3.4 vs 3.6 motors?
12-21-2011, 02:02 AM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
3.4 vs 3.6 motors?
So my search goes on. I had a car sold out from under me today, even when I had a deposit down and a ppi scheduled. Really? So disappointed in people!
Moving on. I'm finding these cars are kind of a dime a dozen, so it's going to be a fun and longer search to find the 'special' car. Ha! So special is pretty subjective.
I do want to hear all of your opinions on the '01 cars with a 3.4 liter motor vs the '02 cars with a 3.6 liter motor. Are their reliability differences? Drivability differences? Longevity differences?
Secondary, are their any other dramatic differences between '01 and '02 cars?
Thanks in advance.
AA
Moving on. I'm finding these cars are kind of a dime a dozen, so it's going to be a fun and longer search to find the 'special' car. Ha! So special is pretty subjective.
I do want to hear all of your opinions on the '01 cars with a 3.4 liter motor vs the '02 cars with a 3.6 liter motor. Are their reliability differences? Drivability differences? Longevity differences?
Secondary, are their any other dramatic differences between '01 and '02 cars?
Thanks in advance.
AA
12-21-2011, 11:57 AM
#3
Three Wheelin'
3.6L is worth a few more HP 315 vs 296 and torque 273 vs 258. Also has a beefier crankshaft with a longer stroke. Better variable cam timing mechanisms.
3.4L has more timing chains and some have a stronger IMS bearing than the 3.6L.
Go for the 2002+ if you can afford it.
3.4L has more timing chains and some have a stronger IMS bearing than the 3.6L.
Go for the 2002+ if you can afford it.
12-21-2011, 02:05 PM
#5
It seems the 3.4L rarely has an IMS failure compared to the early 3.6L. The last 3.4's are surely better than the early 3.6's. Your right, they are a "dime a dozen" and there's a good reason. Word is finally spreading about the reliability issues of the 996. Ask any Porsche dealers about his used 996's on the lot. Many go straight to the auction.
12-21-2011, 07:36 PM
#6
I have tried both the 3.4 engine (with and without the powerkit) and the 3.6 and I think that the 3.6 engine runs a lot better. The 3.4 is not bad, but the 3.6 feels a lot better. I chose the 3.6 myself and I would recommend that if you can afford it. It is really worth the price difference.
An even better option is to try out cars with the different engines and then judge for yourself.
I really think that the IMS problem (I guess this is the reliability problem refered to above) is greatly exaggerated. It is after all not that many engines that have failed (there are no real statistics available to be honest). There is also a solution to this problem delivered by LN engineering at a reasonable cost (about 600 $ + work equivalent to switching the clutch).
Robert
An even better option is to try out cars with the different engines and then judge for yourself.
I really think that the IMS problem (I guess this is the reliability problem refered to above) is greatly exaggerated. It is after all not that many engines that have failed (there are no real statistics available to be honest). There is also a solution to this problem delivered by LN engineering at a reasonable cost (about 600 $ + work equivalent to switching the clutch).
Robert
12-21-2011, 08:15 PM
#7
Burning Brakes
It seems the 3.4L rarely has an IMS failure compared to the early 3.6L. The last 3.4's are surely better than the early 3.6's. Your right, they are a "dime a dozen" and there's a good reason. Word is finally spreading about the reliability issues of the 996. Ask any Porsche dealers about his used 996's on the lot. Many go straight to the auction.
Trending Topics
12-23-2011, 01:18 AM
#9
Three Wheelin'
actually the new head design is inferior to the old one... I remember reading one of Jake Raby's post concerning the flow of coolant that created hot spots etc...
Also from my browsing the 2002-2004 motors have more IMS failures than the later 3.4 motors... this is true!
as for the torque difference... the 3.6 is more flexible and has more torque at lower rpm but once you are above 4,000 there is no advantage....
the 3.4 also responds better to a GIAC chip flash vs the 3.6 where you can't squeeze any more out of it...
if you can find a 996 with a re-man 3.4 I would go for it....
whatever motor you decide on make sure you do a compression and leak down test and you can verify the mileage through service records.
Also from my browsing the 2002-2004 motors have more IMS failures than the later 3.4 motors... this is true!
as for the torque difference... the 3.6 is more flexible and has more torque at lower rpm but once you are above 4,000 there is no advantage....
the 3.4 also responds better to a GIAC chip flash vs the 3.6 where you can't squeeze any more out of it...
if you can find a 996 with a re-man 3.4 I would go for it....
whatever motor you decide on make sure you do a compression and leak down test and you can verify the mileage through service records.
