what type of gas are you using in your bmw 135i?

[lamal3]

I just wanted to know which is the best gas to fill up. Chevron, Shell, Petro Canada, Esso, or Husky? I'm going to fill up my car for the first time and just wanted to know which was better than the other.

Thanks

[ZIPNBYE]

Chevron (we don't have that choice in Alberta) or Shell for me.

[EspressoBoy]

lamal3,

A lot of people have already commented on this. If you use the search at the top, you can find lots. I personally started with Sunoco 94 Octane but after 4 months realized the my 135 seems to run a lot better on Shell V Power 91 Octane. It is also a bit cheaper. I suggest you try for yourself and chime in after you have tried them out. I found the car had a bit better responce. I did not check milage, it was just a feeling. I have noticed that the milage is not as good now that I am over 10k km.

EspressoBoy

BTW
Welcome to 1addicts! Hope it is as much fun for you as it has been for us.

EspressoBoy & Yoda

[Lester]

Petro Canada 94 Octane. It is only about 2 cents per litre more than 91 octane, so it is worth it. I ususally fill up at 1/2 tank, so if 94 is not avaialble then I switch to 91. Shell or Chevron are also ok. Don't use Husky as it is a higher ethanol blend (corn gas). Corn is for pigs, not BMW turbos.

[1Ronnie]

I tried this in both my e90 323i, and my 128i, on three separate occasions, running at least two full tanks each time. Personally, I know there will be a good reason why my findings aren't scientific (and are probably wrong), but the 94 in every case got me lower k's than 91. Even if I am wrong somehow, there was no significant improvement in gas mileage, so I have to go with my gut and save the money.

Agree with the Husky comment though.

Originally Posted by Lester

Petro Canada 94 Octane. It is only about 2 cents per litre more than 91 octane, so it is worth it. I ususally fill up at 1/2 tank, so if 94 is not avaialble then I switch to 91. Shell or Chevron are also ok. Don't use Husky as it is a higher ethanol blend (corn gas). Corn is for pigs, not BMW turbos.

[never]

Too much octane on a car that doesn't need it will cause reduced performance/mileage. On a turbo car (esp with a tune), additional octane will make a positive difference.

[EspressoBoy]

1Ronnie,
did you also find the 91 was more responsive?

I did.

I have only tried Shell 91 Vpower but maybe other 91 are just as good if not better.

I can say that the 94 was not as responsive. As far as km per tank I didn't check. Frankly a few km make zero difference to me anyway. I want fun and I was willing to pay.

Now that gas prices are down, it's not hurting my wallet much.

EspressoBoy

[alimjessa]

Husky 94 is the best. I am getting 10.8 L/100 with Dinan/exhaust/Afe Intake.....Definately slower when I used 91

[1Ronnie]

Originally Posted by EspressoBoy

1Ronnie,
did you also find the 91 was more responsive?

I did.

I certainly gained nothing, it's a bit hard to say as I am a city driver, but certainly I got no benefits that I could see.

[digital12]

Hi There,

I use SUNOCO 94 or Shell V-Power. I do find the SUNOCO 94 much better, the car seems to have a little more ZIP, or it could just be my imagination.

Thank

Guido

[turbojayc]

Ultra 94. 98% of the time.

[ZIPNBYE]

Ethanol in all fuel in Alberta soon.

This is not good. Have we (collectlively) learnt nothing from the past and/or the Americans?

Corn is THE harshest crop to grow from a land-base perspective, as it leaches everything good out of the soil, thereby requiring farmers to expend more money each successive year to buy fertilizer in order to harvest the next year's crop. The North American market's diversion of corn into fuel from food has caused famine and hardship all around the world as one staple crop suddenly disappears. Sugar cane yields far more ethanol than corn or other biomass processes, and grows like a weed, but alas, no American or Canadian farmer can grow sugar cane. From a global socio-economic point of view, examining every aspect, corn to ethanol to fuel is about the worst thing that the Americans ever came up with. And now, Ed Stelmach's fallen for it.

Apart from letting the Alberta Industrial Heartland project (nearly) fall flat (the death-knell's not quite yet ocurred, but it's close, which will see nearly every additional drop of synthetic crude from Ft. McMoney go to the US in raw form as opposed to refining it here, thus adding wealth), now we're going to get this.

It really is time for a change in Alberta.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox now...but I'm still breathing hard.

[bimmerfile]

I used to run only with Sunoco 94, but I switched to Shell 91 V-Power several months ago.
The performance is the same, but I believe I'm getting better mileage - I think that's because Shell V-Power contains no corn squeezings... :biggrin:

[corpsman]

Esso super.

[M3Newbie88]

75% of the time Shell Vpower 91 Octane and 25% of the time Sunoco 94 Octane...

[vanbmw]

I use Chevron 91 or Esso 91. I saw someone using Husky...don't they add ethanol to their gas? I know some cars that is not recommended but I am not sure if it is bad for a BMW. I think I would read my awners manual before using gas with ethanol. Better safe then sorry.

