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).
Letter from Price's Patent Candle Company defending their 'Motorine C' lubricant against claims of causing deposit accumulation.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 144\1\ scan0263 | |
| Date | 21th November 1936 guessed | |
| PRICE'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY LIMITED. -3- accumulation of deposit such as has been experienced is not peculiar to Motorine, nor can it be attributed to the use of this lubricant. Any oil under similar working conditions would give precisely the same results. The fact that the same difficulties have not been experienced during your use of a competitor's oils was satisfactorily explained by the fact that your tests had been carried out under quite different conditions. Obviously any test to be of value should be with the two different oils under precisely the same working conditions, and we are convinced that the results of any test of this sort would be to absolve Motorine C from any responsibility for troublesome accumulation on the filters. Not having heard from you we had hoped that further investigation on your part had discovered other causes for the difficulty, and that Motorine C would be held free from blame. It now appears that arising out of trouble with a filter which you sent to Conduit Street, and which is now being examined by our Chemists, Motorine C is still under a cloud. Mr. Cowen was good enough to refer to the many years during which Motorine C has been used by Rolls-Royce with complete satisfaction. Actually it is not only the oil used by your goodselves, but also the same lubricant used by many Rolls-Royce owners which has established a reputation for Motorine C perhaps as famous as that enjoyed by your cars. No alterations whatever have been made in the characteristics of Motorine C, and it should be giving you the same satis-faction as formerly. You concede this point by agreeing to the continued use of Motorine C on Roll 20/25 and Bentley Cars. We would go further and suggest that the trouble which has been experienced in the case of several Phantom III cars is a matter entirely of working conditions, and not through any deficiency of the lubricant as such. With all respect we would suggest that to clear up the matter to our mutual satisfaction a careful test of the two oils in question should be made under precisely similar working conditions. We cannot believe that Motorine C would shew to any disadvantage. We have accumulated experience of other Motor Manufacturers, and a very large volume of motor-ists to support us in this claim. (Contd.) | ||