Marmon vs. Chrysler

[Guest]

I didn't want to hijack Matt's "For Sale" thread so I'll post my questions here.

Several months ago I came across this 1931 Chrysler CD8 which really rang the bell for me. Posting here I found that the car (while stunning) was currently, grossly over-priced. However that hasn't stopped my casual search for an open touring car of this era. The 1930 Marmon Matt has listed looks outstanding to me. I am curious as to how these two particular cars compare and how they would have compared when new? Were they fairly equal or was the Chrysler considered slightly above or slightly below the Marmon in desirability and drive-ability? What was the approximate MSRP on each of these cars?

Appreciate any and all input.

Greg

Edited March 28, 2020 by GregLaR (see edit history)

[Billy Kingsley]

Both are pretty stunning. The Chrysler appears to be a dual-cowl phaeton while the Marmon is not, so in my understanding it puts the Chrysler on a higher level of luxury...but personally speaking I would rather have the Marmon. I just like it's lines better. 

 

I am nowhere near an expert on cars of this era so I may not be correct in my assessment. 

[zepher]

I have to agree with Billy on the overall look of the Marmon being more appealing.

I know by the mid 30's headlights started to get considerably smaller but those huge headlights on the Marmon really make that front end so much more appealing.

And the curve of the beltline below the windshield on the cowl is nice as well.

 

 

[Rusty_OToole]

Marmon in the teens and twenties was a very expensive six cylinder car that featured a lot of aluminum in the engine and elsewhere. While Chrysler was a smaller medium priced car that was state of the art for the times.

 

However, Marmon moved down market with a mass produced straight eight Roosevelt model that sold for under $1000 while Chrysler expanded their line into the luxury car field with their own straight eight models.

 

By 1930 there product lines could overlap. It would be hard to say how they compare unless you knew exactly which models we were talking about.

Edited March 28, 2020 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Rusty_OToole said:

 It would be hard to say how they compare unless you knew exactly which models we were talking about.

 

These two models specifically Rusty.

[nzcarnerd]

48 minutes ago, GregLaR said:

 

These two models specifically Rusty.

 

Re new price they were both about the same according to The Standard Catalog - $2,000, give or take $20. As you probably know they were near enough to the same size and power.

 

As regards desirability when new I will leave that to the historians.

[wayne sheldon]

I am not an expert on the Classic Car Club of America. I did join their club many years ago, but then dropped it as most of the cars they catered to were newer than my interest (that has since changed somewhat). I also have mixed feelings about their "expanding" the era and cars that they accept. As a rule, I do favor keeping to the mission of clubs like the CCCA and HCCA.  I have seen several clubs that lost all they really were in the name of attracting more members. Snobbery is in fact not always a bad thing, and frankly, I have never found either of those groups to actually BE snobbish (Hey! IF they will let me eat at their banquet tables they cannot be snobs!) (Right Grimy?!).

All that so you can know who's opinion you are reading.

 

CCCA status does matter on cars like this. It should, and although actual status MAY change over time (I am often not really fond of that change), that status will always affect the value of such cars.

I mention this because I noticed when reading Matt's description a couple days ago that he said in effect the car was a good choice for someone not needing CCCA status.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe this fine automobile would not be a CCCA classic. However, I do know that not all Marmons are accepted as such. And the CCCA does need to draw the line somewhere. I am not an expert on Marmon, but I do personally know a few people that own them. They are wonderful cars! And the earlier ones at least seem to perform well on tours. I "think" this is one of Marmons smaller models for this year. So, it may not qualify as CCCA. And, I don't know if this Chrysler qualifies as CCCA or not (I never have tried to learn all the does and doesn'ts). I do know that there is a fine line between some of the Chryslers that do and don't.

Hopefully, someone familiar with these models and the CCCA list can enlighten us. I know that I am quite curious about the Marmon myself).