[BOSCH 135i]

petro canada 91 or 94 depending on the tune of my cars...
I get huge points and now can submit them for 100 scratch and wins woot

[Qube]

91 PetroCanada. Got loads of those 5c off cards... coupled with the 2c Citibank, that's 7c off a litre. Pretty good.

[AlienDNA]

Originally Posted by never

Too much octane on a car that doesn't need it will cause reduced performance/mileage.

No, it won't. First of all, the 'octane rating' doesn't have anything to do with the amount of octane in the fuel. It's just a fuel's relative resistance to ignition compared to a certain amount of octane. This is why it's possible to have an octane rating greater than 100 (ie: fuel that is more resistant to ignition than 100% octane).

If you use fuel with a higher octane rating than required and your car's engine management system cannot take advantage of it (usually by advancing the spark), the only effect will be that you've wasted some money. You should expect the exact same performance and mileage.

If you use fuel that posts a higher octane number because it includes ethanol, and your car's engine management system cannot take advantage of it, then you can expect lower mileage (but not necessarily lower performance). This is because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline. The more ethanol in your fuel, the more you have to burn to produce the same amount of energy as an equivalent amount of gasoline, all else being equal.

Originally Posted by never

On a turbo car (esp with a tune), additional octane will make a positive difference.

Again, this is not the case. It is the engine management system that determines whether or not the motor can take advantage of the higher octane rating, not whether or not there is a turbo in the mix.

Oh, and I tend to use Sunoco 94 if it's available because both my 135 and my Miata take advantage of higher octane ratings, but will use Shell if needed because they sponsor Kevin Harvick.

(If you've worked in the fuel industry, you know that cross-terminalling means that the only difference between any of the fuels is the additive package. When I worked for IOL in the '90s, the gas that came out of the pumps at Canadian Tire came from the same spigot as the gas that came out of the Esso pumps. :wink

[KPower]

Chevron Supreme Plus (94). For me the most important factor is the energy content of the fuel.

Basically there are three factors in fuel.

ENERGY: The most important factor is energy content. The energy content of fuel is measured by the grade - low, mid and supreme. And the energy content is determined by the blend of long unbroken carbon molecule strings with shorter broken strings. The refineries are constantly varying the blend depending on the characteristics of the oil available. The more bonds in the strings, the more energy is released when the bonds are broken (burned). For performance, you always want the fuel with the most energy content.

ADDITIVES: The second factor for me are additives. Generally refineries put more additives in the higher grades of fuel. 'Top Tier' fuels have the extra additives. Generally Supreme grade has the most additives. For clean running, you generally want fuel with the most additives.

OCTANE: Octane is just a flame/ anti-knock retardant. And like additives, more octane is put in the higher grades of gasolene. The higher performance engines generally require higher flame retardents. My 2006 BMW K1200S has 13:1 compression and a red line of 12,000 rpm. Each of the four cylinders is the size of a Coke can or a total 1,157cc engine. At sea level, 92 octane is just fine for my K1200S. So the 2,979cc,10.2:1 compression, 7,000 rpm engine in our BMW 135i should be fine with 92 octane. Putting more octane in will have no effect.

So, for performance choose the highest grade of fuel which happens to also come with the highest octane figure. For the lowest fuel consumption, choose the highest grade of fuel which has the most energy content and will give you the lowest fuel consumption. For anti-knock protection, choose the fuel with the lowest octane figure that your engine will run on without knocking.

Frankly I choose performance over all else. It's Supreme Plus for me (and it comes with lots of 'Top Tier' additives, and more than enough octane!).

Bruce
Vancouver, BC

[never]

Originally Posted by AlienDNA

Again, this is not the case. It is the engine management system that determines whether or not the motor can take advantage of the higher octane rating, not whether or not there is a turbo in the mix.

I was keeping my comments simple for everyone. Turbos run hot and can benefit from increased octane. Same with SCs or high compression NA motors. True, timing needs to be advanced to take advantage (either manually if you have a distributor, with the ECU, or with a laptop/customized tune). My general, sweeping point was that higher octane in a 128 won't result in much of a difference while a 135 will benefit from a higher octane.

[135iUSN]

Ok - - In a quick decision I drove to Koln Germany - about 300 mile trip from 'home' - filled up and on the autobahn within 5 miles.

Navi said 154 miles each way. Speed to Koln between 80-100 mph

In town driving - less than 15 (in DS)

Return trip about 80-90 average due to crazy wind trying to boot me off the autobahn.

On the return the nav would jump around on range and at the start said I would run out of gas 9 miles before I reached home.

In reality at 31 miles until empty I had 44 miles to go...

At ---- ( range gone ) I had reprogrammed the closest Esso station based on the tank and range meter I was on fumes. But, when the range went to --- I had 1.9 miles until the Esso station. BUT, I make it :thumbup: Still about 11 miles from home.

Average MPG was 25.2

Koln web site : http://www.koeln.de/

Seems my maps finally work on night vision - before only the pop up for turn guidance was in night view when I turned it on and the maps showed landmarks too. The Koln

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1277992 (not my pic but nice night view of the La Catedral (Koln Dome) and bridge - that btw, showed up in navi as landmarks

I just rolled 2300 miles on the '09 1er