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).
Comparative analysis of competitor vehicle chassis rigidity, engine mounting, and resulting road performance issues.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 170\2\ img151 | |
| Date | 17th June 1933 guessed | |
| 3. from nose trouble they are not immune. Even with a floated engine they have trouble with shock absorber noise & tire noise. The new spoked tin wheels which threaten to replace wire, are full of road noises. Rubber-mounted shackles cut down noise & vibration close to the source. All the cars which have gone to very soft motor mounts this year have trouble with a soft and sloppy feeling about the nose of the car, even when fender shake is kept down either by the pivoted mount of Chevrolet etc or by similar means. The most successful is the Packard super-8, which with a full float for the engine almost as spongy as Chrysler's, still obtains a fairly solid feel by a solid mounted radiator with very stiff diagonal braces to a heavily reinforced dash, the radiator tied in to headlamps & fenders by means which are practically solid though rubberized to prevent cracking. That is the whole front end is "triangulated" like the Hupmobile but using the radiator itself as the front triangle. The soft mounted Chevrolet engine, while it immensely improves the cruising speed of the car, has resulted in an inferior road car because of the sloppy nose. One of the worst cars is the Auburn 10 which has a terrific lateral shake at the windshield, in spite of an X member frame & apparently because of the massive engine. Since there are all resonance problems it stands to reason that one man's meat is another man's poison. | ||