 

A consideration that may or may not matter, depending upon your interest. This Chrysler is near Chrysler's top of the line for this year. Not THE top, but Chrysler built a whole lot of lesser models in those years (not counting Dodge, Plymouth etc). The Marmon on the other hand, is near the bottom of the Marmon line (not counting the Roosevelt).

 

JUst some things to consider.

[Rusty_OToole]

5 hours ago, GregLaR said:

 

These two models specifically Rusty.

Which two models? Chrysler CD8 and?

[alsancle]

The Model 79 Marmon was priced under 2,000 dollars when new.  The only CCCA Classic I can think of that was under 2k that has Classic status is the Auburn,  and to be honest other than the Model J sibling it is hard to justify.    And nobody yell at me,  we've owned at least 6 Auburns.   They are as cool as can be,  but don't really fit the CCCA criterion.

 

The reason you buy Matt's Marmon is because it is cool and unique and you get to have the only one.    CCCA status is good for the tours,  but otherwise why does it really matter?

[Matt Harwood]

I would put the Marmon roughly on par with a Chrysler CD8, although the Marmon is noticeably more powerful. They're both about the same size. Both have straight-8 engines with good performance. Both have really good brakes, although the Chrysler's are hydraulic. Marmon's steering is MUCH better with the Ross gearbox. And while I find the Marmon extremely attractive, I did think that this CD8 roadster was about as pretty as a car can be, even in those colors that I hate (which I believe were the car's original colors):

 

 

I sold that Chrysler for about the Marmon's asking price and their quality is comparable, although the Marmon has a fresher restoration and more palatable colors. It's also extremely rare and you're unlikely to see another, which isn't the case with the Chrysler.

 

I'm inclined to agree with AJ that these aren't really Full Classic material in the sense that the original founders intended (although there's a group of guys pushing for the Packard 120 and I won't mention the 6-cylinder Town & Country debacle). The Marmon, simply due to rarity and the name, might carry a little extra weight the same way Auburn does by being associated with Duesenberg. I find the Marmon to be a little more sturdy-feeling on the road than the Chrysler and it's certainly faster, both in terms of acceleration and cruising, but I should note that the Marmon was restored with high-speed gears that certainly help. It's a 55-60 MPH cruiser while the Chrysler was happiest under 50. 

 

<rant> I'm completely over the CCCA, and I really tried. I like Full Classic cars best, but the club has become the disconnected, rich, white, retired person's club and any time I would show up with my family and children, we'd be made to feel unwelcome and priced out of participation ($300 per person per day? For a family of 4? For a week? Are you joking? A trip to friggin' Disney costs less than a CCCA tour these days and Disney charges $18 for a hamburger). And I won't go into the time I showed up for a CCCA Grand Classic in my '41 Buick and was told to "park that thing in the lot behind the building, it doesn't belong here." I still participate with my local region simply because they're our friends and a lot less rigid about CCCA rules (they let Melanie's '56 Chrysler wagon attend events, for instance), and because I have a say in how it's run (affordably and welcoming). But the national level stuff? Who cares? They've moved themselves out of the realm of relevance. If you're not rich and retired with an A-list car, don't bother. </rant>

 

Skip the Full Classic status and just buy cars that make you smile. There are plenty of great events and clubs that will welcome stunners like the Chrysler and the Marmon where they'll be the stars of the show, not red-headed step children. You miss out on a lot of great road cars and interesting technology by insisting on being a part of the CCCA.

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[JACK M]

I would consider buying a car that I liked, not that if it would be accepted by someone else or be eligible for some club.

 

I like both of these that Greg is looking at and I hope to get a ride someday.

[alsancle]

Don't forget,  the Marmon is "Ed Minnie Approved".    For those of you that know Ed,  that is not an easy seal of approval to get.   I'm wondering what Matt paid him.

[TerryB]

That Marmon is my choice between the two for whatever that opinion is worth.

[Guest]

Thank you all for the input.

I have to say a CCCA designation has no particular appeal for me. It is someone else's standard and tends to drive the pricing of some cars that meet that standard into the stratosphere. This is why I prefer a car that has the look of these two but comes in just shy of CCCA status.

