89 Octane gas

Are there any negative side effects to using 89 Oct gas rather than the
"required" 93 octane? How about 91 octane? So far I haven't heard any
pinging or knocking and the car seems to have the same pickup. I have a 2002
325i and a 2006 X3. Thanks

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:23:50 -0400, Gilbert Linder > wrote:

>Are there any negative side effects to using 89 Oct gas rather than the
>"required" 93 octane? How about 91 octane? So far I haven't heard any
>pinging or knocking and the car seems to have the same pickup. I have a 2002
>325i and a 2006 X3. Thanks

Neither of those vehicles requires 93 octane; BMW recommends 91 octane.

"Gilbert Linder" > wrote
> Are there any negative side effects to using 89 Oct gas rather than the
> "required" 93 octane? How about 91 octane? So far I haven't heard any
> pinging or knocking and the car seems to have the same pickup. I have a
> 2002
> 325i and a 2006 X3. Thanks

The knock sensors will detect pre-detonation and the computer will
retard the timing to prevent it. You will get less power, and somewhat
less mileage.

FloydR

I use 89 in my 3 Series cars, a '94 and an '00.



"Gilbert Linder" > wrote in message
...
> Are there any negative side effects to using 89 Oct gas rather than the
> "required" 93 octane? How about 91 octane? So far I haven't heard any
> pinging or knocking and the car seems to have the same pickup. I have a
> 2002
> 325i and a 2006 X3. Thanks
>

Gilbert Linder wrote:
> Are there any negative side effects to using 89 Oct gas rather than the
> "required" 93 octane? How about 91 octane? So far I haven't heard any
> pinging or knocking and the car seems to have the same pickup. I have a 2002
> 325i and a 2006 X3. Thanks
>

How much of a cheapskate are you?

Run it on the proper stuff or buy a Nissan, fer christs sake.

Don't even start on fuel prices, how much is it for 93 octane? $4.55 per
US gallon? I'm running an old '89 325i in the UK and feeding it proper
fuel even though it's costing me $8.99 per US gallon.

Your two cars are worth a lot more than my old E30, so why are you even
thinking of running them on cheap fuel? If you can't afford to fuel them
properly, sell them. You may as well. Running a good car on rubbish fuel
is like ordering a filet mignon in the finest restaraunt and then
drowning it in cheap burger relish.

--
Pete M - OMF#9

BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo

"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"

"Gilbert Linder" > wrote in message
...
> Are there any negative side effects to using 89 Oct gas rather than the
> "required" 93 octane? How about 91 octane? So far I haven't heard any
> pinging or knocking and the car seems to have the same pickup. I have a
> 2002
> 325i and a 2006 X3. Thanks
>

http://www.nextautos.com/running-on-...emium-gasoline
If burning 87 octane in your car, when 91 octane is specified, will not harm
the engine, and the performance degradation is not noticeable in typical
driving, how much money can you save? The Energy Information Administration,
U.S. Government Department of Energy, offers some figures for US gasoline
retail prices (these are averages, all areas, all formulations). A year ago
Regular was going for $2.982 a gallon and Premium was commanding $3.196 a
gallon. The 21.4 cent difference delivered a 6.7 percent saving over
Premium. This June 23, 2008, Regular extracted $4.079 from your wallet while
Premium sucked up $4.312 for every gallon. The differential (23.3 cents) has
grown slightly since 2007 but buying Regular is now only 5.4 percent cheaper
than Premium. Since 5 percent is roughly the typical percentage of mileage
decrease to be expected with the 87 octane fuel in a 91 octane engine, is
there any savings at all?

