Anandtech farted around with this. Check the charts.I have yet to see some benchmarks on that as it also relates to how the architecture of Core functions, whether it really needs those extra cache or not under which circumstance(s).
Then you also have to remember a E6400 @300x8 vs. E6600(266x9), the higher FSB would help issues with cache.
Remember, the only reason to have a big cache is because the communication path between the NB and CPU isn't fast enough and so data gets stored on cache instead. You speed FSB up and that reduced delay means the need for less cache.
The 4MB L2 cache can increase performance by as much as 10% in some situations. Such a performance improvement is definitely tangible, and as applications grow larger in their working data sets then the advantage of a larger cache will only become more visible.
If you're the type to upgrade often, then the extra cache is not worth it as you're not getting enough of a present day increase in performance to justify the added cost. However, if this processor will be the basis for your system for the next several years, we'd strongly recommend picking a 4MB flavor of Core 2.