
Mini City E?
Started by
liam1288
, Jun 27 2010 07:10 PM
10 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:10 PM
hi guys, ive got a 1990 mini city e...
ive been wondering why is it a city 'E'? what makes it different to a normal mini city? (if there is one)
thanks
ive been wondering why is it a city 'E'? what makes it different to a normal mini city? (if there is one)
thanks
#2
Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:13 PM
Is this a technical question or just general discussion.
#3
Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:18 PM
just a discussion i guess... im just looking for a basic answer
cheers
cheers
#4
Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:19 PM
sorry guys should i move the topic to mini chat?
#5
Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:22 PM
Really it could be either!!
I'll move this to mini chat though.
As I recall the city E(the E stands for economy) and has a higher final drive to improve economy.
I'll move this to mini chat though.
As I recall the city E(the E stands for economy) and has a higher final drive to improve economy.
#6
Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:34 PM
ahh so what does 'higher final drive' mean? less revs?...
#7
Posted 27 June 2010 - 08:24 PM
gear ratio
#8
Posted 27 June 2010 - 08:29 PM
if anyones willing to elaborate on that...plaese do
#9
Posted 27 June 2010 - 08:36 PM
i think
its a higher gear ratio
like on a bike
first you start off on an easy gear then get higher so you dont work so hard
its a higher gear ratio
like on a bike
first you start off on an easy gear then get higher so you dont work so hard
#10
Posted 27 June 2010 - 08:38 PM
I had a 1982 HLE, the E on the end signifying the economy version of the Mini HL.
I was under the impression the economy versions had a higher CR. Can anyone confirm?
I was under the impression the economy versions had a higher CR. Can anyone confirm?
#11
Posted 27 June 2010 - 08:38 PM
The main feature of the city 'e' was a 2.9:1 final drive ratio. Most non-competition cars before the 'e' had a 3.44:1 diff.
This effectively lowered the revs of the engine at speed, compared to the 3.44:1 ratio, hence improving fuel economy.
I personally like the 2.9 ratio and will be fitting one in my next engine build
This effectively lowered the revs of the engine at speed, compared to the 3.44:1 ratio, hence improving fuel economy.
I personally like the 2.9 ratio and will be fitting one in my next engine build

1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users