F55/F56 Premium still required?
#26
Pound wise and penny foolish over a few bucks difference in how many tanks of fuel compared to the cost of replacing the knock sensor, busted rod/valve stem or blown head? Engine knock to any degree is destructive. If the price of fuel is that danged important maybe a Prius would be a better choice.
#27
I think it is more of ECU's ability to adapt the timing... that is why the Mazdas can do this. Similar to the 500 Abarth and Dodge Dart as well, i think, where the boost and timing fluctuate depending on fuel to retain the torque line. I read some where that Fiat 1.4T ECU will increase the boost spike up to 20+psi when the timing retard to compensate for the crappy fuel.
#29
Adding a turbo will easily raise a compression ratio to 18:1 at full boost. (9:1 comp, sea level 13 psi boost..)
Yes, an ECU can "adjust".. It will slow the car down. Adjust timing, lower boost.. It will not damage anything... But...
Um... Why did you buy an "S" again..?
#30
while people do have a point with "modern" engines, i.e., hyundai genesis turbo's ecu will scale back to make less power if it detects lower octane gas, it is still always a better idea to run 93/best octane you can for a turbocharged car. also, MINI will need to actually specify that you CAN run lower octane if you are looking at that case
#31
My understanding has always been the octane is based on the compression ratio. The more the fuel/air mixture the more likelihood there is for pre-ignition happening. This will cause all sorts of problem. Most people I know run their low compression engine on super thinking this is better gas when it is just a waste of money. Mini engines will be high compression not super high..91 is all you need unless you modify the engine...93 is a waste.
That being said, I wouldn't run anything less than premium through a new Mini... base model or an S.
#32
Guy at work has a ford escape 2L ecoboost that specifies 87. When he hits the gas you feel nothing. Granted the escape weighs more than my mini hardtop but all the fun of the turbo is completely muted. I suppose with a name like ecoboost you see where the priorities were. I also read an article saying the ford ecoboost engines aren't delivering the better fuel economy that is to be expected from a smaller, but efficient, turbo charged engine. He gets 24mpg city and I get 26mpg, same daily commute. Apples and oranges I know but food for thought.
#33
Interesting how far behind Mazda most manufacturers are. They are presently working on a 18.5:1 compression engine. they have perfected direct injection.
I personally can't help but think that all this energy put into an old engine design is a complete waste of time. They could so easily invent something better.
I'm working on a compressed air scooter with my son right now. The French with Tada motors in India are working on a compressed air car....
Get out those bike pumps...!
I personally can't help but think that all this energy put into an old engine design is a complete waste of time. They could so easily invent something better.
I'm working on a compressed air scooter with my son right now. The French with Tada motors in India are working on a compressed air car....
Get out those bike pumps...!
#34
Interesting how far behind Mazda most manufacturers are. They are presently working on a 18.5:1 compression engine. they have perfected direct injection.
I personally can't help but think that all this energy put into an old engine design is a complete waste of time. They could so easily invent something better.
I'm working on a compressed air scooter with my son right now. The French with Tada motors in India are working on a compressed air car....
Get out those bike pumps...!
I personally can't help but think that all this energy put into an old engine design is a complete waste of time. They could so easily invent something better.
I'm working on a compressed air scooter with my son right now. The French with Tada motors in India are working on a compressed air car....
Get out those bike pumps...!
Edit: misread your post . I blame old eyes and small print on iPad. My bad.
Last edited by russmini; 03-19-2014 at 09:00 AM.
#35
I don't believe that Mazda is behind most manufacturers but rather choosing to expand the engine technology in a different direction and not using turbochargers, with the inherent complexities and problems, producing increases in fuel efficiency and torque. I applaud Mazda for going a different route. My only question would be long term reliability.
#36
No one has mentioned altitude as a factor.....keep in mind that the higher you live, the less you need the higher octanes. I live West of Denver at 9000ft and never drive lower than 5000ft. This means you can run with lower octanes. Having said that, I always get the "good stuff" which in our area is 91. no one seems to carry 93.
