rev2 vs rev3 (uk n/a's) - anyone driven/owned both?

[acf8181]

is there any noticeable difference in performance, truthfully?

am i better off with a 80k rev2, or a 120k rev3...both well looked after and serviced well?

[jonb-]

This is the same question i'm pondering at the moment, a 75k rev2 or a 100k rev3 (as mainly a motorway car, much different in mpg between the 2?)

[Hurstie1981]

The rev 2 has a more torquey engine, and is actually quicker in the 0-60 than the rev 3, although you wouldnt really notice much. In my opinion id go for the 80km rev 2, as its done far less miles....im not sure on any other differences apart from styling, and differences in suspension?

Im sure someone else will add to this.

[dawolf]

Depends what you want, mileage is pretty important to me, with low mileage cars you keep risks of engine wear to a minimum (and other parts too) and secondly it holds it's value more when selling later. Of course it depends on how it's been maintained too. Must admit I like the look of rev 3's more than rev 2's mainly coz of rear lights and colour coded bits. It may be wise to hold off for a lower mileage one if you really don't want a rev 2. 120k is a little high but having said that, MR2 engines are extremely strong and last ages. Up to you at the end of the day but make sure that the price you pay is a fair one.

Yes, rev 2 has slightly better acceleration. Rev 3 has mainly visual differences i.e rounded rear lights and colour coded splitters. Rev 3 also had a slight tweak to suspension to make it grip more.

[ricc]

I thought the suspension change came from rev1 to rev2 ie, rev2 and rev3 suspension /brakes are the same

[Vindezal]

I thought the suspension change came from rev1 to rev2 ie, rev2 and rev3 suspension /brakes are the same

rev3 is nicer looking fresher styling, always think rev2 cabins seem smaller? rev3 is 20 mm lower than rev1/2

I use mine loads all the time so soon it'll be hundreds of thousands of miles! so..... but im biased

[jonb-]

An interesting read, thanks.

I didn't realise the rev2 was faster to 60, i thought the extra 35 bhp the rev3 had would seal that.

There's a little confusion re brakes / suspension changes between rev2 and 3, ithought the rev3 had PAS / ABS over the rev2 too?.

[Hurstie1981]

There is only 16 BHP difference between the rev 2 and 3, not 35!
The rev 2 is 158, and the rev 3 is 174!
I had a rev 2 NA and that had power steering but not abs.

[Neal_MR2]

have to remember that torque is almost as important as BHP if not more important!

[Getronics]

is a rev 2 n/a quicker to 60 than a Celica st182? which 0-60 in 7.9 secs. both the same engine of course.

cheers.

steve

[Barney]

The earlier, lower bhp engines have a reported 0-60 of 7.2 seconds

[Getronics]

Cool. Peter Gidden took me out in his car....that was well fast....but then again he has uprated camshafts and a scorpion racing system IIRC.....very noisy......when accelerating....but smooth and quiet at cruise speeds.

[steve b]

rev2 & 3 suspension is the same, its rev1 thats different.