In america, you're supposed to use whatever the manufacturer suggest.
Anything higher won't do jack diddily sqaut on a stock car, because the engine timing maps won't take advantage of it. They will only compensate for lower octane fuel.

__________________
admin @ mbworld.org

possibly 2 reasons.. 1) they're ignorant 2) the camp of reasoning that your DME can only advance the timing so much.

I wouldn't say they are ignorant. That's kind of a generalization.

__________________
admin @ mbworld.org

30 yrs ago.... OK, over 30 yrs ago, we used 110 octane aviation fuel in the Navy propeller planes. higher octane prevents premature detonation (pinging) - used to see Ferrari,Cobra, and other exotic car owners gassing up at the local airport in NJ - engine temperature was measured at the cylinder with the least cooling effect - was taught 180 deg was ideal

__________________
Mark _______________________________
2001 X5 4.4i topaz blue/sand Sport, complete Dinan S2 , hitch, V1, tint, BSW Stage 1, Alpine INA-W910BT
___________
Life is not fair!
You can't protect people from their own stupidity!
Laughter makes life worth living

So if this is the case, then what you are saying is that it is true that higher octane doesn't do anyhting for us unless we re-tune our cars for the higher octane. If so, then is there a difference for us between 87 octane and 91 since we can't really take advantage of the the octane difference?

__________________
Lemans Blue X5 4.8is
Dynaudio
Diamond TDX 12" subs x 2
Xtant X604 x 2
Xtant X1001 x 1
VST 7" LCD x 2

But in Europe the octane rating is measured differently...

So 98 in Europe is NOT 98 in North America.

__________________
2008 ML320 CDI | Iridium Silver | Black ARTICO Leather | Premium Package (H/K Logic7, Parktronic, Rear Heated Seats, Rear Power Hatch, DVD Nav, 10-way Front Seats w/ Memory) | Backup Camera | Aluminum Running Boards | 4500K MTEC Low-beam HID | 30% Metallic Tint | Boomerang2 Recovery System | Weathertech Front Floorliners | Bridgestone Blizzak DM-V1 Winter Tires

You can, just look at the RON value, which is what most of the countries use, the US uses R+M/2. All engines have detonation, that’s what makes them run. I think you mean pre-detonation and that’s when the fuel mixture ignites early. Detonation and pre-detonation have nothing to do with the piston hitting a valve, that's a different problem.

Octane has nothing to do with if an engine is FI or not.

Octane requirements have nothing to do with compression. You can have a low compression engine and still require high octane, just because the head is inefficient. You can have an engine with a CR of 8.9:1 that takes regular, or an engine that has 11:1 that takes regular as well. Engine displacement, head design and compression ratio are just three factors in what octane will be required.

Lots of questions raised here.

First, as has been mentioned, there is a difference between NA and Euro measures for octane rating, more properly called anti-knock index (since there isn't any particular amount of octane in the fuel). Euro measure is the Research Octane Number, RON. NA measure is the average of the RON and the Motor Octane Method. This average is often called the pump octane, but (R+M)/2 is more precise. Both measurements are obtained on test engines, one is a better measure of resistance to knock at higher rpm and one at lower rpm, but it is somewhat academic. 100 is the rating of pure octane, and 90, as an example, has the same resistance to predetonation as 90% octane. Pump fuel with an AKI of 90 doesn't have 90% octane, it has the characteristics of a fuel with 90% octane. Anything above 100 is a mathematical extrapolation, since it is difficult to have more than 100% of anything in a tank.

An approximation of the difference between pump octane and RON is 6 points difference. This varies with other factors, but it is a good generalization. Thus, 98 RON is very similar to 92 in NA. 95 RON is the same as 89, or mid-grade, in NA.

Aviation gas (usually 100 octane and above) is not measured the same way. It has an AKI higher than the best premium, but it can't be directly compared, as the test cycle differs.

I am one of the ones who uses 89 most of the time. That doesn't mean that I recommend you do so. The correct fuel is the lowest AKI that resists predetonation. Anything more is 'wasted' octane, there is no more power in it. If the engine can take advantage of that higher AKI (through higher compression ratio, turbo or supercharging, etc) then go for it. You can't tune (in the classic sense of tuning) to take advantage of the higher octane with modern engines, it requires engine disassembly and new parts, or at least a chip (which may or may not remap the ignition). Not like the days in which recurving a distributor brought big wins. With a modern stock engine, in good condition, the recommendation of the manufacturer is the best starting point. In my case, since using 89 causes no power loss that I can sense, and since there is no fuel consumption increase measured over multiple tanks, then I am reasonable confident that the engine computer is not retarding the timing to prevent predetonation. If it was, I would get less power and higher fuel consumption. Since those are not evident, I use 89. If I didn't want to test it, and measure it, it would just be easier to use 92, but that is a cost premium of at least $.12/litre here, or $.54/Imp gallon, or $.45/US gallon. Also, my employer pays for regular fuel, but not for premium, which bugs me. I split the difference and use mid-grade, but I don't use 87 unless I am stuck, as I can tell a difference in engine operation with that fuel. I don't think it will hurt the engine (much), but I didn't buy a BMW to lose power by retarding the timing. In my area of the country, we have good fuel. Lots of areas don't. When I travel, I use 92, since I don't know the suppliers in those areas, and it is just safer to not have to worry about it.

Final point on the pump AKI: the pump number is the minimum AKI, legally, it is not the actual. The supplier should have a fuel with at least what is posted on the pump, or risk charges (in my area, from the federal government). They are fine to be a point or two high.

BMW and other manufacturers need to consider the wide variety of fuel quality available when they design the engine map. They are being safe with their 92 recommendation (you would likely do the same) If in doubt, just use 92 in NA. If you try 89 and notice any difference on 89, you should use 92. This will also vary with summer fuel and winter fuel, and lots of other factors.

Altitude: less oxygen at altitude equals less power. You can calculate the derate per 1000 feet of altitude (many manufacturers publish it for certain types of engines, particularly heavy equipment). Turbocharging compensates, but usually not fully (unless you are really not that high up).

Sanguru: hopefully that puts me in your second group. If not, well, I tried.

MikeB: I agree.

Ianbrown: Good comments, just one quibble, but it might be our language differences. I wouldn't say that all engines have detonation, but they do all have ignition. I would refer to detonation as an uncontrolled flame front (explosion) versus combustion, or burning, with a controlled flame front. Predetonation is bad, but so is detonation, at least here. Detonation may mean something different where you are.

__________________
2007 X3 3.0si, 6 MT, Premium, White

Retired:
2008 535i, 6 MT, M Sport, Premium, Space Grey
2003 X5 3.0 Steptronic, Premium, Titanium Silver
2002 325xi 5 MT, Steel Grey
2004 Z4 3.0 Premium, Sport, SMG, Maldives Blue

I can't remember what our cars are tuned for. I just get supreme no matter what, and I believe supreme here is 93.

If I decided to jump to around 100 or something, it won't do jack for my car, because it's not tuned to advance the timings for that.

__________________
admin @ mbworld.org