I can't imagine there would be a difference in rear diffs between a 95 and a 96 C36 but back when I had my 96 it would always smoke the rear tires from a standstill....even when I switched to 255 18's.

I've driven 2 95's including one that I'm considering buying. Both aren't capable of breaking the tires loose at all unless I brake stand them.

Once moving they still haul, but I find it odd.

Anyone else notice this ?


The only thing I can think of is that my 96 had a tired LSD, but it only had 130K. Hmmm

First Of all no W202 AMG ever had an LSD, not the 95 C36 nor the 96 C36 and not even the C43/C55.

The only difference between a 95 and a 96 C36 has to be in the Diff ratio;
the 95 had the 4-speed auto and as such the tall 2.87 diff
the 96 had the 5-speed auto and as such a shorter 3.07 diff.
this would explain the better off the line performance.

Which was a real shame, might i add. You pay over 55 grand for a performance vehicle and you get no LSD? Hell, even the c63 STILL doesn't come with an LSD standard unless you get the performance package.

Really ? My 96 still had the 4 spd....while my friends 97 had the 5 spd driver adaptive tranny w/ W/S mode.

but i agree that its got to be a gear difference.

Yeah I'd imagine the 5 speeds came with the shorter diff
Makes sense
With that said I can spin the tires (good tires) in 1st gear in my '95

Um BOTH the '95 and '96's came with the 4-speed... It's the '97 that has the 5-speed.

That's my understanding as well. 95, 96 had 4 speed and taller diff. 97, 98 had 5 speed and shorter diff

Yes, the 5 speed tran started with the 97 model, thats why 97 c36 and up had more tran problems, the 5 speed tran itsn't a good as the 4. I dont think thayre any differences between 95 and 96. I tried both before i bought mine, and i didn't saw any

Correct, and on top of being Pretty much bulletproof AND coming off of the legendary 500E V-8 Benz, it was produced in collaboration with Porsche.