3.6 Vs. 3.2 - Pros and Cons

[db9146]

I am looking to purchase either a 3.2 or a 3.6 for an early conversion. I would like to go with a 3.6, chip it for a little more, and run it stock with FI but better exhaust. I had pretty much decided on this direction but in talking with some folks recently, I have heard horror stories (big $) of 3.6s with leaks or worn valve guides at low mileage (40-50K). The prospect of having to spend so much or rebuilding an engine that I just spent a ton for is not appealing. Suggestions of a 3.2 instead keep surfacing.

How common a problem is worn valve guides? At what mileage have any of you experienced this? What about oil leaks?

Are 3.2 really better from a longevity standpoint? Can the same mods (bolt-on intake and exhaust, but leaving FI) on a 3.2 result in the same or nearly the same HP?

Thanks for your input.

[biosurfer1]

i too have been debating this for a while so i'll watch this thread closly...from what i have read and talked to people about, i really doubt that anything less than an extremely modified 3.2 would get close to the HP of the 3.6...but i'm sure someone with more expertise will chime in here.

[JeremyD]

Both engines can suffer from valve guide problems, don't kid yourself. The biggest difference is in the low end torque on the 3.6 and dual plug -Both respond to better exhausts (the 3.2 if you change the cam too)

That said - there is no replacement for displacement.

With that said - buying a used engine is scary - buying a used Porsche engine can keep you up at night.

[masraum]

I don't think 3.6 problems are any more likely than 3.2 problems. most 3.2's at this point are high miles and will likely require some work, at least a top end job, but they are cheaper.

Most 3.6's should be lower miles and therefore last longer without needing work, not to mention more technically advanced which should make them more efficient and more powerful.

Jack Olsen runs the crap out of his basically bone stock 3.6 and has been beating it up on the track for years and lots and lots of track time and it's still running very strong.

I think it comes down to the usual "how much do you want to spend and how fast do you want to go"

[bigrubberjeep]

If you can afford to "RACE" you should afford a 3.6 with very low miles.

[JBO]

Money is only issue - if money is not an issue, without a doubt 3.6.

[randywebb]

I agree - many (like me) put in 3.2's rather than hassle with a 3.6 b/c of cost and trouble -- BUT that was before Steve Timmons worked out his installation kit. Now it's a lot easier to go 3.6 - tho still more $$.

There have been some posts re not going overboard with hp - and the joys of wringing out a smaller engine, etc.

If I were doing my car today, I'd go for a 3.6 -- you can always put a 2.8L in your second 911...

[masraum]

Personally I loved my 3.2L, but I'd have surely upgraded to the 3.6 if I had means and reason.

[Bill Verburg]

Besides displacement you get twin ignition and knock sensors, each year got little improvemants, there is no comparison in performance.

[drums]

I will be picking up my car next week. I have gone the 3.2 to 3.6 route.
I really hope the thread I start after getting it will be a happy one! From what I have researched, the increase in performance is astounding! One guy was so scared, he put his old engine back in!
The DIFFERENCE in price between building a mild [to pass smog] 3.4 and a 3.6 was not too bad...about $5,000.00-$6,000.00; that is with someone else doing the work.
Is the H.P. and torque gain worth it [a '97 V-Ram]? I have heard it is.....as I say, I will find out next week.
Just keep researching...I think you will come to the same conclusion...
Drums

[k9handler]

In Austin I had a chance to drive Bill's black targe with a 3.2 and it was very nice, so that would be a good choice. I agree on the comments above that it's hard to beat the 3.6 performance gains without spending more cash than it would have cost for the 3.6.

[Jcon]

You won't regret going 3.6. If your like most on this board you have a healthy lust for power. I say go all the way the first time and don't look back.

Jeff

[mjshira]

the 3.2 can be, can be a longer lasting engine. I have owned a 3.2 and will soon have a 3.6. my reason for the 3.6 was that it has some features I wanted but which the 3.2 didnt have, twin plug for one.

but with all the focus on 3.6 engines a good 3.2 has come down in price a lot! you can get one for about 2k less than a 3.6

Jeff makes a good point about "going all the way" but you can count on a 3.6 swap costing a lot more than a 3.2 swap.

good luck

[arrivederci]

If $$ is a concern, a 3.2 is a solid choice. It will still make an early car move out pretty quickly and the conversion is much easier. The 3.6 -package- is much more expensive. On top of the cost for the motor and the conversion kit, you'll also need to add more cooling (front valence oil cooler?). And there's always the potential of transmission issues, so you may as well throw some upgrades on that too. And exhaust seems to be an expensive solution, although I've read that the '72 can use the stock 993 exhaust because of the '72 oil tank location (is this true?).

Anyhow, I'm definitely going with a 3.6, and *may* go so far as to buy a questionable motor but rebuild it to a 3.8. That way the uncertainty of a used motor is planned for. I estimate total costs of the project to reach $20K or more. Its tough to justify spending that kind of coin on a car that only cost me $9K originally.

One thing to factor in are the costs recouped by selling your smaller displacement and (hopefully) healthy motor.

[Joeaksa]

One way to avoid the worry about a "used engine" is to buy it from someone on the forum. I bought Bill Verburg's 3.6 when he upgraded to a 3.8.

Between the added displacement and losing 3-400 pounds of ugly impact bumpers, the car is a monster now.

JoeA