Difference between....

[AlanTurbo]

Is there a noticable difference in the Rev1/2 and the 3??

I mean are they worth that extra bit of cash????

[AlanTurbo]

Performace wise i mean really!

I know it's 220 ish vs 250? But can you really notice when driving both?

[craig]

.....I dunno. Rev 1/2's have stronger engines and I have seen many a rev 1/2 have a Rev 3 up the strip

[paul port]

From a performance point of view, yes a rev3 is a better starting point - especially if you intend to do 'mild' tuning.

The Rev3 turbo (CT20b) can hold 16/17 PSI to over 6K rpm. The Rev1/2 CT26 in standard form will tail of boost at the top end.

Rev3's also get bigger fuel injectors - giving you more scope for power (320 Bhp mark with CT20b and a Unichip) .

The only problem comes with early Rev3's of 94/95 year where many engines appear to have a casting flaw which can cause the block to crack at elevated power levels.

If the intention is to really go to town with the mods - EG engine management, Injecotrs, Turbo, Forged internals, then you may as well get a Rev1/2 in the best condition you can and spend the saving on parts.
If you only intend to tune within the capability of the stock turbo, injectors and ECU, then go with a Rev3+ The stock toyota ECU has maps all the way to 17psi before fuel cut

Paul.

[Fonzy]

There are quite a few transplant bundles knocking about these day! if i was begin from scratch and wanted to reach mid to hight 300s i would buy the cheapest shell i could find I.E car with fooooked engine, and stick a late rev3/4 in it, then sort the body to suit! works out way cheaper!

[tony2311]

work out cheaper?
a knacker MR2 rev1 said £1000
engine conversion £2000 if you can find a rev3 engine!
uprate brakes £200
insurance will be more because its modifled
thats bare min
so £3200 for a car thats done lots of miles on suspension and everything else and on a older reg which is worth a lot less then a when you come to sell is cheaper then a £4000 rev 3???

[Fonzy]

you wasnt called tony for nothing was you!

rev2 mr2 500
bundle 1500
then just modify your car in the same way you would even if you had a rev3 with 350 horses kicking out the back! you are likey to do most other stuff anyway, transplanted or not! insure your car as a turbo!

[Rikki]

I have a rev 3 and waited a long time to find the right one. I will be quite happy to get to 320-350bhp and I knew the rev 3 would get me there easier than a rev 1 and 2. Out of the box I love the car but cannot comment on previous ones as I have never owned or driven them.

R.

[craig]

Isn't the limit on rev 1/2's 280 bhp with stock ECU and internals?

[^Trickster^]

The CT26 runs out of efficient flow at around the 280hp mark, after that it just makes loads of heat in the cylinders.

The Rev 3 engine is a much better engine than the rev 1/2, the rev 1 had warping maifold problems for a start, granted the early rev 3s have a casting problem but that was soon fixed by toyota.

If you look at the engine itself, people may argue and say the rev 1 and 2 had bigger inlet ports, but overall the rev 3 has a better flow, and bigger cams as standard.

The rev 3 coolant system is upgraded, it has much larger pipes around the block than the earlier models, and the oil system is alot better than the previous engines also and makes for easier work with the relocated oil filter.

I have seen and used both engine, i did a direct transplant into my car from a rev 2 block/head/manifolds and ecu injectors etc onto my exhaust, turbo intercoler etc, and the rev 3 was alot better than the rev 2, the throttle response was better along with power and the overall driving of the car was better.

If your going for a engine to build up with head, cams, ems, turbo etc etc i dont think you can fall off with either revision 2 or 3 of the engine and probably the rev 1 but i generally have had nothing to do with those.

If your wanting to run a stock turbo and ecu with some mild upgrades or even an upgraded ct20/26 id recommend the rev 3

Graeme

[KiwiMR2]

^Trickster^ & paul port have it pretty much sussed.....I agree with them. Iv'e owned both, I found my Type III with just a cat-back exhaust was quicker than my Type II with cat-back running 13 psi, not to mention it felt MUCH better handling wise.

Cheers
KiwiMR2