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.
From: Lee Piccione <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Jay Mitchell <email@example.com>
Cc: Kent Rafferty <firstname.lastname@example.org>; autocross list
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
>the '91, the '92,
>and the '93-'95. Looks like it is a factory spec part...
>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
>> > 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."