Greg

[58L-Y8]

The most noticeable difference between the comparable Marmon and the Chrysler is the former exhibits late 1920's styling: flat vertical radiator, large headlights versus early 1930's raked V-radiator shell and smaller headlight.  The Marmon molding styles speak more of the 1920's, though the horizontal hood side louvers are an advanced feature.  Chrysler was leading the way to full-length, over-the-cowl hoods and hood doors with the help of LeBaron.

[zepher]

7 hours ago, 58L-Y8 said:

The most noticeable difference between the comparable Marmon and the Chrysler is the former exhibits late 1920's styling: flat vertical radiator, large headlights versus early 1930's raked V-radiator shell and smaller headlight.  The Marmon molding styles speak more of the 1920's, though the horizontal hood side louvers are an advanced feature.  Chrysler was leading the way to full-length, over-the-cowl hoods and hood doors with the help of LeBaron.

 

You're right about the radiators and the headlights but I just think the Chrysler radiator shell treatment really misses the mark.

[maok]

52 minutes ago, zepher said:

 

You're right about the radiators and the headlights but I just think the Chrysler radiator shell treatment really misses the mark.

 

I have to totally disagree with you regarding the Chrysler's radiator grill/shell. For it's time, it looks to be super advanced design and super cool IHMO. I love the Marmon's horizontal hood side louvers, not too dissimilar to a Chrysler 77 hood sides but dislike the black and red colour combination.

 

Being a Chrysler bloke, I am biased though...😁

[alsancle]

The Chrysler would look better without the stone guard and the trippe lights.   Actually, the Marmon would look better without them too.

[JRA]

Marmon had 4 models, all 8 cyl, in 1930:

- entry level Rosevelt

- 69

- 79 ( Matt’s car)

- Big Eight (CCCA full classic)

I believe the Chrysler Imperial was the full classic for 1930. Marmon were priced higher than equivalent Chrysler models.

I own a 1929 Chrysler 75 (6 cyl) roadster and 1929 Marmon 78 (8cyl), touring speedster, and I prefer the Marmon.
I recognize my Chrysler has a more modern look and hydraulic brakes, when compared to Marmon, but owning and driving both, i prefer the Marmon. 

Julio

[Matt Harwood]

9 hours ago, alsancle said:

The Chrysler would look better without the stone guard and the trippe lights.   Actually, the Marmon would look better without them too.

 

Ordinarily, I'm not a fan of grille guards (like on Model As or my 1929 Cadillac, which I removed), but on the Chrysler and perhaps even the Marmon, I really like them. The Chrysler grille looks kind of plain and I have to admit that I don't much care for them without a grille guard.

 

I haven't seen another Marmon like this without the grille guard, but it's just plain black shutters under there. Kind of meh. 

 

I like extra lights on just about everything but a Cord 810/812 and a Marmon Sixteen.

 

 

[alsancle]

The Model J Duesenberg was originally delivered without radiator shutters.   Many were made that way in 29 & 30.   Every single one of them got chrome shutters when they were restored.  I prefer the plain black honey comb to the bling.  That's just me.

 

[trimacar]

I agree, visited one without shutters not long ago, and such a non-treatment is very becoming to the overall appearance of the car...

[zepher]

I don't know that I have ever seen a Model J in person without the chrome shutters.

But I've only seen maybe a dozen or so in person.

Count me as another one that prefers the look without the chrome shutters.

[C Carl]

Ditto. But that bumper on the unshuttered D'berg seems a bit much to me. But who am I to criticize ? Guess I could make amends by favoring the blackwalls seen here. Would the wire wheels have been chrome plated originally ? I am not much of a "bling" fan, and in general am against creative, non period, indecent liberties taken in restorations. Cars, particularly those embodying the industrial design of the REAL Classic Period, are not pigs, and need no lipstick.                                                                                                             Seriously degraded, both mechanically and cosmetically, beyond the scope of help from chrome or makeup,    -   Cadillac Carl 

Edited March 30, 2020 by C Carl
Spelling (see edit history)

[C Carl]

5 hours ago, JRA said:

 

I own a 1929 Chrysler 75 (6 cyl) roadster and 1929 Marmon 78 (8cyl), touring speedster, and I prefer the Marmon.
I recognize my Chrysler has a more modern look and hydraulic brakes, when compared to Marmon, but owning and driving both, i prefer the Marmon. 

