Re2 Vs Rev3 (uk N/a's)

[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?

[Skeete]

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?

←

If both are the same price, then the Rev3 .. it will hold its value better, just as long as you are not planning on travelling to the moon and back.. not only this, the performance difference is substantial 0.5 secs 0-60. But then if you are planning on modifying it wont make much difference at all.. Handling should be somewhat better too. But then its the age old question about what you want it for. Track car? Everyday car? Boyracer baz-ed up chav mobile? etc..etc..

I am not sure about the availability of parts for Rev3 as I have a Rev2, but I never seem to see many ct20b turbo parts about, yet there are loads of CT26.. must be cos the rev2's are older..

[Bibbs]

The early cars are more rapid, but the latter ones feel better put together ..

[acf8181]

it will not be a tubby, and it will not modified....i just want standard reliable motoring.

for the next 2 months i will be commuting 50 miles each way a day to work from my berks home to silverstone race track.

the rev3 i'm considering is a N plate, and is in very good condition.

i haven't found a specific rev2 i like yet, but they seem readily available with around 80k.

bibbs - are you saying the rev2 is more rapid noticeably throughout...i was aware they got to 60 quicker, but expected the rev3 to then be quicker.

[Bibbs]

I'd not get too hung up on the rev2/3+ debate .. just get the nicest car you can. rev3+ will hold their value better .. and are slightly better built.

[Stef Derner]

I'd not get too hung up on the rev2/3+ debate .. just get the nicest car you can. rev3+ will hold their value better .. and are slightly better built.

←

I'd disagree there, our old rev 2 was much better put together than the rev 4 we have now. I've even gone to the lengths of replacing a lot of the interior with bits from a rev 2 as the quality seems so much better on the older cars, carpets thicker and better quality, the rear bulkhead and cubbies are carpeted, handbrake was leather covered, now a scabby plastic job. Even the fit of the dash seemed better on the old cars. Mechanically I don't see too much difference, but there are a lot of places where they cut corners in the finishing touches on the later cars.

If I could have got a low mileage UK rev 2 in fantastic condition, I'd have put a rev 5 turbo motor in it and had the best of both worlds.

[Bibbs]

Bizzare cause I've driven a load and the shut lines appear so much tighter on the rev3's ..

[Skeete]

Bizzare cause I've driven a load and the shut lines appear so much tighter on the rev3's ..

←

Dont the later spec NA models have LOADS more bhp ? I thought a Rev6 was at 190ish for the NA.. but the earlier Rev2's in the 140's ?

Is there a page listed somewhere that details all of the revs and spec's including NA's .. all of the pages I have seen are for tubbies only..

[sewelly]

Bizzare cause I've driven a load and the shut lines appear so much tighter on the rev3's ..

←

Dont the later spec NA models have LOADS more bhp ? I thought a Rev6 was at 190ish for the NA.. but the earlier Rev2's in the 140's ?

Is there a page listed somewhere that details all of the revs and spec's including NA's .. all of the pages I have seen are for tubbies only..

←

Check this one out mate..not sure how realiable it is but seems good to me....

[acf8181]

ok, according to my reseacrh so far the rev1/2 are 154bhp, and the rev3 on 173bhp.....but apparantely the rev1/2 are faster 0-60.

who has actually owned both? whats the comparison in terms of both 0-60 and 60-high illegal speeds? could you really tell a difference?

[BlueMR2]

I have a Rev3 and for the back end alone...as standard I would take the Rev3 over the Rev2...the rear lights and spolier is far nicer...also with the CC strips etc...

Much nicer looking...also increased BHP...however in your situation...with the 2 cars at different mileage...I would go for the lower mileage car as it will be easier to sell on once you have done with it...a years driving in the Rev3 and its gonna be approaching 140+ miles...I presume your gonna pay less for that then the Rev3

[Jesus]

I thought a Rev6 was at 190ish for the NA.. but the earlier Rev2's in the 140's ?

←

News to me... wasn't aware they did a Rev6...

They did a 200bhp Beams N/A...

[houston]

in your situation i would go for a rev 3+,rev 1 and 2s are quicker to 60 due to being lighter and tvis, but the handling is much improved due to bilstein shocks.

but go for condition and not age, there are a lot of dogs out there and a good 2 is becoming more rare these days.

[Skeete]

I thought a Rev6 was at 190ish for the NA.. but the earlier Rev2's in the 140's ?

←

News to me... wasn't aware they did a Rev6...

They did a 200bhp Beams N/A...

←

Maybe thats it then.. As I asked .. it would be really good to get all of the specs for the N/A's .. I am playing a game called Racer, and am tuning the MR2 in it to different revision spec's, interested to see the difference.

[Bibbs]

1989 -154bhp

Jan 91 -158bhp

Mar 94 -174bhp

Aug 96 -168bhp

94 was the Gen 3 3s-GE engine .. the revision in 96 was due to emissions ..

Last 1000 Japenese NA MR2's were the Beams 210ps red top Gen4 3s-GE engine .. all sold in 1999/2000 (or there abouts) ..

[System~G]

1989 = 154bhp? I thought the MR's in 98 had the 3S-FE engine?

I had a Rev3 and my girlfriend had a Rev2.

My Rev3 felt much more solid on the road. I could take corners much faster in the wet than the Rev2 could in the dry (although this was rectified once we put decent rubber on the rear). Even after decent rubber the Rev3 was still less tail happy.

The Rev3 physically felt heavier and more grounded than the Rev2. The Rev2 was far more unstable and tramlined more at higher speeds.

We never got around to "racing" each other to see who's car was faster. Driving them to given speeds felt the same although we didn't actually time them.

On a blat to a meet up North with Rhaines (him Rev2 and me Rev3) he pulled away from me in every gear - although I was able to catch up relatively easily.

Personally I also prefer the Rev3+ styling (although not a fan of the Rev5 spoiler). I also prefer the handling of the Rev3, even though the Rev2 is considered more of a "driver's car".

I'll take a Rev3 over any other revision anyday, but I'd hang out for one with lower miles

120k on an "N" plate is very high in my books.

Make contact with NVI (Northants Vehicle Importers), they are not too far away from Silverstone and seem to know their stuff. Not only imports I have been told as well. Do a google for the web addy/contact details

[acf8181]

prob is i just don't think i'll find a low mileage rev3 for my money....i dont want an import, but thanks for that contact (i'm starting work at silverstone ina couple of weeks ;)).

[TheNissanMan]

Garrick....

Memory going matey, mine was a rev 1 lol....

Personally would opt for a Rev2 due to the increased performance. Have had both and there is no noticeably differance between the rev2/3 apart from the performance.

2's seem to hold there value well anyway so wouldn't worry about that.

At the end of the day they are both great cars for the money you'll be paying so would opt for the best car you can find :D

[System~G]

Garrick....

Memory going matey

←

Who's that? Do I know you?

:P

Alright mate, I give up... My memory is worse than a sive. I blame the "Rock 'n' Roll Lifestyle" I led for 14 years ;)

Pity I can't remember most of that either :(

Must have been good then