honest opining: 3.4litre 996 versus 3.6 litre 996?
07-03-2002, 12:58 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
honest opining: 3.4litre 996 versus 3.6 litre 996?
would like to query you gents on this issue, particularly people who have extensive feedback driving both cars.
the 3.4 litre 996 is such a bargain used, it means no waiting since they're pouring into dealer lots.
obviously the 3.6litre 996 will have stronger resale and slightly faster times, but more costly new.
your input, i would greatly appreciate as a sounding board.
the 3.4 litre 996 is such a bargain used, it means no waiting since they're pouring into dealer lots.
obviously the 3.6litre 996 will have stronger resale and slightly faster times, but more costly new.
your input, i would greatly appreciate as a sounding board.
07-03-2002, 02:33 PM
#2
Instructor
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Whistler, Canada
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3.4L 996 had only one oil scavenger pump, causing some problems at DE events. 3.6L has 3 scavenger pumps I think. 3.4L motor had problem clearing oil out the OH valve gear during high heat/high G track events. After high heat/high G events and letting car sit for 30 mins or so then firing it up could result in blue exhaust smoke caused by oil sitting in the cylinder being burned. Rear suspension layout changed, C pillar stiffened up for stiffer body.
Just some food for thought
Just some food for thought
07-03-2002, 02:44 PM
#3
Instructor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Dallas
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% worth every penny. The difference is VERY noticeable.
If you drove an 01 and then took an 02 for a spin you would recognize the differences instantly.
The sound is of course a bonus, but the increased torque is well worth the extra money.
Drive one. The difference truly is incredible.
Oh, you also get a glovebox!
If you drove an 01 and then took an 02 for a spin you would recognize the differences instantly.
The sound is of course a bonus, but the increased torque is well worth the extra money.
Drive one. The difference truly is incredible.
Oh, you also get a glovebox!
07-03-2002, 02:50 PM
#4
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, i have driven the 3.4litre model versus the 3.6litre and it blew my socks off.
i just wanted to make sure that this was indeed the case and not just my short 15 minute drive of each car and maybe not enough data.
these pre2002 cars are really a steal if you're not planning on tracking them at all.
(i hope to do a lot of tracking).
i just wanted to make sure that this was indeed the case and not just my short 15 minute drive of each car and maybe not enough data.
these pre2002 cars are really a steal if you're not planning on tracking them at all.
(i hope to do a lot of tracking).
07-03-2002, 03:00 PM
#5
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: palm city, fl
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another benefit of the 3.6l engine is performance in traffic. the torque allows much greater flexibility in each gear--much less downshifting needed. i was in the same predicament and decided the 3.6 was definetly worth the extra money. no regrets! <img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" />
07-03-2002, 07:12 PM
#6
Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find ignacio's comment interesting. I find that even with a '99 C2, the torque range is enough to allow for city driving with tremendous ease - 3rd or 4th gear. A big improvement over the 993 marque.
Clearly, the '02 models probably have a better torque range, but the pre-02's are amazing as well!
However, I can see which direction you are already leaning towards.
Just out of curiosity, what are you seeking '01's going for? 62K-ish, right?
Regards.
Clearly, the '02 models probably have a better torque range, but the pre-02's are amazing as well!
However, I can see which direction you are already leaning towards.
Just out of curiosity, what are you seeking '01's going for? 62K-ish, right?
Regards.
07-03-2002, 07:30 PM
#7
Track Day
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I owned a 2000 C2, and now a 2002 C2. The difference at first was noticeable. It's even more so after longer driving. The 3.4 is of course a wonderful engine and I loved my 2000 C2, but now I can't drive the 3.4s anymore w/o totally wanting more.
My advice is, if you like the 3.4, get it, and save the money... just don't test an '02 or newer or you'll regret your decision.
The differences are more noticeable the more you drive each one. One test drive at each only gives you a hint. The suspension is also slightly different which you'll notice in harder driving.
Good luck with your decision.
My advice is, if you like the 3.4, get it, and save the money... just don't test an '02 or newer or you'll regret your decision.
The differences are more noticeable the more you drive each one. One test drive at each only gives you a hint. The suspension is also slightly different which you'll notice in harder driving.
Good luck with your decision.
Trending Topics
07-04-2002, 10:24 AM
#8
If you want good torque - get a 964. Of course then you have to put up with the ugly looks and an aircooled engine. 
Mind you, at least you won't have problems on the track...
Mind you, at least you won't have problems on the track...
07-04-2002, 11:17 AM
#9
Cruisin'
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: England
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi folks,
owned a 98 996 for 3yrs & just changed to 02 C2.
The new 3.6 engine feels like it has much more torque.The throttle response is much better & the car feels much faster low down the rev range.Flat out the car is a fair bit faster at only 3k than my 98 was at 29k, the 98 didn't really "fly" untill it had 20k on the clock.The new exhaust sound is also much better than the old model.Answering your question, if it was me it would be down to the price diiference in the models.I always think it's the cars depreciation that's most relevent not the purchase cost.In the Uk second hand prices are so close to new that I decided to go for new, but if you can get a bargain , go buy an earlier model & put a sports exhaust on it, it's still a great car, kept me happy for three years.
owned a 98 996 for 3yrs & just changed to 02 C2.
The new 3.6 engine feels like it has much more torque.The throttle response is much better & the car feels much faster low down the rev range.Flat out the car is a fair bit faster at only 3k than my 98 was at 29k, the 98 didn't really "fly" untill it had 20k on the clock.The new exhaust sound is also much better than the old model.Answering your question, if it was me it would be down to the price diiference in the models.I always think it's the cars depreciation that's most relevent not the purchase cost.In the Uk second hand prices are so close to new that I decided to go for new, but if you can get a bargain , go buy an earlier model & put a sports exhaust on it, it's still a great car, kept me happy for three years.
