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).
Customer feedback and criticisms of the 25-EX model, comparing it to the Phantom I and discussing luggage and dynamo issues.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\V\December1930-February1931\ Scan075 | |
| Date | 2nd January 1931 | |
| -2- Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}2/WJ.2.1.31. Contd. customers. Although the officials who tried 25-EX. appreciated the improved silence and reduced 'fussiness', they pointed out that a lot of improvements which had been incorporated had been used by them on Phantom 1 for a considerable time, such as - (1) Thermostatically operated shutters. (2) Extra oil to cylinders. (3) Higher compression. (4) Central lubrication all round. (5) Lower gear ratio. (6) Chromium finish. (7) Lower rating road springs. (8) Improved clutch. (9) Lower radiator (which has been obtained by carrying the shutters below the radiator matrix). They held the view that considering Phantom 11 is a new car from stem to stern the advantages we gain are comparatively small. Another point which was criticised was the fact that 25-EX. car which I took out had no provision for luggage. They say every car they make has a luggage grid and the only form they fit is the two swinging arms which can only be used in connection with a luggage box. They say that this is the only way which people expect to carry luggage in U.S.A. If a luggage box is going to be used it is quite impossible to think of this being bolted at the back of the spare wheel, so making the wheel entirely inaccessible. Another thing, the overhang at the back of the car would make it quite impossible for parking and would make the car so long that it could not be got on to garage elevators. Therefore they hold the view that the only practical scheme we have to offer to customers is to carry the spare wheels at the side except in cases of a close-coupled body when the wheel can be carried at the back of the luggage. I must say in connection with this that they do endeavour to make short bodies and to avoid sticking the passengers beyond the back axle. Another point which they criticised was the dynamo output. This came up rather acutely on the 25 HP. I was driving one of the cars sent out for demonstration on a long distance run in the dark and finished up with very little lights and not sufficient charge in the battery to start the engine. They had another customer with a 25 HP. who could not keep his batteries charged. He was | ||