#40
According to the MINI website they won the 2011
ENGINE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE
INTERNATIONAL ENGINE OF THE YEAR
MINI Cooper S
-which of course we all read diligently.
ENGINE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE
INTERNATIONAL ENGINE OF THE YEAR
MINI Cooper S
-which of course we all read diligently.
#42
Why should a MCS need premium gas at all?
I know what the manual says, and I know what I have experienced. In "normal" driving, my MCS runs fine on regular, and gets the same mpg as on premium, as close as I can tell. The same applies to my C7 Corvette. If I am going to do "spirited" driving, I use premium in both.
I have a question, though. Why should these MINI's need premium at all? At 189 hp, MCS engine has about the mildest state of tune of any current 2.0 turbo now sold, and many, or most of them recommend regular, even though they make more power. Does BMW have bad head designs, making them more ping-prone than, say, the 240 hp Ford 2.0 turbo that recommends regular?
I have a question, though. Why should these MINI's need premium at all? At 189 hp, MCS engine has about the mildest state of tune of any current 2.0 turbo now sold, and many, or most of them recommend regular, even though they make more power. Does BMW have bad head designs, making them more ping-prone than, say, the 240 hp Ford 2.0 turbo that recommends regular?
#44
For the non-JCW models, MINI says 89-octane minimum and 91-octane recommended. Why would you buy a car that stipulates this if you aren't prepared to then put at least 89-octane in the tank? If you want to fill up on 87-octane, buy a car that specifically says it's OK to put 87-octane in the tank. We're talking a couple bucks per tank here (or less, depending on where you live), not thousands of dollars on the regular. Do you also cheap out on oil and use non-synthetic, even though MINI says to use synthetic? Maybe you ignore the brake sensor warning, too, because you know better when the brakes need replacing? This is a tired debate that's been around for ages with all European brands because they have typically been the brands that specify something other than 87-octane gas. Armchair and internet engineers alike recount their tales of "well my car runs fine on regular and I don't notice any differences," and "I have a car that costs $XXX,XXX and it runs fine on regular," and think that somehow they've outdone the powertrain engineers who put the "meaningless" premium fuel requirement in place. What I've learned, however, is that there is no convincing anyone to change what they've already convinced themselves of. So everyone here who believes you should follow MINI's recommendations for octane rating? Give up and move on before the debate turns hostile (and these threads always seem to, no matter the car manufacturer). OK, rant over!
#45
For the non-JCW models, MINI says 89-octane minimum and 91-octane recommended. Why would you buy a car that stipulates this if you aren't prepared to then put at least 89-octane in the tank? If you want to fill up on 87-octane, buy a car that specifically says it's OK to put 87-octane in the tank. We're talking a couple bucks per tank here (or less, depending on where you live), not thousands of dollars on the regular. Do you also cheap out on oil and use non-synthetic, even though MINI says to use synthetic? Maybe you ignore the brake sensor warning, too, because you know better when the brakes need replacing? This is a tired debate that's been around for ages with all European brands because they have typically been the brands that specify something other than 87-octane gas. Armchair and internet engineers alike recount their tales of "well my car runs fine on regular and I don't notice any differences," and "I have a car that costs $XXX,XXX and it runs fine on regular," and think that somehow they've outdone the powertrain engineers who put the "meaningless" premium fuel requirement in place. What I've learned, however, is that there is no convincing anyone to change what they've already convinced themselves of. So everyone here who believes you should follow MINI's recommendations for octane rating? Give up and move on before the debate turns hostile (and these threads always seem to, no matter the car manufacturer). OK, rant over!
The following users liked this post:
NBCGLX (05-14-2018)
#46
I use premium, but post#42 is asking for a technical answer rather than the manual says so answer. I don't know what it is but it is a good question.