07-04-2002, 11:47 AM
#10
Instructor
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
I have been fortunate enough to make a progression from 2.5ltr Boxster to 3.4ltr 996 C2 Cab. I must say the 3.4ltr novelty has worn off now after trying a 3.6ltr for a weekend however I felt when push comes to shove, the 3.6ltr is overpriced if upgrading from 3.4ltr - best to aim higher and go 996TT. However IF you are new to Porsche or upgrading from any Boxster then the 3.4ltr is a relative bargain IMO!
Offcourse IF you want to track then a 964 is way to go - lighter, quick F U N to drive F A S T!!!
I have been fortunate enough to make a progression from 2.5ltr Boxster to 3.4ltr 996 C2 Cab. I must say the 3.4ltr novelty has worn off now after trying a 3.6ltr for a weekend however I felt when push comes to shove, the 3.6ltr is overpriced if upgrading from 3.4ltr - best to aim higher and go 996TT. However IF you are new to Porsche or upgrading from any Boxster then the 3.4ltr is a relative bargain IMO!
Offcourse IF you want to track then a 964 is way to go - lighter, quick F U N to drive F A S T!!!
07-04-2002, 12:36 PM
#11
[quote]Originally posted by 996cab.com:
<strong>
Offcourse IF you want to track then a 964 is way to go - lighter, quick F U N to drive F A S T!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
and CHEAPER. Pick up a 964 for around £18K. Full RUF conversion at £20K - 490ish horsepower with full RUF handling package and brakes. And still have change for a used Boxter for the wife.
Go on, you know it makes sense...
<strong>
Offcourse IF you want to track then a 964 is way to go - lighter, quick F U N to drive F A S T!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
and CHEAPER. Pick up a 964 for around £18K. Full RUF conversion at £20K - 490ish horsepower with full RUF handling package and brakes. And still have change for a used Boxter for the wife.
Go on, you know it makes sense...
07-04-2002, 01:09 PM
#12
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 964 is not lighter than a comparable 996. Factory weights for a C2 are 3031 pounds for a 964 and 2906 for a 996.
Getting back on topic, there is much more to the 2002 model than just the changes in the engine. Yes, the engine is improved, but there is a great deal more that must be factored into the equation.
I personally have always waited for the second edition of a new model. This was true with 911SC which came out (US) in '78 and saw a number of improvements in '80. The Carrera came out in '84 and was improved in '86. The 964 saw improvements along the way, but by '92 or '93 they were bullet-proof. Same with the 993. I've always been a 911 guy, but I believe this logic might even be more pronounced with the 928 and 944's.
With that said, however, there seems to be a lot of value in early 996's. I guess Bruce Anderson's advice of buying the best car you can is pretty iron-clad advice.
Getting back on topic, there is much more to the 2002 model than just the changes in the engine. Yes, the engine is improved, but there is a great deal more that must be factored into the equation.
I personally have always waited for the second edition of a new model. This was true with 911SC which came out (US) in '78 and saw a number of improvements in '80. The Carrera came out in '84 and was improved in '86. The 964 saw improvements along the way, but by '92 or '93 they were bullet-proof. Same with the 993. I've always been a 911 guy, but I believe this logic might even be more pronounced with the 928 and 944's.
With that said, however, there seems to be a lot of value in early 996's. I guess Bruce Anderson's advice of buying the best car you can is pretty iron-clad advice.
07-04-2002, 04:32 PM
#13
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 1,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even thought the diffrences don't show when comparing the '01 and the '02 but it seems that Porsche changed quite a bit. The engine is much stronger and torquier then the 3.4. Try test-driving the '02 and i'm sure you'll be convinced that there is a noticable diffrence 
07-04-2002, 08:17 PM
#14
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: palm city, fl
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if it makes any difference the changes in torque in the tip are even more dramatic <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />
don't get me wrong-- i highly recommend the 6 speed! i turned down a pristine '99 996 tip with 12k mi for $50k to spend $37k more for my c4s. heck you only live once! <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" /> <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" />
don't get me wrong-- i highly recommend the 6 speed! i turned down a pristine '99 996 tip with 12k mi for $50k to spend $37k more for my c4s. heck you only live once! <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" /> <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" />
07-05-2002, 10:36 AM
#15
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so yesterday i got some nice seat time in a S54 M coupe. it's the M3 engine slightly detuned,b ut in a lighter car (400lbs lighter).
that was fun.
nothing to wax rhapsodic about, though. i feel as though it has the same characterisics as the 3.4litre flat six (and this is even less exotic of an engine with only the single throttle body, right?). both engines pull fearlessly to redline...the porsche sounds better, though.
the 3.6 was revisited recently by another drive. the car does have more midrange punch. i am not sure how variocam plus can account for this or if it's pure cubic inches. anyhow, the car is great.
the discussion here definitely led my thinking. short of a dealer trade, i'm waitin' unitl october.
that was fun.
nothing to wax rhapsodic about, though. i feel as though it has the same characterisics as the 3.4litre flat six (and this is even less exotic of an engine with only the single throttle body, right?). both engines pull fearlessly to redline...the porsche sounds better, though.
the 3.6 was revisited recently by another drive. the car does have more midrange punch. i am not sure how variocam plus can account for this or if it's pure cubic inches. anyhow, the car is great.
the discussion here definitely led my thinking. short of a dealer trade, i'm waitin' unitl october.