70mph).

Here in NYS we can get eth-free, but max 91 octane, at least .40 more/gal, and locally it is only from a non-top-tier place, so I use 93 from Sunoco (no Shell locally). I think that ethanol is a mixed bag, not all bad - ethanol has some very useful properties, including that water absorption (we used to buy it in little bottles labeled 'fuel system drier' or pay hundreds for an injector system to add water/alcohol). I know it is an ecological and financial nightmare, but for cars designed to use it there are some positives.

And all the talk about HP is a bit off base, w/o dyno results. It is torque that you feel, not HP, and probably where the benefits really come in - peak HP is pretty mechanically limited, but torque across the rpm curve is much more dependent upon dynamic settings that get adjusted down for poor octane or knock. I do believe that most enthusiasts can 'butt dyno' a 10ft/lb difference, especially at lower rpms coming off the line or at initial acceleration.

[beard627]

So far I've only used 93 but it's early days for me.