Yeh don't go near the SC forum what bunch of unhelpful T****** over there [8D]. My angle on this is a late 3.2 with a G50 should be a better buy than an early SC however it's all about condition with older cars, get a PPI that is vital from someone like Peter Morgan and do lots of research including test drives, the performance difference on the road won't be that great. Personally I think there is a lot to be said for the brain that runs the 3.2's injection as opposed to the slightly temperamental but bullet proof performance of the the CIS sysytem on the SC. If you look at SCs don't be put off by high mileage examples mine has 155,000 miles on the clock on the original engine and still goes like stink, don't be put off by cars without hydraulic tensioners , there is a move by tuners and engine buiders to fit original rather than hydraulic when replacing, that's certainly what I would do, of more concern may be the condition of the chain guides, better to buy and replace with stock IMHO. SCs are easy to maintain if you by a good one but 3.2 s are simple beasts too. For some reason 3.2s have a reputation of requiring top-end rebuids before 100,000 miles, I don't know why that should be unless it's workshops trying to make a fastbuck (god forbid). This is certainly not the case with SCs, 'if they don't smoke they aint broke'. SC or 3.2 they are both cracking drives which will give you 'smiles per mile' (I should be in advertising) every time you drive it.
]) as they are basically the same car. The only major differences are the engine - 3.0 vs 3.2 and CIS injection vs Motronic - and the brakes - 20mm thick discs vs 24mm. There are some little trim, seats, steering wheel and ventilation differences on the inside, but that's about it.