Julio

 

Hi Julio,

Do you have some pictures of each you could post ? Thanks,    -    Carl 

[FLYER15015]

I like them both but since the Chrysler is a "dual cowl" is this a fair comparison ?

That is a great looking Marmon, but where can you find parts for it ?

I think the Chrysler has a much bigger "parts network".

So for a "DRIVER",  I would take the Chrysler.

If it was going to sit in my living room, I would take the Marmon.

 

And yes, at 85.5K the Chrysler is WAY over priced............

 

Mike in Colorado

 

PS; I'm sure glad I got the one that Wayne C. turned down, and I'm happy as a clam.............

 

[Guest]

Can you share a picture or two Mike?

[cahartley]

I think the color of the Chrysler is killing it and not in a good way.

I think the color of the Marmon is killing it in a good way.

If the Chrysler had the same paint scheme as the Marmon I think it would be a game changer.

I have a 1927 Model T Tudor with a, roughly-ish, similar green which looks fine on THAT car.

 

 

[JRA]

The Marmon restoration is still not complete, new painting, top and upholstery is planned for this year. Fenders will go black. The Chysler is in good shape. I think the Marmon has a more imposing front. Julio 

[C Carl]

Two very fine looking cars, Julio. Thanks for sharing.   -   Carl 

[trimacar]

11 hours ago, zepher said:

I don't know that I have ever seen a Model J in person without the chrome shutters.

But I've only seen maybe a dozen or so in person.

Count me as another one that prefers the look without the chrome shutters.

Here’s the one I visited....

[gossp]

Under normal circumstances I am all about the styling on the Chrysler cars of this era but would  kick one out of the garage to make room for that Marmon. 
 

A side note for guys that like the 31 Chrysler’s, don’t ignore the cm 6 cyl. They have the same look and in open cars I don’t think the smaller size of the car hurts the look at all. I have driven both and do not believe the 8cyl to have significant, if any, performance advantage.  I will admit, the 6’s I have played with have been better sorted cars than the 8. Someone send Ed a cd 8 roadster to play with for a year and then let me drive it... for science. 

[FLYER15015]

Drive one of Ed's cars Gossp ? Good luck with that one...........

 

Greg, here you go. Too rough for Wayne C. Lucky me !!!

 

Mike in Colorado

[Matt Harwood]

The 1930 Marmon might just have the driver's seat view of all time. Those giant headlights at the end of that long, low hood just look awesome.

 

It was also nice enough today to take a quick drive. Fixed the speedometer with a little lubrication, although it reads about 10 MPH slow (due to the high-speed gears). And admittedly, my cell phone isn't the best tool for the job--the exhaust note sounds really odd and it's a bit of a handful to shift, steer, and film at the same time, as you'll see. We'll do a better video later.

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[edinmass]

On 3/28/2020 at 12:46 PM, alsancle said:

Don't forget,  the Marmon is "Ed Minnie Approved".    For those of you that know Ed,  that is not an easy seal of approval to get.   I'm wondering what Matt paid him.

 

Check is in the mail! 
 

To be honest, he promised to let me drive “the car that can’t be mentioned!” 😎

Edited April 3, 2020 by edinmass (see edit history)

[edinmass]

On 3/29/2020 at 6:40 PM, Matt Harwood said:

 

I like extra lights on just about everything but a Cord 810/812 and a Marmon Sixteen.

