MR2

[R360]

How do you find out if a mk2 MR2 is a rev 3 or rev 4.
Also what are the diffenreces between a rev 3 and rev 4?

[8balls]

I think the biggest differences were between gen2 and gen3
- MAP sensor instead of AFM
- Bosch D-Jetronic (Gen III) vs. L-Jetronic (relatively primitive) engine management
- CT20b turbo replaces CT26
- Boost raised from 10psi to 13psi
- Fuel cut raised from 12 psi to 18 psi
- Different ECU
- 4 wire O2 sensor
- Shim under bucket valve shims
- slightly more aggressive cams
- Revised internals (pistons, con-rods etc.)
- Revised cylinder head cooling passages/water jackets
- Revised intake manifold (8 'independent long ports' reduced to 4)
- intake manifold inlet air temperature sensor added. i.e. after turbo and intercooler.
- Revised gearbox with close ratio gearing
- lower compression ratio
- stainless steel head gasket
- factory 540cc injectors replace 430cc injectors
- revised fuel rail with bigger bore and relocated pressure regulator
- TVIS eliminated
- EGR eliminated
- LSD in 80% of them
- throttle body increased from 55mm to 60mm
- inlet valve lift increased from 8.2 to 8.7
- intake manifold inlet air temperature sensor added
- Less restrictive exhaust elbow
- Aluminum oil pan
- more rigid alloy sump and additional oil baffles
- Factory Catch can
- Better Oil Cooler and relocated oil filter (bottom)
- 4 Channel ABS coupled with Traction Control available
- No. 1 compression ring described as 'stainless steel' instead of just 'steel'. Oil ring is described as 'stainless steel' instead of 'a combination of steel and stainless steel'.
- The fuel pressure raised from 36 PSI (2.55 bar) to 41 PSI (2.9bar).

However, are we talking about turbo or NA? Engine?

Why are you asking. Please be more specific. Id say changes between rev3 and rev4 were quite small and cosmetic. I quess the most visual was the spoiler, which changed quite many times over the years...

[Prof Prolapse]

Cosmetically rear lights are your immediate tell (assuming they're standard) between rev2 and rev3. The cross over date was late 1994 IIRC.

Check the classifieds for pictures of the difference.

Rev2 to Rev3 was significant change (as shown above). You want a rev3 onwards.

[8balls]

Also, I think while REV3 engine is really good (3S-GTE) I actually prefer the gen2 quick spooling CT-26 on the track. Also, on REV1 cars you had the "death-dealing oversteer which will kill you in an instant". Some people who use they MR2s for track work like actually prefer it - the limits are bit higher then with the new suspension which was made to understeer a bit. Also, I remember correctly the old one had more adjustability.

So what you would actually want is MR2 with
Rev1 suspension
Rev4/5/6? Turbo brakes (abs changed for the better)
Rev3 or newer turbo engine
in a perfect Rev6 rust free chassis from year 1999.

[Prof Prolapse]

Did you ever see the original advert for the MR2 mk2?

It maintains the handling is excellent and well-balanced "even in the wet". Biggest lie ever.

Never had a rev1, but since the newest of themn is coming up for nearly 20 years old now I wouldn't want any parts from any of them!

The rev3 were bilstein shocks weren't they? I rather like billies...

[8balls]

Prof Prolapse said:

Did you ever see the original advert for the MR2 mk2?

It maintains the handling is excellent and well-balanced "even in the wet". Biggest lie ever.

Never had a rev1, but since the newest of themn is coming up for nearly 20 years old now I wouldn't want any parts from any of them!

The rev3 were bilstein shocks weren't they? I rather like billies...

Amateur. I was able to keep up with traction control handicapped new M3s in a downpour and 10 meter visibility at nurburgring. There were pools of standing water all over the track and wipers could not keep up...

Edited by 8balls on Thursday 18th November 14:03

EDIT - And another correction, they made MR2 SW20 (gen2) until 1999.

Edited by 8balls on Thursday 18th November 14:17

[acf8181]

R360 said:

How do you find out if a mk2 MR2 is a rev 3 or rev 4.
Also what are the diffenreces between a rev 3 and rev 4?

As no one else seemed to answer the q..... http://www.1066.seriouslyinternet.com/hosted/miste... ;-)

[Mr2Mike]

Prof Prolapse said:

D
The rev3 were bilstein shocks weren't they? I rather like billies...

Rev2 had (OEM) Bilstein struts as standard.

[Blue Meanie]

Prof Prolapse said:

Did you ever see the original advert for the MR2 mk2?

It maintains the handling is excellent and well-balanced "even in the wet". Biggest lie ever.

Never had a rev1, but since the newest of themn is coming up for nearly 20 years old now I wouldn't want any parts from any of them!

The rev3 were bilstein shocks weren't they? I rather like billies...

Never had an issue in the wet, I must say. of course you have to realise you are in the wet no matter what car you drive, and drive accordingly. The MR2 rewards smooth, accurate driving, so was never really an issue I found.

[Prof Prolapse]

8balls said:

Prof Prolapse said:

Did you ever see the original advert for the MR2 mk2?

It maintains the handling is excellent and well-balanced "even in the wet". Biggest lie ever.

Never had a rev1, but since the newest of themn is coming up for nearly 20 years old now I wouldn't want any parts from any of them!

The rev3 were bilstein shocks weren't they? I rather like billies...

Amateur. I was able to keep up with traction control handicapped new M3s in a downpour and 10 meter visibility at nurburgring. There were pools of standing water all over the track and wipers could not keep up...

Edited by 8balls on Thursday 18th November 14:03

EDIT - And another correction, they made MR2 SW20 (gen2) until 1999.

Edited by 8balls on Thursday 18th November 14:17

I didn't think the shocks were the same on the Gen2?

