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).
Comparison of components and weight analysis between a Rolls-Royce and a Chrysler vehicle.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 125\2\ scan0071 | |
| Date | 24th January 1930 guessed | |
| -2- a lighter form of spring anchorage, but even allowing for these items they save something on the axle casing. We are testing to see if the latter will stand up to our full torque dynamometer test. The rear spring weights are interesting but the deflections are not the same as ours. If they stand up to the bumping test we ought to be able to save something on our own rear springs, since these have never given any trouble and we have recently improved their manufacture so tremendously. There are a few items where we can say that our weights are comparatively high. These items are marked + in the following weight analysis. We add weight by fitting refinements whose usefulness is worthy of the extra weight, these items are marked *. Our electrical system is 12 volt as against the Chrysler's six, hence ~~additional weight~~. Our shock absorbers are very much in advance of theirs and well worth the additional weight. Luggage grid, side spare wheel carrier, centralised chassis lubrication and mechanical servo operated brakes are refinements which do not appear on the Chrysler. The extra weight of our spare wheel and carrier is due to the Chrysler using a detachable rim and not detachable wheels. The body weight comparison is scarcely fair as the Chrysler is a steel body and 17-54 is fitted with a fabric Weyman body by Park Ward. It is extremely doubtful if one of our coachwork bodies giving the same accommodation would be as light as the Chrysler. | ||