[jwetering]

All of the above.

I've had two of the 3.6 litre MkII cars and both have been great. I've driven 3.4 litre MkI cars and they are fine, but the 3.6 pulls better on account of the extra displacement and, more importantly, because of the Variocam plus. The interiors of the MkII cars are better, and they are stiffer, end the air flow cools the engine better.

Durability-wise..it has been said that the 3.6 motors are improved over the 3.4 motors, but the leading M96 motor guys don't seem to agree. With the exception of the very early (1999) motors, which suffer from porous and poor casting issues, both the 3.4 and the 3.6 appear to suffer catastrophic failure at about the same rate, usually because of intermediate shaft bearing issues.

There is a fix though, and it's not so expensive. LN Engineering and Flat Six innovations have developed a ceramic bearing upgrade which apparently solves the IMS problem. There are other failure modes for these motors as well but my impression is that other than the IMS issue, the motors are no less trouble prone than any other high performance engine, as long as the oil changes have been done.

The cars eat rear tires, and clutches don't seem to last as long either. The brakes are excellent, the gear boxes are pretty good. Upgrade to suspension to PSS9 and the cars handle at a world class level.

I daily drive mine, and autocross it and track it. It's a great car. I do my own maintenance and it's as easy or even easier to do than it was on my old 911.

I don't know why you'd think the C4 was more fun than the C2...unless you find nose heavy cars prone to understeer more fun than tossable cars prone to oversteer. I do hear people *rave* about the C4S though. It's heavier still, and the motor is identical though so I don't know why that would be the case. To each their own.

Oh yes - PMS....it was a common option. My first car didn't have it and I didn't miss it. My second car has it and I wonder how I did without it.

Post up when you find a car mate. Good luck.