I thought they revised them along with the rear tyre width because of the "ditch finder" reputation it developed? (Genuine question).

To be fair I'm just going off what people said about the MR2 mk2 rev1 shortly after release.

I've only ever had the one and my biggest problem was some damn fool had modified mine. It was like trying to avoid instant death in the wet whenever the turbo spooled up.

[omgus]

Blue Meanie said:

Never had an issue in the wet, I must say. of course you have to realise you are in the wet no matter what car you drive, and drive accordingly. The MR2 rewards smooth, accurate driving, so was never really an issue I found.

Yep, I spun mine a couple of times and always because i had done something stupid or was showing off.
However if i was pressing on and driving smoothly it was a fantastic handling little thing. I had driven it in snow, floods and off road before i sold it and still miss having once to tool around in hence I currently have a decomissioned Rev2 on the driveway to hopefully become my winter daily driver, MOT and starter issues need resolving first.

[MikeyMike]

Prof Prolapse said:

8balls said:

Prof Prolapse said:

Did you ever see the original advert for the MR2 mk2?

It maintains the handling is excellent and well-balanced "even in the wet". Biggest lie ever.

Never had a rev1, but since the newest of themn is coming up for nearly 20 years old now I wouldn't want any parts from any of them!

The rev3 were bilstein shocks weren't they? I rather like billies...

Amateur. I was able to keep up with traction control handicapped new M3s in a downpour and 10 meter visibility at nurburgring. There were pools of standing water all over the track and wipers could not keep up...

Edited by 8balls on Thursday 18th November 14:03

EDIT - And another correction, they made MR2 SW20 (gen2) until 1999.

Edited by 8balls on Thursday 18th November 14:17

I didn't think the shocks were the same on the Gen2?

I thought they revised them along with the rear tyre width because of the "ditch finder" reputation it developed? (Genuine question).

To be fair I'm just going off what people said about the MR2 mk2 rev1 shortly after release.

I've only ever had the one and my biggest problem was some damn fool had modified mine. It was like trying to avoid instant death in the wet whenever the turbo spooled up.

The major suspension changes took place between the Rev1 and Rev2. Rev2 has the same size tyres and brakes as the Rev3 and the same suspension, the Rev3 has a slightly wider track. The major changes between the 2 and the 3 were in the engine bay. Too much is made of the MR2's ditch finder reputation, a disproportionately large amount of the big power MR2s on the owners forums are Rev1s.

Edited to add:

Rev3 lasted from October 93 to May 96. Rev 4 June 96 to October 97 dates inclusive. I think that the passenger side airbag was introduced with the Rev 4 although I'm not 100% on that.

Edited by MikeyMike on Sunday 21st November 01:54

[HughesR1]

+1 on the handling front. I've been in a few MR2's (rev1,2,5) and they all seemed to be individual machines, but all safe to drive in the wet. Analyse conditions and drive accordingly, as with any car.

[Jasandjules]

I've had a few Mk1 and MK2 Mr2s, all were completely fine in the wet, including when pressing on.....

BUT I test drove one which was all the over shop even in slightly damp conditions, which was a lovely surprise as I practically engaged opposite lock to negotiation a roundabout. I didn't buy it.........

[R360]

Jasandjules said:

I've had a few Mk1 and MK2 Mr2s, all were completely fine in the wet, including when pressing on.....

BUT I test drove one which was all the over shop even in slightly damp conditions, which was a lovely surprise as I practically engaged opposite lock to negotiation a roundabout. I didn't buy it.........

Well both of my MR2's seem to be ok in the wet, the first was a rev 3 and the current one is a rev , i think...

[CDP]

R360 said:

Jasandjules said:

I've had a few Mk1 and MK2 Mr2s, all were completely fine in the wet, including when pressing on.....

BUT I test drove one which was all the over shop even in slightly damp conditions, which was a lovely surprise as I practically engaged opposite lock to negotiation a roundabout. I didn't buy it.........

Well both of my MR2's seem to be ok in the wet, the first was a rev 3 and the current one is a rev , i think...

It's really important to fit the right tyres on rear or mid engined cars. This is partly due to the extra loading on the sidewalls which in extreme cases can tuck under leading to sudden oversteer:

I had a 1990 MK2 Rev 1 G-Limited on 14" wheels. The handling was generally tail happy but incredibly tyre dependant. Pirelli were OK but Bridgestone Potenzas would lead to snap oversteer and don't even consider cheap Czech tyres...

The revelation was going from Yokohama 509s to S039s and from 195 to 205 on the rear. They completely transformed the car making it very predictable to the point where it could actually be drifted (on track). They even lasted pretty well. But those tyres were designed for the MR2.

My current MG TF is also rather tyre dependant. It came with a couple of unknown Japanese tyres on the back and would oversteer without warning. Moving onto the correct Goodyears has made it far more predictable. Strangely it rides better with 36psi in the back tyres (as recommended) where I would have expected a 3psi drop would soften it. All I can think of is the profile is so low that it must be using it's (stiff) sidewall instead of the air in the tyre.

My brother's Elise also varied depending on which brand of rubber was fitted. Similarly the tyre choice mattered greatly on our Skodas and Imps.

[8balls]

Actually lot is written about wet-weather behaviour of these cars.

There is a fundamental difference between FWD, RWD and Midship layout and drivers driving style should be adapted to layout. For example, midship has higher limits, but when it lets go it is trickier to catch in general.

Correct tires make a real difference here - these cars were meant to run with staggered tire setup.

Also - many of the cars that end up in a ditch have been ruined by the owners themselves - with 17 inch rims and crappy set of coilovers (without new alignment). So basically most owners totally sacrifice the handling for the looks.