3.4 vs 3.6

[david leeming]

having enjoyed ownership of a996 3.4 tiptronic for the last 5 years, i think it may be time to move on. does anyone know how much more powerful/ faster, especially in the mid-range a 996 3.6 tiptronic is over a 3.4 tiptronic? i need a tip. due to a serious foot injury, but is it really worth shelling out the hard earned dosh for a 3.6, or stick to a 3.4?
whilst we are on the subject, any thoughts how they both compare to an m3 SMG? thanks.

 

[Rotorhead]

I have had a 3.4 and a 3.6 996. The 3.6 engine was one of a number of improvements that were incorporated in the 2002> 'facelift' model. The engine does provide detectably more power and torque plus a slightly fruitier sound (although the sports exhaust makes it even better). IMO there is also a subjective feeling that the engineers have gone through the later car to optimise everything. Hard to explain, but a test drive would help you to understand.

Of course, you get what you pay for.

If my budget was £30k + I might consider a really nice M3
If my budget was £40k + I'd look for a really nice 3.4 996
If my budget was £50k + I'd look for a really nice 3.6 996
If my budget was £60k + - well, I might wait for a 997.

The E46 M3 is a great car, although the steering and brakes are not a patch on the 996. SMG is a sequential manual system compared with Tiptronic's torque converter. The motoring press are quite negative about SMG, but owners seem to love it.

 

[Andy Tims]

ORIGINAL: david leeming

any thoughts how they both compare to an m3 SMG? thanks.

Not driven a tip, but IMHO the M3 just doesn't cut it by comparison to a 911, especially in SMG format (have driven SMG & manual M3's). It is a lot cheaper than a 996 mind & very fast, but the lack of steering feel kills it for me as a real drivers car. I bought a Boxster S instead.

 

[Grant]

Hi David,
I've had both & the facelift definitely has a lot more mid-range grunt, Porsche peg it as 1 second quicker to 100mph. It also has...........
1) A more aggressive looking front and rear-end, with aero-dynamic improvements that were claimed to further reduce lift , along with new clear teardrop shaped front lights (same look as the Turbo) to further distance the 911 from the Boxster.
2) Porsches variacam plus technology was added to an enlarged 3.6 litre engine. This gave an additional 20bhp (to just under 320 bhp) but more importantly, greatly increased the mid range flexibility of the car. In- gear thrust felt MUCH better and more deep chested than before.
3) The exhaust system was further "˜tweaked' to improve the volume and quality of sound inside and outside the car.
4) Inside the 996 gained a glove box for the first time, plus twin cup holders and the interior plastics were further upgraded.
5) The OBC (on board computer) became standard equipment and the in speedo dial layout was changed to accommodate the OBC centrally with a smaller (some would say this was a negative step) digital speedo to the left.
6) A "˜smaller' "˜sports style' three spoke steering wheel became standard equipment.
5)The facelift also incorporated further improvements to both crash protection & body shell rigidity.
The only thing I found was it was still too similar to my first 996 so I didn't get as much "NEW CAR" pleasure from the change. For what it's worth I would go for a C4S if you can afford it as the car looks & feels a lot different to the 3.4 996, or the new 997 of course !!l

 

[xaftershockx]

as I'm debatin g swopping to a Targa what is the real difference??

I don't see it!

 

[mikfinch]

Paul, what do you base that analysis on, particularly the statement that the 3.4 handles better? I've had a 1999 C4 and now have a 2003 C4S. For sure the 3.6 engine has a bit more mid range and the clutch is a bit lighter but, apart from a few fripperies, why should the 3.4 handle better? Does it weigh less? I mean so much so that an ordinary mortal can feel the difference because I don't feel any huge difference between my 2 cars in this respect?

 

[watlina]

There really isn't much difference on paper but taken as a whole Porsche made lots of little changes and improvements right across the car from the 3.4 to the face-lift 3.6. Effectively it became the car it always should have been.

As for performance I believe you'd be very lucky to find an equivalent 3.4 that offers greater performance than it's 3.6 counterpart.

Yes the basic C2 3.4 is 50kg lighter at 1320 vs 1370 for the 3.6 but the 3.6's extra 20bhp makes up for the weight gain with the 3.6 having a slightly better power to weight ratio than the 3.4.

Don't get me wrong pitch a C2 3.4 against a lardy C4S Tip Cab at 1620kg and that 300kg weight difference would mean the 3.4 would be all over it.

So for me if money's not an issue it would be the 3.6 every time.