12-23-2011, 05:32 PM
#11
Three Wheelin'
I focused my search (twice now) on the 3.6 litre cars. I've had two now and I plain love(d) them both.
The variocam plus gives a very noticeable performance benefit below 4000 rpm and the bugs that plagued the 34 litre motors were sorted (first I've ever heard that 3.6 motors are more prone to failed IMS bearings than any 3.4). That said, my car had a new motor installed in 2005, so probably a M97 which has a totaly different IMS bearing than any of the M96 came with.
Besides the mechanical advantage, the interior of the MkII cars were improved with a glovebox, cupholders, standard alcantara headliner, and overall better materials.
The redesigned headlights are subjective, but the bumpers reshaping made for better cooling and more downforce.
Lastly, the MkII cars were stiffer.
Buy the best you can afford, but there's no denying the MkII cars were an improvement of the MkI cars.
The variocam plus gives a very noticeable performance benefit below 4000 rpm and the bugs that plagued the 34 litre motors were sorted (first I've ever heard that 3.6 motors are more prone to failed IMS bearings than any 3.4). That said, my car had a new motor installed in 2005, so probably a M97 which has a totaly different IMS bearing than any of the M96 came with.
Besides the mechanical advantage, the interior of the MkII cars were improved with a glovebox, cupholders, standard alcantara headliner, and overall better materials.
The redesigned headlights are subjective, but the bumpers reshaping made for better cooling and more downforce.
Lastly, the MkII cars were stiffer.
Buy the best you can afford, but there's no denying the MkII cars were an improvement of the MkI cars.
12-23-2011, 08:42 PM
#12
Three Wheelin'
more downforce...?? you will probably throw away the stock suspension in favor of the factory ROW 030 and that puts "rake" from rear to front that generates more downforce...
12-23-2011, 09:06 PM
#13
Intermediate
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an MK1 (2001) C2 I purchased a few months ago. When I was looking to buy, I wanted to get the bump in hp from 300hp (MK1, 00 & 01) to 315 hp (MK2). Also, I preferred the more aggressive looks of the MK2 lights.
After test driving a number of both variants, I found that there was very little between the two ... but I could definitely feel more of a 'kick' at lower rpms in the MK2. But quite honestly, I didnt see much difference in performance between the two ... and since '01 and '02 were nearly at the same price point, I decided to try and find the car that had been serviced best. I ended up purchasing a well-optioned, 1-owner, low mileage 996 C2; every single service record from day 1 and all servicing at the local Porsche dealership. Couldnt be happier.
That would be my advise to you: get the better serviced car between the two. And please dont decide to shell out extra $$$ just to get the next styling in headlights .... unless that makes you happy, in which case go for it!
After test driving a number of both variants, I found that there was very little between the two ... but I could definitely feel more of a 'kick' at lower rpms in the MK2. But quite honestly, I didnt see much difference in performance between the two ... and since '01 and '02 were nearly at the same price point, I decided to try and find the car that had been serviced best. I ended up purchasing a well-optioned, 1-owner, low mileage 996 C2; every single service record from day 1 and all servicing at the local Porsche dealership. Couldnt be happier.
That would be my advise to you: get the better serviced car between the two. And please dont decide to shell out extra $$$ just to get the next styling in headlights .... unless that makes you happy, in which case go for it!
12-23-2011, 10:10 PM
#14
Three Wheelin'
FWIW I prefer the look of the MK I lights as they are the exact shape come from porsche's race car... they make the car look sleeker... IMHO.
as for the lower torque.. yes the 3.6 definitely has more engine flexibility below 3500 rpm and you can even cruise around in a higher gear at lower rpm... but if you are tracking you are never below 4000 rpm and this is where the 3.4 really shines!!
I have found through experience the MKII blows through more catalytic converters than the MKI
the poster above did it right... full service records - *verifiable* and well maintained car is what you go for .. MKI or MKII
as for the lower torque.. yes the 3.6 definitely has more engine flexibility below 3500 rpm and you can even cruise around in a higher gear at lower rpm... but if you are tracking you are never below 4000 rpm and this is where the 3.4 really shines!!
I have found through experience the MKII blows through more catalytic converters than the MKI
the poster above did it right... full service records - *verifiable* and well maintained car is what you go for .. MKI or MKII