The following users liked this post:
KitGerhart (05-19-2018)
#47
For the non-JCW models, MINI says 89-octane minimum and 91-octane recommended. Why would you buy a car that stipulates this if you aren't prepared to then put at least 89-octane in the tank? If you want to fill up on 87-octane, buy a car that specifically says it's OK to put 87-octane in the tank. We're talking a couple bucks per tank here (or less, depending on where you live), not thousands of dollars on the regular. Do you also cheap out on oil and use non-synthetic, even though MINI says to use synthetic? Maybe you ignore the brake sensor warning, too, because you know better when the brakes need replacing? This is a tired debate that's been around for ages with all European brands because they have typically been the brands that specify something other than 87-octane gas. Armchair and internet engineers alike recount their tales of "well my car runs fine on regular and I don't notice any differences," and "I have a car that costs $XXX,XXX and it runs fine on regular," and think that somehow they've outdone the powertrain engineers who put the "meaningless" premium fuel requirement in place. What I've learned, however, is that there is no convincing anyone to change what they've already convinced themselves of. So everyone here who believes you should follow MINI's recommendations for octane rating? Give up and move on before the debate turns hostile (and these threads always seem to, no matter the car manufacturer). OK, rant over!
Again, from my original post, does anyone know any good reason WHY a mildly tuned, 189 hp BMW 2.0 turbo should need premium, when a 252 hp 2.0 turbo in a Honda Accord does not? Oh, and no, I don't ignore brake sensor warnings.
#48
FWIW, I use "top tier" gas, knowing about the valve carbon problems with some direct injection engines.
Again, from my original post, does anyone know any good reason WHY a mildly tuned, 189 hp BMW 2.0 turbo should need premium, when a 252 hp 2.0 turbo in a Honda Accord does not? Oh, and no, I don't ignore brake sensor warnings.
Again, from my original post, does anyone know any good reason WHY a mildly tuned, 189 hp BMW 2.0 turbo should need premium, when a 252 hp 2.0 turbo in a Honda Accord does not? Oh, and no, I don't ignore brake sensor warnings.
The mini has high compression, 11:1 or something like that, compared to the accord 9.8:1, runs a lean air/fuel mixture even under boost, and high water temperatures. All probably for emissions and fuel economy. If you get a tune, even the 1.6L prince engines can make ~230 hp, get mid 20's city mpg using an S turbo but still using at least 91 octane.
If you run 87 I'm sure the computer will compensate for it, but realize that knocking occurs first, then timing is retarded. So the "damage" has already been done, so to speak.
#49
Regarding valve carbon, the gas doesn't wash over the valves on direct injection engines, so not sure what you're trying to do there.
The mini has high compression, 11:1 or something like that, compared to the accord 9.8:1, runs a lean air/fuel mixture even under boost, and high water temperatures. All probably for emissions and fuel economy. If you get a tune, even the 1.6L prince engines can make ~230 hp, get mid 20's city mpg using an S turbo but still using at least 91 octane.
If you run 87 I'm sure the computer will compensate for it, but realize that knocking occurs first, then timing is retarded. So the "damage" has already been done, so to speak.
The mini has high compression, 11:1 or something like that, compared to the accord 9.8:1, runs a lean air/fuel mixture even under boost, and high water temperatures. All probably for emissions and fuel economy. If you get a tune, even the 1.6L prince engines can make ~230 hp, get mid 20's city mpg using an S turbo but still using at least 91 octane.
If you run 87 I'm sure the computer will compensate for it, but realize that knocking occurs first, then timing is retarded. So the "damage" has already been done, so to speak.
If the Honda engine is lower compression than the MINI S engine, it is running much more boost to produce a third more power from the same displacement. Running more boost would also create conditions where pinging might occur. Again, what is BMW doing wrong, if the mildly tuned MINI S engine, in any way, really needs premium gas? I'm curious.