 

[KNN]

The thing that has really always impressed me about Porsche is the way that engineering is the priority through and through, they don't change things unless its for an engineering improvement, look at the way the 911 shape has evolved compared to the radical model changes of other manufactures. It really is a case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", on the other hand if something can be improved even by a small percentage, these guys will work on it. Porsche engine developments have and continue to be incredible over the years. Just look at the new 997, increases in power and improvements in fuel economy at the same time.

For the 3.4 vs 3.6 debate most people know the new engine has improved power output by 20PS and increased torque, its true the newer C2 model was some 25kg heavier than the equivalent 1998 996 (cup holders?) but the improvements to the engine are definitely reflected in performance. They didn't change the bore but they increased the stroke, this gives better fuel consumption (6% improved) and more torque and they put in the Variocam Plus system used on the Turbo and GT2 engines. Apparently 80% of the components of the 3.6 engine are different to the 3.4! Could you expect all this work by those dedicated Porsche engineers not to be reflected in improved peformance even slightly? Porsche works data tells the story

0-62mph 5.2s for the 3.4 and 5.0s for the 3.6
0-100mph 11.5s for the 3.4 and 11.0s for the 3.6
0-124mph 18.3s for the 3.4 and 17.5s for the 3.6
Standing km 24.2s for the 3.4 and 23.8s for the 3.6

Also have you heard the difference even with the factory fitted exhaust?

If you have the choice, go for the 3.6.

Porsche, there is no substitute!

 

[Paul James]

ORIGINAL: mikfinch

Paul, what do you base that analysis on, particularly the statement that the 3.4 handles better? I've had a 1999 C4 and now have a 2003 C4S. For sure the 3.6 engine has a bit more mid range and the clutch is a bit lighter but, apart from a few fripperies, why should the 3.4 handle better? Does it weigh less? I mean so much so that an ordinary mortal can feel the difference because I don't feel any huge difference between my 2 cars in this respect?

Never said that 3.4 was better handling, in fact I said that the 3.6 has better 'sharper' handling...

 

[996C2]

I've owned both cars and in my experience the 3.6 does feel like an improvement over the 3.4. I actually preferred the throttle response of the old mechanical system in the 3.4, it felt much more aggressive (and quicker) when going up through the gears. The small changes and updates inside the car added up to make it feel more up to date, my 3.4 with no glovebox, cup holders that you had to get out of the door pockets, shiny switchgear and ancient looking stereo really made it feel dated when I bought it in 2006.

I'd always buy the 3.6 over the 3.4 although that's not to say the 3.4 is a bad car.

 

[Peter_Bull]

Hi Gavin
Thats interesting.

But I do see that you had one of the first and very early 3.4 and I do believe there was a marked improvement on the model as the years progressed. My 2000 is certainly a modern feel sports car.

Glovebox missing is a dissapointment I agree.

But cupholders - give me a break!! Its a sports car after all not a McDonalds / Kentucky Fried cruiser!

 

[996C2]

ORIGINAL: Peter Bull

But cupholders - give me a break!! Its a sports car after all not a McDonalds / Kentucky Fried cruiser!

[] fair point well made - I never actually used the cupholders, they just seemed like an after thought and didn't really seem right on a car in that price bracket.

The 2000/2001 cars had some improvements over the earlier cars didn't they? Electric boot/bonnet release, updated trip computer - what else was improved?

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[Richard_Hamilton]

ORIGINAL: 996C2

The 2000/2001 cars had some improvements over the earlier cars didn't they? Electric boot/bonnet release, updated trip computer - what else was improved?

It's all here: https://www.porscheclubgb.com/legacy/clientftp/Register/996/faq_model_history.pdf

(eGas and PSM option, basically - the OBC wasn't changed until the facelift)

 

[996C2]

ORIGINAL: Richard Hamilton

ORIGINAL: 996C2

The 2000/2001 cars had some improvements over the earlier cars didn't they? Electric boot/bonnet release, updated trip computer - what else was improved?

It's all here: https://www.porscheclubgb.com/legacy/clientftp/Register/996/faq_model_history.pdf

(eGas and PSM option, basically - the OBC wasn't changed until the facelift)

Thanks Richard, useful document to have. Did they change the layout of the digital speed/trip information on the 2001 model year? I seem to remember the digital speed reading moving from the centre to the left display? That's what made me think the OBC was updated. I could be wrong though, my memory of the cars isn't great, that's what happens when you go through 6 cars in 4 years.

[]

 

[Richard_Hamilton]

You are probably confusing Boxster and 996 digital speedo displays - they are on different sides. Like you say - too many cars in too short a time..... [] []

The new cluster with improved OBC was introduced on the Turbo, but didn't reach the Carrera until the facelift (along with the Turbo wings, lights, etc).