One thing that struck me in 3.2 v. 3.6 comparisons was significant power differences with my current driving style. I tend to keep revs low (usually below 4K) due to years in my current 4-runner. I'm wondering if part of the reason I felt such a big difference is that the 3.6 has more juice down low, and that you need to get the 3.2 up around 5-6K to push you back in the seat. Or is the 3.2 just not that kind of ride?

 

I know Your were trying to decide between a 964 and a late 80s 911, did you find a Car yet?

 

Absolutely! The 3.6L engine has more power available at lower rpms.

Having said that, I did own an '84 Carrera before my '91 C2. First test drive of the '91 blew my socks off. The additional power was intoxicating. Regardless, if your choice comes down to a very nice '88 or a little rough 964, you should probably go with the '88. You're probably already thinking this. Oh, and this assumes you don't want to hold out for the "964 of your dreams."

 

Nostatic,
The US 3.2 had less power than its euro sibling, and in most cases it was also heavier due to the many accessories (emission, safety and luxuries) often fitted to US cars. The latter 'G50' cars were even heavier.
Secondly, the 964 is a "completely" new car in comparison. It has the same quoted power worldwide and besides the bigger cc, twin spark and better induction system, the EMS was far more sophisticated than the old DME.
So yes, power and torque is substantially better in the 964 (US side), for low end and top end.

You must decide what KIND of 911 you are looking for. A 2.4S, twenty years junior to a 964, will still run along it a long way - the 'kick' is there but it will feel very different.

Whatever your choice ($), they're all great. Regards Tom.