autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Stock rear swaybar leagality question

To: "Lee Piccione" <leepic@smart.net>,
Subject: Re: Stock rear swaybar leagality question
From: "Matt Murray" <mattm@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:05:45 -0500
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
>
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>