S54 M engine, super or regular unleaded?

Most of us always put in super. If you do go for normal unleaded I would get it from a proper station rather than a supermarket.
 
Loads and loads of posts on this if you search. The car will run on both but in my experience it runs very well on V-Power - smoother, sounds great and returns better mpg. It also has cleaning properties. Unless doing galatic mileage its a few quid more on fill up so not worth putting regular unleaded in.
 
I would have thought the cap only specifys super unleaded anyway? Thought it was an 'only option' with high performance cars.
 
Ninarvana said:
I would have thought the cap only specifys super unleaded anyway? Thought it was an 'only option' with high performance cars.
Fuel_filler.jpg
 
I think the collective opinion is that the M engine definitely runs better on super.

Opinions vary for non-Ms - I didn't notice any difference on mine for example and went back to 95 after a tank or two of super.
 
Bing said:
I think the collective opinion is that the M engine definitely runs better on super.

Opinions vary for non-Ms - I didn't notice any difference on mine for example and went back to 95 after a tank or two of super.
I have always used super in my TVR, Z4M & M3 but I can't honestly see how it makes any difference I think it's just psychological you think it's better so you stick with it.
 
Ninarvana said:
That's a surprise to be honest... Apparently BMW advise Super for these cars, so my mother was told anyway.
Shouldn't be a surprise really, as some markets where the Z4M is sold may not have a ready supply of 98RON.

BMW can 'advise' whatever they want, but unless the warranty/manual prescribes/demands it, then you're free to use anything within the range. Just as BMW 'advise' Castrol 10w60, but anything by Shell, Silkolene, etc. of the same performance/approvals cannot be used against you.

Of course BMW wouldn't want you to feel like you're not getting your full 338bhp, so have a little disclaimer in the manual that says your car won't perform at its best on 95RON. However, if you only ever drive it to the shops and back, then 98RON isn' going to make any difference.

Unless I'm desperate and running dangerously low, then the car gets 97+. At the 'Ring it gets Aral Ultimate 102 from Adenau - which may not give it any more power as I don't know if the timing can advance enough to make use of it, but I feel like it's getting the 'safest' (i.e. pre-det/knock prevention) fuel in it for the abuse it will get for the next couple of days :oops:
 
The use of 98 RON (mainly Shell Optimax aka V-Power) for 30k miles will not prevent bearing shell failure, ask me how I know! So IMO, anyone buying into this on the pretext of doing the best for your engine is misguided.
 
I think it's the same for most cars. It'll be absolutely fine on lower RON fuel. The ecu will retard the ignition and it'll make a little less power. Some modded cars for example are setup to take advantage of higher RON and can't cope with lower but any standard car sold in this country with the exception perhaps some of the high boost turbo cars could cope just fine with 95 I would have thought.




exdos said:
The use of 98 RON (mainly Shell Optimax aka V-Power) for 30k miles will not prevent bearing shell failure, ask me how I know! So IMO, anyone buying into this on the pretext of doing the best for your engine is misguided.

I don't think any of us would imagine that fuel quality (within a reasonable margin) would have an appreciable effect on the condition of bearing shells. Would we :o ?
 
Ben Cole said:
exdos said:
The use of 98 RON (mainly Shell Optimax aka V-Power) for 30k miles will not prevent bearing shell failure, ask me how I know! So IMO, anyone buying into this on the pretext of doing the best for your engine is misguided.

I don't think any of us would imagine that fuel quality (within a reasonable margin) would have an appreciable effect on the condition of bearing shells. Would we :o ?

From reading postings on this and other forums I get the impression that the popular opinion is that branded petrol (particularly Shell V-Power 98 RON and BP Ultimate 97 RON) is considered superior to supermarket petrol (even Tesco's 99RON) not just from a performance point of view but also for the general well-being of the engine. I understand that Supermarket petrol comes from the same refineries as the branded fuels except in unbranded tankers so as not to give the game away. :wink:
 
exdos said:
Ben Cole said:
exdos said:
The use of 98 RON (mainly Shell Optimax aka V-Power) for 30k miles will not prevent bearing shell failure, ask me how I know! So IMO, anyone buying into this on the pretext of doing the best for your engine is misguided.

I don't think any of us would imagine that fuel quality (within a reasonable margin) would have an appreciable effect on the condition of bearing shells. Would we :o ?

From reading postings on this and other forums I get the impression that the popular opinion is that branded petrol (particularly Shell V-Power 98 RON and BP Ultimate 97 RON) is considered superior to supermarket petrol (even Tesco's 99RON) not just from a performance point of view but also for the general well-being of the engine. I understand that Supermarket petrol comes from the same refineries as the branded fuels except in unbranded tankers so as not to give the game away. :wink:


Yes but fuel lines, injectors, cylinders, valves (Because of cleanings additives).. not bottom end components that don't have anything to do with fuel. Of course knock and detonation will eventually take their toll in an engine running out of spec but 95 Ron in a BMW isn't going to be an issue as far as I know.

My VX220 after modification HAD to run on 97/98. I was warned that if I used 95 in an emergency that I had to drive gently and not allow intake temps to rise.
 
Back
Top Bottom