This does not take into account possible future engine damage:
Thomas Plucinsky, BMW Product and Technology Communications Manager told us
all BMW engines are designed to run on 91 octane. All performance testing,
including EPA emissions and fuel mileage, is done with 91 octane. However,
though BMW is all about performance, their motors will run on 89 or 87
octane without damage. The knock sensors pull the ignition timing back and
eliminate detonation. There will be a loss of power and a decrease in fuel
mileage, but the size of the horsepower loss and the increase in fuel
consumption depends upon many factors, such as ambient temperature, exact
formulation of the fuel and driving technique, so BMW does not offer any
estimates for operation on lower grade fuels. One not so obvious concern,
Mr. Plucinsky noted, is the type and quality of additives the gasoline
companies include in the fuel. Premium gasolines may have better additive
packages which are more effective keeping fuel systems (particularly
injectors) clean and working efficiently, than those in regular grade fuels
or off-brand products. Using lower octane or off-brand fuel could be
degrading the fuel system over time, setting you up for a repair bill down
the line.

" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gilbert Linder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Are there any negative side effects to using 89 Oct gas rather than the
>> "required" 93 octane? How about 91 octane? So far I haven't heard any
>> pinging or knocking and the car seems to have the same pickup. I have a
>> 2002
>> 325i and a 2006 X3. Thanks
>>
>
> http://www.nextautos.com/running-on-...emium-gasoline
> If burning 87 octane in your car, when 91 octane is specified, will not
> harm the engine, and the performance degradation is not noticeable in
> typical driving, how much money can you save? The Energy Information
> Administration, U.S. Government Department of Energy, offers some figures
> for US gasoline retail prices (these are averages, all areas, all
> formulations). A year ago Regular was going for $2.982 a gallon and
> Premium was commanding $3.196 a gallon. The 21.4 cent difference delivered
> a 6.7 percent saving over Premium. This June 23, 2008, Regular extracted
> $4.079 from your wallet while Premium sucked up $4.312 for every gallon.
> The differential (23.3 cents) has grown slightly since 2007 but buying
> Regular is now only 5.4 percent cheaper than Premium. Since 5 percent is
> roughly the typical percentage of mileage decrease to be expected with the
> 87 octane fuel in a 91 octane engine, is there any savings at all?
>
> This does not take into account possible future engine damage:
> Thomas Plucinsky, BMW Product and Technology Communications Manager told
> us all BMW engines are designed to run on 91 octane. All performance
> testing, including EPA emissions and fuel mileage, is done with 91 octane.
> However, though BMW is all about performance, their motors will run on 89
> or 87 octane without damage. The knock sensors pull the ignition timing
> back and eliminate detonation. There will be a loss of power and a
> decrease in fuel mileage, but the size of the horsepower loss and the
> increase in fuel consumption depends upon many factors, such as ambient
> temperature, exact formulation of the fuel and driving technique, so BMW
> does not offer any estimates for operation on lower grade fuels. One not
> so obvious concern, Mr. Plucinsky noted, is the type and quality of
> additives the gasoline companies include in the fuel. Premium gasolines
> may have better additive packages which are more effective keeping fuel
> systems (particularly injectors) clean and working efficiently, than those
> in regular grade fuels or off-brand products. Using lower octane or
> off-brand fuel could be degrading the fuel system over time, setting you
> up for a repair bill down the line.
>
>


That's all well and good, but the OP asked about using 89 instead of 93,
where there is an actual requiremnt of 91.

Bottom line, he can use 89 if he wants, but his cost per mile will remain
pretty much the same. 89 costs less but delivers fewer mpg. Not a lot fewer,
just enough fewer that the cost per mile will remain pretty much the same.
89 will possibly produce a lower cost per mile, _maybe_. I use 89 instead of
91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a tank full of gas. It ain't
much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few times to calculate the cost per mile
of mid-grade and of premium fuel, and with the cost per gallon difference of
a dime, I found that the cost per mile was nearly identical, with the 89
octane gas getting a slight edge. I have to run the test again to verify my
earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00 on a tank. The
cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the small margin went
to the lower grade fuel.

Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost as
being less performance.