 

 

Don’t worry Matt.........your taste will become more refined and mature over time............eventually you will come around to the “plain sophisticated look” that both AJ and I share. 🤔

[edinmass]

With probably only a few exceptions, I have driven more pre war cars than 99.9 percent of people in the old car hobby, and I have observed the following.................

 

Most any old pre war car is rather fun, unique, and enjoyable to drive. They all have their pluses and minuses, but each time I take a new platform for a spin, it always puts a smile on my face. The perfect old car? There isn’t one, that’s why it’s imperative we own as many as possible............

[ply33]

1 hour ago, Matt Harwood said:

. . . And admittedly, my cell phone isn't the best tool for the job--the exhaust note sounds really odd and it's a bit of a handful to shift, steer, and film at the same time, as you'll see. We'll do a better video later.

 

Missed a shift or two there.

 

No doubt due to juggling with the phone. The drivetrain on that car sounds really nice, no doubt you've gotten the mechanicals well sorted!

 

The biggest improvement on video will be to the driver not involved with the camera.

 

I picked up a cellphone stabilizer last year in preparation for an adventure travel vacation that I was supposed to be on now. Canceled due to the COVID-19 situation. But we used it last year with my wife taking some videos from the passenger seat of an antique Fiat 500 that bounced around a lot. The stabilizer did a pretty good job of keeping the camera steady. Though it looks like your cellphone has pretty good stabilization built in so maybe you don't need that.

 

As I've had too many close calls, I installed a dash cam on my daily driver. Got to the point I don't want to drive a car without a dash cam, so I installed a mount for one in my '33 powered off a USB power supply that is, in turn, powered off of a 6v+ to 12v- inverter. Power from that also charges my cellphone. Anyway, that is another way to get videos with a view over a long hood with big headlights. Not as long a hood nor as big headlights as your Marmon, but I like it anyway.

[Matt Harwood]

1 hour ago, ply33 said:

 

Missed a shift or two there.

 

No doubt due to juggling with the phone. The drivetrain on that car sounds really nice, no doubt you've gotten the mechanicals well sorted!

 

The biggest improvement on video will be to the driver not involved with the camera.

 

I picked up a cellphone stabilizer last year in preparation for an adventure travel vacation that I was supposed to be on now. Canceled due to the COVID-19 situation. But we used it last year with my wife taking some videos from the passenger seat of an antique Fiat 500 that bounced around a lot. The stabilizer did a pretty good job of keeping the camera steady. Though it looks like your cellphone has pretty good stabilization built in so maybe you don't need that.

 

As I've had too many close calls, I installed a dash cam on my daily driver. Got to the point I don't want to drive a car without a dash cam, so I installed a mount for one in my '33 powered off a USB power supply that is, in turn, powered off of a 6v+ to 12v- inverter. Power from that also charges my cellphone. Anyway, that is another way to get videos with a view over a long hood with big headlights. Not as long a hood nor as big headlights as your Marmon, but I like it anyway.

 

We have a GoPro for most of our driving videos that takes some pretty awesome shots and has the most incredible stabilization software I've ever seen. I stuck it on the front fender of a 4BT diesel-powered Dodge Power Wagon that vibrated like a cement mixer and it's completely stable. Very impressive. If we do a test drive video for this car, we'll use that one. This was just spur of the moment when I was going out for a test drive after tweaking the carburetor a bit that I thought I'd shoot some footage for you guys. I took a second, longer drive just to make sure it was sorted and it does drive quite nicely. The gearbox is non-synchromesh but doesn't seem to like double-clutching, either. It's one of those things where you have to learn what the car likes before you can master it. Shifting slowly seems to help. I'll get it.

 

For our driving videos we usually use a GoPro. The image stabilization on those things is incredible. Check out this raw footage we shot today. The camera is mounted on the back of Melanie's Ford Focus RS which isn't the smoothest-riding car in the world. Pay attention to when we roll over the train tracks--they're completely eliminated on the Focus, but you can see the Marmon bounce over them. Very impressive technology.

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[Steve9]

That Marmon is just the coolest! What size tires does it have?