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 Packard's engine/gearbox suspension, front wheel suspension, and shock dampers.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 127\1\ scan0244 | |
| Date | 20th December 1935 | |
| -2- Sft{Mr Swift}/Sctl/BH.20.12.35. two for the shackle pins at the ends, and one in the middle to take bolt. The complete shackle is formed by placing a tubular distance piece between the two bars and passing a bolt through the centre hole. A cheap piece of work as compared with our more costly forging. ENGINE & GEAR BOX SUSPENSION. The manner in which the front part of the engine is suspended we cannot fully describe because the Radiator has not been taken off. What we can see of it however, causes us furiously to think. Having in mind our own colossal construction used on all cars for the support of our unit at this point, we have certain misgivings as to the strength of the Packard at this point. The main suspension at the rear however, appears to be strong and simple, the shape of the bracket whilst being crude, gives support in both directions. The rubber block insertion showing us the so-called floating power in its most common and cheapest form. The tie-bar at the rear, composed as it is of two small flat bars, with a modicum of rubber strip inserted in between the two faces, remind one of nothing so much as the explosive element in a Xmas cracker. We do not know whether this is considered effective or not, we do know that it is cheaper to make than ours. FRONT WHEEL SUSPENSION. We have been given to understand that the Packard Front Wheel Suspension is good. From our observations, their design, with its exposed spring and standard type Shock Absorbers, and the absence of a built-up Front Axle Pan Member, etc., is appreciably cheaper to make than the Phantom III. SHOCK DAMPERS. At the rear of the chassis the two Dampers are tucked away well within the side channels, simply bolted to the frame side by two large bolts, this is in striking contrast to our own methods of attaching these units to frames, with our many and varied plate brackets. The Packard manner of fixing is apparently satisfactory to those who have the opportunity of trial, therefore, we would agree that the cost of unnecessary brackets should be cut out. | ||