Worth waiting to find a 2002 mr2 spyder over 2001?

[Matto]

I've done a little bit of research on all the different MR2 Spyder models and found that 2002+ has a 6 speed manual over the 2001 (which has a 5 speed.)

I see 2001s selling more often and for cheaper, so should I just get a 2001 and stop waiting for a 2002 to come out? or is the difference huge?

[MR2Jedi]

The transmission you refered to is a 6 speed sequential automatic. A problematic tranny..I wouldn't touch a Spyder with that trans.

[Ghostyman]

Actually, it's a sequential manual transmission. Not a slushbox at all.

[MR2Jedi]

Originally Posted by Ghostyman

Actually, it's a sequential manual transmission. Not a slushbox at all.

Yeah, clutchless manual. Auto in my book..
I've read about alot of problems with them.Mostly with down shifting. I know 2 people here in AR. who've had theirs in the shop several times because of shifting problems. 1 got rid of his and bought a S2000.
Because of that, I would avoid a Spyder with that trans..They do have alittle bit higher top end.

[Ghostyman]

My understanding is that the SMT and conventional manual transmissions use the same gearbox so they should have the same top end. Not positive on that, though.

The most common problem with them is they take over half a second to upshift (0.61 sec if I remember correctly). They work well but aren't performance items by any means.

Personally, I'd take a good SMT over a conventional 5 speed any day.

[MR2Jedi]

My friend claimed he had alittle bit better top end than me (My 2001 spyder) because of his 6th gear.But he was bone stock and mine is modified, so really hard to say for sure.But with 6 gears, I would think there would be some difference in the ratios.
Why would you choose the SMT over the conventional? Just curious
They came out with a paddle shifter for the SMT , but other than hearing about it's availability, I've heard nothing else about it.

[Jeff Lange]

Originally Posted by Matto

I've done a little bit of research on all the different MR2 Spyder models and found that 2002+ has a 6 speed manual over the 2001 (which has a 5 speed.)

I see 2001s selling more often and for cheaper, so should I just get a 2001 and stop waiting for a 2002 to come out? or is the difference huge?

2000 = 5-speed Manual Trans Only (C56)
2001 - 2002 = 5-speed Sequential Trans Optional (C56M)
2003 - 2005 = 6-speed Sequential Trans Optional (C65M)

Originally Posted by Ghostyman

My understanding is that the SMT and conventional manual transmissions use the same gearbox so they should have the same top end. Not positive on that, though.

The C56M had the same gearing as the regular C56, however when the C65M was introduced, all the ratios stayed the same, with the addition of 6th, so yes, the C65M will have more top end than the C56 or C56M.

For myself, I'd rather Toyota offered a C6x manual transmission for the ZZW30. Having a choice between a 5-speed manual or a 6-speed SMT is kind of crap. When the C65M came out, a C65 should also have been offered.

Regardless, pretty much the only thing going for the SMT is the novelty factor IMO. I'd take a real 5-speed manual MR2 Spyder any day I think.

Jeff

[bixnix]

get the SMT if you've got to drive in traffic or if you're looking for an automatic ... I gotta shift a couple hundred times to get into work every day .... I like manuals, but not that much.

SMTs will have a slower shift when shifting at WOT than when accelerating normally, but that can be fixed - see the spyderchat.com forum for the fix.

no probs w/ my 6-SMT. I like it - no regrets whatsoever. the 6th speed also helps with the stock exhaust noise - the 5 speeds, either manual or SMT, get loud at freeway speeds. the 6 speed doesn't get loud (droning) 'til 75 mph.

If you want a 6 speed manual, I believe you could buy a 5-speed non-SMT and then swap the transmission with a 6 speed from a celica or matrix. If you do that, you might as well swap in a 2zz engine and give yourself 40 more horses as well.

[Matto]

Thanks Jeff, great answer.
So the main difference is that the 2003-2005 have better transmissions? I don't think I'd ever need SMT.
Sounds like 2003 is what I should be aiming for, might still have to settle with 2001, don't think theres a major difference between all the years.