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).
Future engine strategy, comparing the redesign of the Phantom III unit against new straight-eight and other engine configurations.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 148\5\ scan0296 | |
| Date | 5th March 1938 | |
| -2- The only justification for the redesign of the P.III. unit is that we are going to continue with it for a number of years. To make a reasonable profit we shall have to re-design the car as well. We have pointed out that none of the simplified units that we have evolved can be stretched to cater for this size of engine. Are we justified in starting up another series of units which are unlikely ever to be made in quantities of more than four sets a week.? We cannot believe that we are, particularly as the engine for which these units will be designed is at the moment itself in need of extensive modifications. Buicks appear to have demonstrated that a 5½ litre engine can deal with a car spacious enough for anyone, without prejudicing its performance. We cannot believe that there is room enough under English conditions as they will be in five years time, for a car larger than the biggest Buick. It is true that we have, as yet, no confirmation that the high power design is right. Before any designs can be completed, however, this engine should have been run. If the high power head is wrong then we can hardly do better than follow American practice almost exactly. In any case different lay-outs can be considered whilst the results of the tests are awaited. One cannot visualise that in either design or development a straight eight engine project means materially more work than re-designing the existing 12 cyl. unit and fitting it into a new frame and onto a another gearbox. It also seems more than probable that, if consideration is given to a straight eight to follow when tooling up for the cast iron B.50 unit, a large number of the machines purchased will be able to deal with both jobs without much additional cost. We question whether a twelve Vee and a straight six could ever be handled on the same line with equal facility. It is certain that a great deal of work done on B.50 engine is directly applicable to any other in-line engine of the same type but not to a vee engine. In recommending 5½ litre in-line 8 cyl. engines we are not suggesting that this is ultimately likely to be the most profitable line for the Company. We only infer that if, as seems inevitable, the Company considers it essential to continue in the largest car market, this type of unit will fit in with the existing programme and in consequence cost a great deal less money than the existing P.III. unit. We are still of the opinion that the Peregrine unit is of the maximum size likely to give us the volume desirable for economical production, and the turnover required to permit of continued | ||