I don't want to cause a big argument about this because it's clear that Rev 3 gaskets have been used successfully many times on rev 2 engines and I am not disputing that.
But I think it is important to ask what evidence and data there is behind statements like:
are a better design
keeps the coolant at the top around the head better
The rev 3 head cooling channels are a totally different design to the rev 2
Rev 3
Rev 2
I believe that the head design has been improved, and of course the rev 3 gasket has been designed to match the new head design, but that doesn't by default mean that the rev 3 gasket is a 'better' design when applied to a rev 2 engine.
Luke and Peter I appreciate you must have fitted many of these gaskets and I'm not trying to undermine the work you've done. I am just asking if anyone can explain 'why' and how things are 'better' and what the evidence the statements are based on?
Rather than everyone just repeating the same internet chatter that could have all stemmed from misinformed data years ago.
Also, people keep saying the TTE MLS gasket for Rev 2 is the same as the Rev 3 gasket.
If you look at this photo (Not my own sorry)
It shows the TTE gasket follows the same pattern as the Rev 2 gasket, not the same as the standard OEM rev 3 gasket shown.
I dont know the coolant passage route in the rev 3 head and I havent even looked at my rev 2 head passages that closely. I just want somebody to explain that if this is Ok or better than stock, why is it ok?
Surely this is just swings and roundabouts?
The coolant still flows through the same parts just through holes located slightly different over the same hole in the jacket.
I imagine the rev2 mls gasket is just 'old design'