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).
Noise levels and performance issues of car 103-MC compared to other models like the 'Phantom' and 'Silver Ghost'.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 66\2\ scan0072 | |
| Date | 2nd September 1925 | |
| 48230 BJ4/DN2.9.25. TO Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} FROM BJ c. to CJ c. to CWB c. to PN{Mr Northey} c. to H c. to Cx{Major Len W. Cox - Advertising Manager} 103-MC. We have tried this car with the new silencer, and find that it is more silent than 101-MC, which is our "Phantom" Demonstration Landaulet, but it is very considerably more noisy than 14-LK{L. King}, viz: LHS{Lord Herbert Scott}'s "Silver Ghost". 14-LK{L. King} is a beautiful silent Rolls-Royce. 103-MC is distinctly more noisy than we like a Rolls-Royce to be. With considerable care it is possible to throttle it down when standing, so that it is not noticeably noisy, but the ordinary driver does not take the trouble to do so every time he stops in traffic or outside a shop or a house. If it is not specially throttled down, the exhaust is very distinctly audible when standing. When the car starts away, the exhaust is very audible indeed and can be heard for 200 yards. It would seem that this car is more noisy in front, viz: more noise appears to come from underneath or near the engine than in 101-MC. This, however, may be a delusion, because 101-MC is so noisy at the back that it is difficult to hear the other noises that may come from the front. 101-MC is certainly very noisy.when standing and when in motion. These are three samples which you might like to have at Derby this week-end. 103-MC is giving a trial run on Friday at Hull, and you might like to compare it with the other two cars. If so, please let us know and if they are not otherwise engaged, we will send them to you. In Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}3/LG1.9.25, it is stated that in 103-MC with the cut-out closed, there is a slight drop in the performance above 60 m.p.h. compared with the present standard "Phantoms". Have we ascertained whether there is likely to be a drop in performance below 60 m.p.h. if the car is ascending a hill as compared with the present standard "Phantom" ? We are making further inquiries concerning the balancing of the front wheels and the front shock-absorbers, but owing to PN{Mr Northey} being abroad on holiday, this matter may be left in abeyance until next week. B.J. | ||