I just want to say that I have run my E28 on sub-85 octane Mexican gas,
and while it retarded the spark like you wouldn't believe and had a tiny
fraction of the normal acceleration, it ran smoothly and did not ping.
I was impressed as hell... it's a pretty spectacular fuel injection system,
especially considering how little compute power they had to work with inside
that little 8-bit ECU.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gilbert Linder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Are there any negative side effects to using 89 Oct gas rather than the
>>> "required" 93 octane? How about 91 octane? So far I haven't heard any
>>> pinging or knocking and the car seems to have the same pickup. I have a
>>> 2002
>>> 325i and a 2006 X3. Thanks
>>>
>>
>> http://www.nextautos.com/running-on-...emium-gasoline
>> If burning 87 octane in your car, when 91 octane is specified, will not
>> harm the engine, and the performance degradation is not noticeable in
>> typical driving, how much money can you save? The Energy Information
>> Administration, U.S. Government Department of Energy, offers some figures
>> for US gasoline retail prices (these are averages, all areas, all
>> formulations). A year ago Regular was going for $2.982 a gallon and
>> Premium was commanding $3.196 a gallon. The 21.4 cent difference
>> delivered a 6.7 percent saving over Premium. This June 23, 2008, Regular
>> extracted $4.079 from your wallet while Premium sucked up $4.312 for
>> every gallon. The differential (23.3 cents) has grown slightly since 2007
>> but buying Regular is now only 5.4 percent cheaper than Premium. Since 5
>> percent is roughly the typical percentage of mileage decrease to be
>> expected with the 87 octane fuel in a 91 octane engine, is there any
>> savings at all?
>>
>> This does not take into account possible future engine damage:
>> Thomas Plucinsky, BMW Product and Technology Communications Manager told
>> us all BMW engines are designed to run on 91 octane. All performance
>> testing, including EPA emissions and fuel mileage, is done with 91
>> octane. However, though BMW is all about performance, their motors will
>> run on 89 or 87 octane without damage. The knock sensors pull the
>> ignition timing back and eliminate detonation. There will be a loss of
>> power and a decrease in fuel mileage, but the size of the horsepower loss
>> and the increase in fuel consumption depends upon many factors, such as
>> ambient temperature, exact formulation of the fuel and driving technique,
>> so BMW does not offer any estimates for operation on lower grade fuels.
>> One not so obvious concern, Mr. Plucinsky noted, is the type and quality
>> of additives the gasoline companies include in the fuel. Premium
>> gasolines may have better additive packages which are more effective
>> keeping fuel systems (particularly injectors) clean and working
>> efficiently, than those in regular grade fuels or off-brand products.
>> Using lower octane or off-brand fuel could be degrading the fuel system
>> over time, setting you up for a repair bill down the line.
>>
>>
>
>
> That's all well and good, but the OP asked about using 89 instead of 93,
> where there is an actual requiremnt of 91.

My post addressed issues of using the lower octane gas when a higher
requirement was specified.

>
> Bottom line, he can use 89 if he wants, but his cost per mile will remain
> pretty much the same. 89 costs less but delivers fewer mpg.

As per my post.

Not a lot fewer,
> just enough fewer that the cost per mile will remain pretty much the same.
> 89 will possibly produce a lower cost per mile, _maybe_.

App. .4% according to my post.

I use 89 instead of
> 91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a tank full of gas. It ain't
> much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few times to calculate the cost per
> mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel, and with the cost per gallon
> difference of a dime, I found that the cost per mile was nearly identical,
> with the 89 octane gas getting a slight edge. I have to run the test again
> to verify my earlier findings, but I recall the savings to be about $1.00
> on a tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly offset, and the
> small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
>
> Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost as
> being less performance.
>
>
>

You have to be mighty cheap to go with the lower grade, save approximately
..4% in fuel costs while increasing the chances of engine damage in the
future as you enjoy lower performance.

" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Gilbert Linder" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Are there any negative side effects to using 89 Oct gas rather than the
>>>> "required" 93 octane? How about 91 octane? So far I haven't heard any
>>>> pinging or knocking and the car seems to have the same pickup. I have a
>>>> 2002
>>>> 325i and a 2006 X3. Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nextautos.com/running-on-...emium-gasoline
>>> If burning 87 octane in your car, when 91 octane is specified, will not
>>> harm the engine, and the performance degradation is not noticeable in
>>> typical driving, how much money can you save? The Energy Information
>>> Administration, U.S. Government Department of Energy, offers some
>>> figures for US gasoline retail prices (these are averages, all areas,
>>> all formulations). A year ago Regular was going for $2.982 a gallon and
>>> Premium was commanding $3.196 a gallon. The 21.4 cent difference
>>> delivered a 6.7 percent saving over Premium. This June 23, 2008, Regular
>>> extracted $4.079 from your wallet while Premium sucked up $4.312 for
>>> every gallon. The differential (23.3 cents) has grown slightly since
>>> 2007 but buying Regular is now only 5.4 percent cheaper than Premium.
>>> Since 5 percent is roughly the typical percentage of mileage decrease to
>>> be expected with the 87 octane fuel in a 91 octane engine, is there any
>>> savings at all?
>>>
>>> This does not take into account possible future engine damage:
>>> Thomas Plucinsky, BMW Product and Technology Communications Manager told
>>> us all BMW engines are designed to run on 91 octane. All performance
>>> testing, including EPA emissions and fuel mileage, is done with 91
>>> octane. However, though BMW is all about performance, their motors will
>>> run on 89 or 87 octane without damage. The knock sensors pull the
>>> ignition timing back and eliminate detonation. There will be a loss of
>>> power and a decrease in fuel mileage, but the size of the horsepower
>>> loss and the increase in fuel consumption depends upon many factors,
>>> such as ambient temperature, exact formulation of the fuel and driving
>>> technique, so BMW does not offer any estimates for operation on lower
>>> grade fuels. One not so obvious concern, Mr. Plucinsky noted, is the
>>> type and quality of additives the gasoline companies include in the
>>> fuel. Premium gasolines may have better additive packages which are more
>>> effective keeping fuel systems (particularly injectors) clean and
>>> working efficiently, than those in regular grade fuels or off-brand
>>> products. Using lower octane or off-brand fuel could be degrading the
>>> fuel system over time, setting you up for a repair bill down the line.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's all well and good, but the OP asked about using 89 instead of 93,
>> where there is an actual requiremnt of 91.
>
> My post addressed issues of using the lower octane gas when a higher
> requirement was specified.
>
>>
>> Bottom line, he can use 89 if he wants, but his cost per mile will remain
>> pretty much the same. 89 costs less but delivers fewer mpg.
>
> As per my post.
>
> Not a lot fewer,
>> just enough fewer that the cost per mile will remain pretty much the
>> same. 89 will possibly produce a lower cost per mile, _maybe_.
>
> App. .4% according to my post.
>
> I use 89 instead of
>> 91 and find that it saves me about $1.00 on a tank full of gas. It ain't
>> much, but it's a buck. I bothered a few times to calculate the cost per
>> mile of mid-grade and of premium fuel, and with the cost per gallon
>> difference of a dime, I found that the cost per mile was nearly
>> identical, with the 89 octane gas getting a slight edge. I have to run
>> the test again to verify my earlier findings, but I recall the savings to
>> be about $1.00 on a tank. The cost per mile to drive was not perfectly
>> offset, and the small margin went to the lower grade fuel.
>>
>> Since I'm dollar-driven, I go for the lower grade and accept the cost as
>> being less performance.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You have to be mighty cheap to go with the lower grade, save approximately
> .4% in fuel costs while increasing the chances of engine damage in the
> future as you enjoy lower performance.
>

There is no danger of damage by using 89 instead of 91.

The cost differential is insignificant too, except that 0.4% is a growing
number as the price of gas goes up. Granted, the savings does not cover my
beer tab at dinner with my wife, I have found no reason to not use 89
instead of 91.

My Jeep has an aftermarket fuel injection system. And when I installed it,
the fuel requirement went from Regular (87) to Premium (91). It does not
tolerate 87 at all, and balks at 89, so I have to use 91 to avoid engine
damage. I know about the potential for big trouble resulting from using the
wrong fuel, but my BMW is happy to run 89.