Engine roar issues and comparative tests of different camshaft and carburettor configurations.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 19\1\ Scan136 | |
| Date | 3rd November 1931 | |
| To Sg. {Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} From Hs. {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} c. to Wor. {Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to Cx. {Major Len W. Cox - Advertising Manager} 87120. Hs. {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} 3/MJ.3.11.31. 27-EX. Replying to Sg. {Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} 1/WT.2.11.31. We are not surprised at you objecting to the amount of roar on this car. We have tried to make ourselves like it but have always come back to the point that it has spoilt the most attractive characteristic of our car, that is, that it will go fast without fuss. As regards your suggestion of trying the new W.W. camshaft on a standard car without twin carburetters, we have already done this and we have now made comparative tests on Brooklands with - (1) High compression only. (2) High compression W.W. camshaft. (3) High compression W.W. camshaft, twin carbs. Under No.(1) and (2) conditions the maximum speed of the car was the same but actually the pick up acceleration is slightly worse if we fit the W.W. camshaft. This is the result we should expect from our test bench figures. Now that we have your impression we shall take the matter up with R. {Sir Henry Royce} and see what can be done. We have been trying a Phantom ll fitted with an S.U. carburettor. This definitely gives us considerably more power than our present standard carburetter. W.W. are busy designing a carburetter of the single type to compete with the S.U. After our visit on Thursday we will let you know what the position is. Hs. {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} | ||
From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).