BM3 Stage 1 91 or Stage 1 93

[doubla_d]

The age old questions. There have been a tone of threads on this topic but I wanted to hear first hand from M3/M4 Canadian owners. Chevron 94 octane is readily available in BC does it work well with the 93 octane stage one BM3 map.

I just purchased BM3 and cable so I have not selected the map as of yet.

Car 2015 M3 DCT
Drop in filter
MPE

Questions...

Can I run the 93 octane stage 1 map with Canadian Chev 94 octane??? Does anyone in Canada do this and how is your M running.

I would like to run stage 2 but its "recommended" to have down-pipes, I would do this but I don't want to add the extra stress on the engine. Are any of you guys running stage 2 stock (or with MPE) and have advice?

Thanks
Daniel

[schnell325]

Most forums with BC drivers, regardless of make or model, recommend using Shell 91 and avoiding chevron 94. I don’t have any quick references, but that’s what I’ve read many tines.

[schnell325]

See post 7’

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...hlight=Chevron

[CS328Ci]

Originally Posted by schnell325

See post 7'

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...hlight=Chevron

Running a BPM tune optimized for 93 octane (98 RON) and I've been using chevron 94.

I've read the reddit and rennlist posts regarding the Shell 91 vs chevron 94. Some say that shell 91 is really 99 RON and chevron 94 is really 98 RON. So if your tune is customized for that minimum, I don't think you'll have any problems.

I decided that for myself, I would use chevron.
IMO, Chevron runs cleaner as I have less soot on my exhaust tips. And I haven't experienced any knocking.

[schnell325]

Originally Posted by CS328Ci

Running a BMP tune optimized for 93 octane (98 RON) and I've been using chevron 94.

I've read the reddit and rennlist posts regarding the Shell 91 vs chevron 94. Some say that shell 91 is really 99 RON and chevron 94 is really 98 RON. So if your tune is customized for that minimum, I don't think you'll have any problems.

I decided that for myself, I would use chevron.
IMO, Chevron runs cleaner as I have less soot on my exhaust tips. And I haven't experienced any knocking.

Good feedback ✔️

[doubla_d]

Originally Posted by CS328Ci

Running a BPM tune optimized for 93 octane (98 RON) and I've been using chevron 94.

I've read the reddit and rennlist posts regarding the Shell 91 vs chevron 94. Some say that shell 91 is really 99 RON and chevron 94 is really 98 RON. So if your tune is customized for that minimum, I don't think you'll have any problems.

I decided that for myself, I would use chevron.
IMO, Chevron runs cleaner as I have less soot on my exhaust tips. And I haven't experienced any knocking.

Yes - exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for, thanks you. Hope more guys chime in as well

[breakfastlinks]

Shell 91 > Chevron 94 according to a ton of GVA tuners.
PTF told me to use 91.
Three of us on bm3 here in Vanny all on 91.

Up to you though, no hard scientific proof so. also PMd

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by CS328Ci

Running a BPM tune optimized for 93 octane (98 RON) and I've been using chevron 94.

I've read the reddit and rennlist posts regarding the Shell 91 vs chevron 94. Some say that shell 91 is really 99 RON and chevron 94 is really 98 RON. So if your tune is customized for that minimum, I don't think you'll have any problems.

I decided that for myself, I would use chevron.
IMO, Chevron runs cleaner as I have less soot on my exhaust tips. And I haven't experienced any knocking.

I am not convinced about the statement that Shell V-Power 91 has a 99 RON rating.

AKI (the rating we see on our pumps in North America) = (RON+MON)/2. This means that, according to the assumption you stated, Shell V-Power 91 would have a 83 MON rating. This seems disproportionaltely too low and I seriously doubt it is the case. For instance, Shell V-Power sold in Europe with 98-100 RON ratings have a 93-94 AKI rating. My guess would be that Canadian V-Power 91 fuel is more in the 95-97 RON range.

[CS328Ci]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am not convinced about the statement that Shell V-Power 91 has a 99 RON rating.

AKI (the rating we see on our pumps in North America) = (RON+MON)/2. This means that, according to the assumption you stated, Shell V-Power 91 would have a 83 MON rating. This seems disproportionaltely too low and I seriously doubt it is the case. For instance, Shell V-Power sold in Europe with 98-100 RON ratings have a 93-94 AKI rating. My guess would be that Canadian V-Power 91 fuel is more in the 95-97 RON range.

I was just posting what I've read online.

If shell 91 is really RON 95-97 then it's another reason to go with chevron 94.

Especially if you're running a tune that is optimized for a 93 AKI fuel type.

[doubla_d]

Originally Posted by breakfastlinks

Shell 91 > Chevron 94 according to a ton of GVA tuners.
PTF told me to use 91.
Three of us on bm3 here in Vanny all on 91.

Up to you though, no hard scientific proof so. also PMd

I’ve been wondering why I would run 91 stage 1 vs stage 1 93 if chev 94 is probably fine and if 91 she’ll is better then 94 Chen gas why don’t people just use stage 1 93... according to a bunch of those threads?!?!? I guess you have to go with what your comfortable with in the end.

[LRGM3]

Anyone have any further data on this? Currently have the 91 BM3 tune and wanted to go to the 93 tune. I’ve always ran chevron 94 assuming it was the highest.

[Bennv59]

Depending on the application, if its a daily driver i would stick with 91 octane for extra safety and more availability in case of an emergency , also if you want extra safety you can fill up with 94 octane on a 91 tune, i ve done this with my previous cars and the logs show better knock prevention at redline and other scenarios