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).
Strategy for competing with the 8 litre Bentley, considering a new 12-cylinder car.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 65a\3\ scan0275 | |
| Date | 25th February 1931 | |
| Secret and Confidential. To H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} from Eg. The reports referred to will also indicate quite clearly that we must not regard the 8 litre Bentley as just a sporting car. It is - again I use the word unhappily - a very fine town carriage, capable of a wonderful road performance and high speeds. As regards the lower speed torque reaction, which they also suffer from, it is encouraging as the result of the experimental work done on 24-EX to find that this has been smoothed out to an extent which I feel would not be complained about if we could reproduce it on our standard car. The next point in your memo. is in regard to pushing on as quickly as possible with double 28 HP, i.e. a 12 cylinder, and having it ready in time for the next Show. Our view is that it would be hopeless to try to beat the 8 litre Bentley with a 6 cylinder car and that, even if we started with an entirely new engine, it would be difficult to produce equal results with 6 cylinders. We, therefore, agree that the reply to the 8 litre Bentley is a 12 cylinder car, but it is quite clear that, even if we had nothing else to do whatsoever in the Design and Experimental Departments, it would be impossible to produce such a car in time for the 1931 Show, especially in view of Japan III programme and the Schneider Trophy, and this also ignores all question of our commitments to Phantom II material and our contract with the American Company. The double 28 HP would mean a £56 tax. Whether this is of vital importance or not, it is very difficult to say. You will remember the double 16 Daimler, which was brought out with such a flourish of trumpets some three years ago at a £50 tax, and the car certainly was a failure, not necessarily because of the tax but because it was generally regarded as being an unnecessarily large, heavy and cumbersome automobile. | ||