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).
Final report on the comparative cooling performance of the Phantom II against five other cars at Brooklands.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 23\4\ Scan020 | |
| Date | 25th March 1930 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} F'rom Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Ra. c. to SS.{S. Smith} Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to Ba. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} c. to Sy. Rg.{Mr Rowledge} X4588 Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Ru/7/117.25.3.30. X.738. X.4012. X.786. X.1692. X.7771. X.4588. X.5771. X.3531. FINAL BROOKLANDS REPORT. We have now completed the comparisons of the five cars that we compared with the Phantom II on Brooklands. COOLING. The Phantom II stands out as being very good on the 60 M.P.H. test when run with a ventilated bonnet. The 60 M.P.H. test naturally flatters the big car which is running at a partial throttle opening, whilst the smaller cars are practically full throttle. Thus when the Chrysler is driven all out its temperature only rises two or three degrees above the 60 M.P.H. figure, whilst the Phantom II temperature increases by 7 - 8º C. Again, at 60 M.P.H. from figures we have so far obtained, the 25 HP. Rolls-Royce does not show up so well as the 40/50. We think the Chrysler figures are remarkably good. From comparisons on sheet it would appear that frontal area and bonnet ventilation are responsible for this. The outstanding feature of the American cars is that with one exception (the Pierce Arrow, which showed up very badly, they fit ventilated bonnets. Also the facilities which they provide for getting air away through the under-sheets and under the dashboard are considerably better than on our 40/50 car. The Hispano would probably show up better | ||