Matt,
The part I received is 48830-17040, which is different from any of the
part numbers
you have listed. It listed it for 9001-9201, my car is 9108. I had a
second dealer
check the part by year/model and they also came up with the same part
number. Since
your source of info is 5 years old, could they have changed it by now?
Now what?
Thanx,
Lee
Matt Murray wrote:
> Supersessions may override this opinion. I was a Toyota parts manager
> who owned a MR2.
> All of the following came from my microfiche (April '94).
>
> >From production 9001 (Jan 90) to 9201 (Jan 92) all MR2s used
> 48820-17020. Non turbos then used 48820-17040 from 9201 to 9311 (Nov
> 93). They then went to a 48820-17030 in Nov 93. From 9201 and on,
> turbos used 48820-17030. I do know that there were very distinct
> changes in the rear suspension from the 91/92 MR2s to the 93-95 cars.
> They are not interchangeable (well, by the rules and Toyota's
> engineering). I'd be very hesitant to mix'n'match that stuff. I'd be
> very surprised of a supersession of the endlink being used in all
> years of the second generation MR2. By the rules, this would be very
> protestable (IMO), as it *could* give a competitive advantage. Bottom
> line 91-92 MR2s have one endlink, and 93-95 have another type.
>
> Matt Murray
>
> mailto:mattm@optonline.net
> mailto:mdmurray@gwns.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Piccione <leepic@smart.net>
> To: Jay Mitchell <jemitchell@compuserve.com>
> Cc: Kent Rafferty <gs96@sgi.net>; autocross list
> <autox@autox.team.net>
> Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 6:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Stock rear swaybar leagality question
>
> >I verified thru a second dealer that the part numbers are identical
> for
> >the '91, the '92,
> >and the '93-'95. Looks like it is a factory spec part...
> >Lee
> >CS '92 MR2
> >
> >Jay Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> Kent said:
> >>
> >> >IMO, this would definitely fall in the weenie protest arena,
> >> >but the rulebook reads:
> >> >
> >> > 13........"Parts available as replacements through the
> >> > dealers parts department, the factory, or any other
> >> source
> >> > which do not meet standard part specs are not legal in
> >> > Stock........."
> >>
> >> If the factory discontinues the original part and sells a newer
> >> part as its direct replacement, then the new part is in full
> >> compliance with the above. What constitutes "standard part specs"
> >> is subject to change at any time, even after a car is
> >> manufactured. That is the basis for the statement "as specified
> >> by the manufacturer."
> >>
> >> Jay
> >
> >
|