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).
Complaints from the U.S. market for 25 HP & Phantom II cars, focusing on service costs, overheating radiators, and coil failures.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\V\December1930-February1931\ Scan074 | |
| Date | 2nd January 1931 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} From Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} c. to SE. c. to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} Handwritten note: Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} tho realistic, capable of accepting a very criticism ORIGINAL x7773 x7941. 25 HP. & P.II CARS IN U.S.A. When we produce cars for U.S.A. we have got to expect criticism from them as we are certain to get it. R.A. Inc. are expected to bear the cost of all service and complaints on imported cars. This of course will make them very keen on our troubles. Added to this of course we have got to remember that labour charges being so much higher in U.S.A. will make it that a similar complaint attended to in U.S.A. will cost very much more than it would on this side. They spend quite a lot of money on free of charge work on their own Phantom I cars every year. This charge amounts to approximately £12,000 to £15,000 per annum. They keep very accurate records of their service complaints. They say it would be obviously unfair for us to send them out cars which had known faults and then expect them to bear the cost of putting them right and keeping the customer happy. This point brought up the question of overheating. Our quarterly list shows a number of complaints of this, whereas they have not had a single complaint. They say the type of tube they have been using is very much more efficient than ours. They have used these on their cars for years and know them to be reliable. If, therefore, we choose to disregard all this and to send them cars with less efficient radiators and they receive complaints then it must be our responsibility. My answer to this point was that we would have some of their type of tubes sent over, and as we were very anxious to get over the overheating troubles, if they were more efficient we should undoubtedly adopt them. Another point on which our complaints differ from theirs is on the question of coils. In ten months they had had five coil failures. Our list shewed that we had had many dozens. I explained to them that I thought our latest coil was now satisfactory but at the same time I would have sent over some American coils for us to examine. Shock absorbers, of course, have already been dealt with. If the American criticisms are sometimes harsh we must not altogether blame them because the American customer is not so patient and tolerant as most of our | ||