Re: TS vs 3.0
got it in one, not owned a 2.0, but things to consider
* noise of a V6 is better, but swapping the 2.0 exhaust helps
* V6 has more tuning parts available, V6 can also accomodate more readily a V6 from a 166 can get 240bhp out of the 3.2
* most things about the V6 are more evpensive than the 2.0, clutch, engine parts etc
* 2.0 engine is arguably more reliable as chain driven and pretty near bullet proof, no snapping belt horrors here
* plentiful supply of 2.0 engines in 164s and early 155s that no one wants any more so cheaper to fix up if need be.
* DIY is probably easier on the 2.0, eg the engine need not come out to get the steering rack off!
* the 2.5 V6 does not have a LSD whereas the 2.0 and 3.0 does
* fuel tank will be rotten on a 2.0 as it sits underneath whereas a 3.0 sits in the boot.
* the 2.0 fuel tank IMO is in a dangerous place being just behind the rear bumper so if tracking its best if its moved
* the nice Recaro seats are found on the 2.0 LE and are great
Ron Simons has 2.0 cars for going round the 'ring, so the 2.0 is the one to have for handling
a few owners have had both and are in a better place to advise on the driving differences.
So from the above, you would think I lean to the 2.0, wrong, I have the 2.5 and the noise is intoxicating. Do not underestimate the way you feel hearing that soundtrack, makes you feel like Nuvolari which few other cars can.
Either way a 75 is a bargain, prices are starting to rise as people cotton on to what are good car they are. Good luck hunting one down.